White House Threatens Patents of High-Priced Drugs (apnews.com) 151
The Biden administration is threatening to cancel the patents of some costly medications to allow rivals to make their own more affordable versions. The Associated Press reports: Under a plan announced Thursday, the government would consider overriding the patent for high-priced drugs that have been developed with the help of taxpayer money and letting competitors make them in hopes of driving down the cost. In a 15-second video released to YouTube on Wednesday night, President Joe Biden promised the move would lower prices. "Today, we're taking a very important step toward ending price gouging so you don't have to pay more for the medicine you need," he said.
White House officials would not name drugs that might potentially be targeted. The government would consider seizing a patent if a drug is only available to a "narrow set of consumers," according to the proposal that will be open to public comment for 60 days. Drugmakers are almost certain to challenge the plan in court if it is enacted. [...] The White House also intends to focus more closely on private equity firms that purchase hospitals and health systems, then often whittle them down and sell quickly for a profit. The departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, and the Federal Trade Commission will work to share more data about health system ownership.
While only a minority of drugs on the market relied so heavily on taxpayer dollars, the threat of a government "march-in" on patents will make many pharmaceutical companies think twice, said Jing Luo, a professor of medicine at University of Pittsburgh. "If I was a drug company that was trying to license a product that had benefited heavily from taxpayer money, I'd be very careful about how to price that product," Luo said. "I wouldn't want anyone to take my product away from me."
White House officials would not name drugs that might potentially be targeted. The government would consider seizing a patent if a drug is only available to a "narrow set of consumers," according to the proposal that will be open to public comment for 60 days. Drugmakers are almost certain to challenge the plan in court if it is enacted. [...] The White House also intends to focus more closely on private equity firms that purchase hospitals and health systems, then often whittle them down and sell quickly for a profit. The departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, and the Federal Trade Commission will work to share more data about health system ownership.
While only a minority of drugs on the market relied so heavily on taxpayer dollars, the threat of a government "march-in" on patents will make many pharmaceutical companies think twice, said Jing Luo, a professor of medicine at University of Pittsburgh. "If I was a drug company that was trying to license a product that had benefited heavily from taxpayer money, I'd be very careful about how to price that product," Luo said. "I wouldn't want anyone to take my product away from me."
*checks stock portfolio* (Score:3)
Nope. Don't have any pharma-bro stocks. Once again, the conservative, sandwich-heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor!
I guess that means I'm all for this. Can we do copyright length next?
Re: (Score:3)
Which Half Dozen? Will it help? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which half dozen did they carefully select so as not to harm big pharma but so as to also appear as "crusaders for consumers?"
There's an election coming up and Biden's not polling well. Especially for a sitting President.
It's a shot across the bow (Score:2)
This is similar to how we created the ersb here in America. When an industry is doing something horrible we never just move in and regulate them. You're raised during the critical 4 to 14 to oppose that so it takes a lot to get our voters on board with government regulation even when they're in desperate need of it. S
Re: (Score:2)
This will cause pharma companies to eschew and federal investment
LOL. Really? The US government is funding roughly half of big pharma's total R&D (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57025), you think the industry will give up on that?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I can do bold fonts too:
Why shouldn't the Federal government get their fair share of the pie if the pharma companies wouldn't have even bothered to develop the drugs without the frigging welfare checks?
Re: (Score:2)
High-Priced Drugs (Score:2, Funny)
Don't worry, Hunter. Your dad won't threaten the supply of your favorites.
What about patent reform? (Score:2)
"If I was a drug company that was trying to license a product that had benefited heavily from taxpayer money, I'd be very careful about how to price that product," Luo said. "I wouldn't want anyone to take my product away from me."
If someone is going to arbitrarily wrestle your product away from you (1) jack up the prices and make as much off it as soon as you can before that happens (this is in fact exactly what you see happen to prices when patents are about to expire) (2) stop all future investment in these sorts of products - even if you're okay now you can't guarantee what the rules will be in the future. Law that needs majority legislature support is relatively stable; law that depends on the whims of a single person - who cou
Avoidance (Score:2)
Sigh, anything to avoid addressing the real problem.
