Medicare For All: Threat Or Menace?

Mar 2013
8,969
9,695
Middle Tennessee
#21
Let's reiterate and emphasize the cost of prescription meds! Talk about a crisis.
From CNBC: "For at least a decade, a majority of Americans have been dissatisfied with the country's largely for-profit health-care system, according to Gallup. In one poll, 71 percent of respondents said the system is "in a state of crisis" or "has major problems." That's partly because costs are more expensive in the U.S. than elsewhere: Overall, the country spends twice as much as its peers, yet it gets poorer results."

AND don't even bother with the argument that "OH THOSE poor poor pharma companies--sad face--they spend SO MUCH on research and development---they absolutely MUST recoup all those billions and more". Well, guess what? Research and development is only about 17 percent of total spending in most large drug companies. Once a drug has been approved by the FDA there are minimal additional research and development costs so drug companies cannot justify price increases by claiming research and development costs.
WE the people can blame that on the regulatory environment in the U.S. which allows for price increases much higher than in other countries. Americans are SKIPPING doses of their medications because they can't afford them.

When news broke that his company bought the rights to a 62-year-old drug and jacked the price up from $13.50 to $750 a pill, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals Martin Shkreli became “the most hated man in America.”
The price of insulin doubled between 2012-16. EpiPens? The cost skyrocketed from about $100 a pack to over $600.

I'm all for capitalism, but this is outrageous and it's criminal.

Do we even want to mention that the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country is medical bills. And the vast majority of those filing for bankruptcy had insurance ??
 
Jul 2014
13,231
8,020
massachusetts
#22
Medicare for all is going to happen, because we simply cannot afford the alternative.
And at some point in the future, Medicare for all becomes too expensive, and we'll go to a government health service.
It's all driven by cost.
 
Likes: Clara007
Dec 2015
14,162
13,070
Arizona
#23
You have bought into another myth. The first ebola vaccine in use was developed in Canada. Most pharmaceutical breakthroughs happen at university research labs and is then bought for cheap by BigEvilPharma. BigEvilPharma's constant claims that they need their massive rip-off profit margins to fund drug development is a lie. Many medical breakthroughs have come from many other countries.

I'm not saying the US does nothing, but it is not some pinnacle of achievement.
You got it. Here's the latest scam and it's legal. A drug company brings in a drug that has been available as a generic elsewhere in the world for decades at a shockingly inflated price.
Because this drug has never been approved in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration considers it a new drug. That means that not only did the company have to go through the process of getting it approved as a new drug, but that it gets the benefit of laws Congress has passed to encourage drug companies to develop new medicines for rare diseases. Those legal benefits include a 7-year monopoly under the Orphan Drug Act and a rare disease priority review voucher that allows a company to get a sped-up FDA review for another drug. Such vouchers can be sold for large sums.
When the drug goes on the market the price increase can/has been as much as 6000%. Talk about making Americans sick.
 
Nov 2018
1,890
790
Montana
#24
You have bought into another myth. The first ebola vaccine in use was developed in Canada. Most pharmaceutical breakthroughs happen at university research labs and is then bought for cheap by BigEvilPharma. BigEvilPharma's constant claims that they need their massive rip-off profit margins to fund drug development is a lie. Many medical breakthroughs have come from many other countries.

I'm not saying the US does nothing, but it is not some pinnacle of achievement.
Actually the first Ebola work done on vaccine was done at Fort Detrrick Maryland, so far as I can tell.
The Canadian version was sold to Merck... why was that? I am not trying to undermine Canadian efforts, but that Ebola vaccine story illustrates that there are not deep pockets in Canada nor an interest in pursuing low incidence diseases to the extent that exist in the US.

Ebola Virus Disease and Ebola Vaccines | History of Vaccines

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673680923521
 
Apr 2013
35,420
24,036
Left coast
#25
Actually the first Ebola work done on vaccine was done at Fort Detrrick Maryland, so far as I can tell.
The Canadian version was sold to Merck... why was that? I am not trying to undermine Canadian efforts, but that Ebola vaccine story illustrates that there are not deep pockets in Canada nor an interest in pursuing low incidence diseases to the extent that exist in the US.

Ebola Virus Disease and Ebola Vaccines | History of Vaccines

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673680923521
The Canadian company still holds the "intellectual rights" to it. It was given to that US firm because they had the infrastructure in place to get it into the field quickly. It was put into use without the normal years of testing most drugs go through due to the crisis at the time.

And in fact, most major EvilBigPharma don't work on drugs that have a small market potential or treat problems that are predominantly in poor countries.

The problem is simply this: pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Bayer lack the incentives to develop drugs like antibiotics that are only taken for a short period of time, or against diseases that primarily affect the poor. With an obligation to shareholders, pharma companies develop those drugs that will most enable them to achieve high sales in targeted lucrative markets. Typically, these drugs are for diseases that affect mostly people in wealthy countries who can afford – for the most part – to pay the high prices that come with a R&D system which relies on patent monopolies to recoup costs.
Drugs for the Poor, Drugs for the Rich: Why the Current R&D Model Doesn't Deliver | Speaking of Medicine
 
Nov 2018
1,890
790
Montana
#28
The Canadian company still holds the "intellectual rights" to it. It was given to that US firm because they had the infrastructure in place to get it into the field quickly. It was put into use without the normal years of testing most drugs go through due to the crisis at the time.
My point demonstrated.

And in fact, most major EvilBigPharma don't work on drugs that have a small market potential or treat problems that are predominantly in poor countries.
If I ever suggested that altruism has anything to do with the American medical system, that was a mistake on my part...
 
Mar 2008
9,491
4,819
australia
#29
This is because we have 20,000,000 PEOPLE that have migrated illegally from 3rd world countries bringing these diseases to this country.

we screen for these illnesses in the US and have ended them, then we have 20,000,000 illegal migrants, in Australia this does not occur because the people carrying these diseases are NOT ALLOWED to immigrate they are turned away..
nope, not even close. regarding immigration, australia takes more per capita than almost any other first world nation.

but immigration is irrelevant to this debate.

these are not diseases of poverty, they are mostly diseases of age, things that happen over time if a medical problem isnt addressed. the classic pagets deformity, or a massive goitre take years to develop and are easy to treat and prevent. and anywhere sensible they are treated and prevented. but not in america.
 
Mar 2008
9,491
4,819
australia
#30
What is wrong with free healthcare?
it doesnt exist.

subsidised health care exists. health care that is free at point of service to the patient, but is paid for by taxpayers later. that exists. and its great, speaking as someone who benefits from such a health care service and happily pays into the system.
 

Similar Discussions