All drugs sold in America should be sold under a "most favored nation" law. In other words, no American can be charged more than the cheapest cost the drug is sold for overseas, at risk of prison time for violators.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, anything to avoid addressing the real problem.
All drugs sold in America should be sold under a "most favored nation" law. In other words, no American can be charged more than the cheapest cost the drug is sold for overseas, at risk of prison time for violators.
Politics is a series of compromises. Using the argument, that you benefitted from tax payer money, provides the necessary strings for drugs companies to have a harder time ot push back on.
Re: (Score:2)
That would screw developing nations, a lot.
Maybe something like, "no American can be charged more than the cheapest cost the drug is sold for overseas, adjusted in proportion to relative per capita GDP" would work while not ending up as a "fuck you, we got ours" to most of the rest of the world.
Re: Avoidance (Score:2)
Or, you know, remove the restriction that the government tells you canâ(TM)t buy overseas. If the FDA and government regulation were to disappear tomorrow, your costs would go down.
Family Business (Score:2, Interesting)
The White House also intends to focus more closely on private equity firms that purchase hospitals and health systems, then often whittle them down and sell quickly for a profit. The departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, and the Federal Trade Commission will work to share more data about health system ownership.
Isn't that what James Biden, brother of Joe Biden, was doing five years ago [politico.com]?
Medical Industry is a Scam (Score:2)
All medical corporations should be non-profit. It's immoral to profit from disease.
People are dying because of corporate greed.
Re:The Fee Economy (Score:5, Informative)
Your prices are off by an order of magnitude.
It's cheaper for me to fly to Germany to purchase insulin than buying it out of pocket in the USA. Same story for dental surgery. Might as well take a weekend holiday in Spain and get the procedure done.
Re: (Score:2)
Same for me with Denavir and flying to Amsterdam...
Denavir in US, uncovered by virtually all insurance, requires prescription, $1000
Denavir in AMS, no insurance needed, no prescription needed, $15
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ironically enough, that actually sounds like one hell of a profitable marketing strategy to boost tourism for Germany and Spain.
Don't know about Europe, but they do bus tours for Americans to come up here to Canada and purchase prescription drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard of people in Scandinavia going to Germany for dental work. Even heard of people who needs major dental work having it done in Turkey and combining it with a beach vacation in Alanya, saving money and get a vacation as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically enough, that actually sounds like one hell of a profitable marketing strategy to boost tourism for Germany and Spain.
Medical tourism is very much a thing which exists. Some countries have 5 start resorts attached to world class medical facilities seemingly just so people can laugh at the people who think being fed the cheapest jello in a hospital bed is "care".
Re: The Fee Economy (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently you have access to $20 flights to Germany where Insulin costs â1?
How much do you think insulin actually costs? I'm talking insulin where you put a clean needle on a pre-filled syringe and dial your dosage?
Insulin is affordable, insulin in the latest high-tech patent-protected designer syringe is expensive.
Basaglar 100mg (5 pack of pre-filled, dial-a-dose syringes) is $256 thru goodRX at my local CVS, that's a 90 day supply for a moderate diabetic.
The generic Insulin is likely cheaper.
The Biden administration made insulin monthly RX cost no more than $35... for people either on Medicare or with private insurance. Apparently folks without private or federal insurance don't get a price break?
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/... [cnbc.com]
Tresiba is 1000 dollar a pen if you dont have insurance . Flights to Europe are definitely cheaper
Re: (Score:2)
How much of that affordable price is due to California's action on insulin pricing? Yes, the CalRX program is probably not actually producing insulin yet, but the mere threat of being undercut by this program is likely affecting prices.
Re: (Score:2)
How much of that affordable price is due to California's action on insulin pricing? Yes, the CalRX program is probably not actually producing insulin yet, but the mere threat of being undercut by this program is likely affecting prices.
It's going to take a LOT more than a "mere threat" to sway Greed in the Medical Industrial Complex.
Don't hold your breath when it comes to CalRX actually producing cheap insulin. Talk is cheap.
Re: The Fee Economy (Score:2)
The only thing those price caps drove was a shortage in supply and resulting raise in prices. Insulin was cheap before ObamaCare, then price pressures caused all but one manufacturer to exit the market. Now we simply do not produce enough in the world, EU/UK has had to cut out a significant portion of diabetics and increase wait times for insulin.
Canada price $15.99 (Score:4, Interesting)
Canada price $15.99
Re:Canada price $15.99 (Score:5, Funny)
At that price, I'll take two Canadas. How much for Greenland?
Re:Canada price $15.99 (Score:5, Interesting)
oh, it's even crazier than that!!
though standard medical insurance isn't a thing in Canada, we're still allowed to get "extended insurance" for medicine, dental, etc
due to my workplace benefits at my totally normal blue collar job, all my medicine is nearly free!
when i get a 4 month supply of antidepressants, blood pressure medication, or antibiotics, i pay like $7.00, pretty much a deductible. i think of it as a tip.
those same types of medications cost my USA friends thousands!
oh, but when i need to see a doctor to alter my prescription, since i am not allocated a family doctor (wait list is hundreds of people), i must arrive at 3pm at the only "walk in" clinic in town that opens at 5pm, to see a doctor at 6-7pm, at a total cost of 3-4 hours of my life, and I have to sit in a line of coughing people and maybe become a different kind of sick
the alternative is hospital emergency room triage, available 24/7, but at a cost of 4 to 24 hours of my life for even severe injuries, like when i stabbed myself accidently with a knife covered in raw shellfish during an oyster shucking accident. that was a 12 hour visit bleeding on the floor.
the doctor i saw in that case was flown in from 3 provinces over and he was a total trainee
canada -- both the best and worse place to live in north americal.
Re:Canada price $15.99 (Score:5, Interesting)
The worst thing to ever happen to Canadian healthcare was the USA. Every time we hope to change something, someone pipes up and points out how much worse it already is in the USA, and everyone is so busy patting themselves on the back for it, they forget to actually fix the things that are broken. I'm thankful that I've never had to pay for any of the medical emergencies or conditions I've ever had, but as you say, it can be long and arduous to actually see a doctor and get care if you're not in a crisis.
Re: Canada price $15.99 (Score:2)
Why do you need private insurance if the government covers your health insurance? Youâ(TM)re basically paying twice for long wait times and poor service.
Re: (Score:2)
Old price: $79.99 + sales tax.
Here's an actual example. I'm using eyedrops called Miebo, which cost $750 for a 3ml bottle ( https://www.goodrx.com/miebo [goodrx.com] ). I know, I paid that much out-of-pocket.
The _same_ drug in Europe costs $20 per 3ml bottle (under the brand EvoTears: https://kampagne.doc.green/evo... [kampagne.doc.green] ). The bottles are identical, they are produced at the same facility in Germany and the only difference is in branding.
So yep, I'll gladly support Bidenomics.
Re: (Score:2)
So yep, I'll gladly support Bidenomics.
Fine. Get back to us on the new "Biden" price IF and when it actually happens. Talk is cheap. Your prices, are not.
Oh, and that also includes the price of every other necessity in your life that has been affected by Bidenomics already. Kind of pointless to brag about a $500 savings on a $750 prescription when that savings disappears in the rising cost of everything else.
Re: The Fee Economy (Score:2)
The problem is your $700 is actually paying for the true cost of medicine in Europe. When Biden set the price for insulin, most companies left the market, there is now a global shortage where you canâ(TM)t get insulin even if you wanted to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
When Biden set the price for insulin, most companies left the market,
Bullshit.
You know you can do more than 1 task at a time? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.energy.gov/ceser/h... [energy.gov]
Um this BS about the oil reserve is stupid. No biden didnt sell it off it was madated by the Obama admin/congress
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.energy.gov/ceser/h... [energy.gov]
Um this BS about the oil reserve is stupid. No biden didnt sell it off it was madated by the Obama admin/congress
Um these sell-offs are listed under "Non-Emergency Sales"
Just how high does the price of American gasoline have to get to NOT constitute an emergency again?
Re: (Score:2)
"Warmongering"? "Against Russia"? Are you trolling for roubles, or just dumb?
Re: (Score:2)
Rampant inflation compared to the other developed economies?
While the entire world were stuck with inflation around or over 10% the US inflation rate was dropping. Still higher than you would like, but comparably much better.
Although the soft landing hasn't actually happened yet, it is looking more likely than not.
It would be nice if those who are struggling the most had a little help.
Re:How un-american (Score:5, Insightful)
Not profiteering off the sick? But greed is good!
The pay up or die model is indeed quite profitable.
Re: (Score:3)
On a per-corporation base, yes.
On a per-country base, no. It's actually quite costly.
Re: (Score:2)
On a per-corporation base, yes.
On a per-country base, no. It's actually quite costly.
Sadly a sunken costs fallacy made a baby with American exceptionalism and it’s caused a birth defect that does not allow large swaths of society to see reality. Anyone that has dual citizenship, or even travels, or hell even just does some searching on the web can see that pretty much every wealthy country has better medical care. It’s just the people I’ve talked to always think it’s some poor slob that’s undeserving of care that’s averaging down the outcome while boos
Re: (Score:2)
Not for society. For that it is exceptionally expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Not for society. For that it is exceptionally expensive.
I mean, I figured that’s intrinsic to the pay up or die part. It’s the fantasy that they will never be the ones dying as if they are immortal or won’t need a thing until they die peacefully in their sleep at 100 that keeps them from seeing the irony.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not profiteering off the sick?
If there was no profit in providing medical care then nobody would do it. Well, you'll get some basic stuff because the cost is so low and the benefits high. I'm thinking things like bandages and antiseptics, things people can fashion themselves with pocket change. Anything requiring an investment in years of training and equipment would be unheard of if we considered making a profit from the sick some kind of crime.
But greed is good!
Greed isn't bad, and it isn't good, it just is. Like with many things it requires modera
Re:How un-american (Score:5, Insightful)
Not profiteering off the sick?
If there was no profit in providing medical care then nobody would do it. Well, you'll get some basic stuff because the cost is so low and the benefits high. I'm thinking things like bandages and antiseptics, things people can fashion themselves with pocket change. Anything requiring an investment in years of training and equipment would be unheard of if we considered making a profit from the sick some kind of crime.
There's a difference between profit and profiteering.
But greed is good!
Greed isn't bad, and it isn't good, it just is. Like with many things it requires moderation. If someone lacked any sense of "greed" then they'd give away all they had to help others, leaving them naked, starving, and exposed to the elements. People that hoard to extremes will have their own problems, they could not relate to people, would steal food from children to fatten themselves, leaving the next generation nothing to live on.
Leaving aside the weird definitions the problem with that model is it fails when applied to corporations.
For individual humans community social interactions are what keeps us behaving fairly decently. But corporations have no such restriction, they're actually designed to avoid being subject to ordinary social rules. As such, they're almost perfectly "greedy". Even seemingly benevolent actions such as charity are carefully calculated to give positive returns with PR. Usually this isn't a big problem, that was Adam Smith's big insight, in a free market "greedy" actions are usually only have positive externalities.
But there are exceptions are health care is one of them.
Drug companies are like any other company, their first obligation is to stay in business. If they gave away all their medicines then the lack of income means they cannot stay in business to keep producing more medicines. They need to be able to charge what they cost with some profit to keep investors interested. No profits for investors means the investors go elsewhere with their money. If investors didn't get a sufficient return on investment then they would also run out of money, meaning they would be unable to fund drug research later.
Ok, how much profit?
In a normal market you charge what the consumer is willing to pay, meaning it's a little more or less than your competitor depending on how much more or less value you deliver.
But again, drug development is not a normal market. The products, once created, are sometimes life changing or even life saving. And due to patents they have a monopoly on that ability to save someone's life.
So what's the actual constraint on prices? In practice I suspect that it's one of the few instances where fear of public outrage actually becomes a constraint on corporate behaviour, that and weird negotiations with big insurance companies that are effectively standing in for government in many cases.
But that's not how markets are supposed to work.
Socialism only works until you've spent everyone else's money. If you think medicine is expensive now then consider the cost if it is free. There's other gems like that from people smarter then me, and I believe it wise to learn from them.
I suspect smarter people than you know better than to rely on ridiculous strawmen.
It's perfectly possible to have a robust drug development industry with some government regulation around pricing. It may even help the industry since you now have a clearer idea of the potential return when you start developing the drug. Not to mention you can redirect some efforts away from minor iterations on existing drugs and more towards treating new diseases and conditions.
Like why was mRNA a backwater until COVID-19 showed up? Shouldn't fields like that have been flooded with R&D dollars?
Re: (Score:3)
Like why was mRNA a backwater until COVID-19 showed up? Shouldn't fields like that have been flooded with R&D dollars?
From what I've read, the new COVID mRNA based vaccines were based on years of funded mRNA R&D research, and they could already be produced. They weren't a "backwater" I don't think, which is why they were able to be put into trials and testing immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Worldwide.
And in the US, we grant them the most generous patents as they, and eventually we, pretend like it was all self-funded. The system is fucking horse shit.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why US corporations love charity so much is, employees and random strangers are, quite literally, paying for corporate advertising. You can be sure corporations don't think about any other "positive returns" because they're allowed to be perfectly greedy.
He never said that, on the contrary he mentioned the dishonesty caused by greed. With businesses involved in environmental destruction, pollution, workplace diseases, cartel-building, price-fixing and writing laws for their benefit, most extern
Re: (Score:2)
He never said that, on the contrary he mentioned the dishonesty caused by greed. With businesses involved in environmental destruction, pollution, workplace diseases, cartel-building, price-fixing and writing laws for their benefit, most externalities are negative. Mr Smith said that competing for customers forces vendors to behave. That in turn suggests that a free market enables customers to vote with their wallet.
The OP said greed was good to a point but requires moderation.
My point was that corporations don't moderate their greed by design, but market forces generally mean that the greedy action often involves cutting prices or reducing your pollution (if media is strong enough to catch a lie).
The key is to recognize when greed leads to a positive externality, and when it doesn't, add regulation to make it so.
Medicare and Medi-aid aren't allowed to conduct "weird negotiations" on behalf of their patients, so all those patients lose the benefits of bulk-buying.
The price of insulin injectors increasing 120-fold means pharmaceutical corporations in the USA are not constrained. Someone buying a pharmaceutical patent and increasing the product price 60-fold means public outrage is meaningless.
Someone mentioned paying $16k/year for Insulin, why not $30k? Given the choice of paying or dying I suspect
Re: (Score:3)
While it's suffering the death of a thousand cuts by a government hell bent on privatisation, the UK's NHS wasn't for-profit, and we had no trouble finding people to do it. And people in the UK don't get bankrupt by medical bills like those in the US do. The pay up or die model is only good for a small number of private health providers and pharmaceutical companies -- nobody else. There is a need for healthcare, it needs to be delivered, but leaving it to a rich and greedy free market simply isn't a good so
Re:How un-american (Score:5, Insightful)
At least $16,000 a year for just one of my insulins per year (probably much more hidden cost to the pharmacy and insurance company) is too high.
Especially for an insulin that's been essentially unchanged for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That really sucks, but it sometimes just costs that much to produce. Things like demand, manufacturing costs, and research costs that need to be recouped will all add up.
Drug patents are only valid for 7 years or less depending on the type of drug. Generics can be produced after that. So if your insulin has been around for decades, then nothing Biden is doing here will help that cost. Yours must be a special insulin since most only cost $50 at negotiated rates.
Drugs produced at limited quantities are going
Re: (Score:2)
It does NOT cost that much to produce, you fucking excuse making prick. Insulin has been available and cheap and easy to produce for many decades.
Re:How un-american (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I come to your job and tell you that you are getting paid too much?
Yes, medicine prices should be regulated and capped. Period. You can still make lots of money, but you should not allowed to behave like a drug dealer and sell insulin, which people need TO LIVE, at 1000% cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just think how many diabetics we could provide with insulin if we cap that Pfizer CEO...
Re: (Score:2)
Except you wouldn't HAVE Pfizer without the CEO.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's try it, shall we?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the same old dumbass "Tear it all down and share everything equally"dream.
Never mind that it's NEVER worked, EVERYWHERE it has ever been tried.
Re: (Score:2)
Its worth keeping in mind that the unit cost isn't a useful measure for the purpose of this arguement.
Let's say a drug company has 10 good ideas for new drugs, and so start developing them. After more research 5 of them trun out not to be viable. Further down the process, 3 of them fail to get regulatory approval. This leaves two they can take to market.
Let's say each cost $50m USD to develop, including the ones that failed. So, those two that they can sell now have to recoup the $500m of costs from the ent
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't to say that drug companies don't unduely profit (I've no idea), only that most of their costs are hidden in the R&D of failed products* and so are not obvious.
Fucking BULLSHIT.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Big Pharma has no problem staying in business and gets a far larger profit margin than nonpharmaceutical companies. If they are exploiting government funding they should definitely be taxed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
As you say
"Socialism only works until you've spent everyone else's money"
And that is exactly the companies that risk having their patents face. The announcement is for those that were developed using other people's money. So, your wish come true.
Those companies that spent their own money developing the drugs are just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Those companies that spent their own money developing the drugs are just fine.
Too bad there are no such companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, no "sane businessman", as the cliche goes, will "invest" into R&D with a time horizon of years. Next 3 months is the planning horizon today. So, someone has to pick the slack, or no medicine.
Re:How un-american (Score:5, Insightful)
First, illness materially impacts a society and an economy. Even in a dollars-and-cents view, everyone is better off when the government spends money on healthcare.
Second, American healthcare is some of the worst in the industrialized world for outcomes, despite the massive amount of money poured into it. It's even more expensive for the taxpayer than more socialized systems. Per capita, the USA spends more and gets less, because so much of the money goes into profiteers' pockets. But agencies like the VA and programs like Medicare actually deliver really high value for money and high satisfaction from patients.
Indeed, American healthcare is in such a state now, there have been studies that indicate that even rich people in wealthy communities that can afford to pay whatever they need to get worse care than average citizens of countries with socialized healthcare.
Fundamentally, it's a problem of misaligned incentives. Capitalism can work when the goal of making money also happens to align with the desires of people buying products. But in healthcare, the incentive is to keep people sick so they can keep paying for care, and that's exactly what we see from insurance companies. They create incredible burdens to care because that's where the money is--in the denial of anything patients need.
Drug companies have plenty of opportunities to make money without gouging. And some low-return research probably SHOULD be taken on entirely by the public sector. For instance, antibiotic research is notoriously expensive and undesirable because again, if the drugs work, the illness goes away, and the patient stops paying for the drug. However, drugs like statins for cholesterol manage a chronic condition, and so research there is money well spent for these companies, even when the cost per pill is low. I myself take statins, and the cost of the pills (even if I didn't have drug coverage) would be extremely reasonable, particularly for a drug that manages a condition that would otherwise be life threatening and nearly impossible for me to manage on my own (I already exercise a lot and eat a healthy diet; my high cholesterol is congenital). I will take these pills for the rest of my life in all likelihood, probably 40 years more if I'm lucky.
In any case, it turns out taking care of people actually pays for itself, which is why practically every nation on earth with the money to do so tries to ensure high quality medical care at no cost to the patient at point of service.
Re: How un-american (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, here's one article: https://medicalxpress.com/news... [medicalxpress.com]
Another one: https://www.futurity.org/engli... [futurity.org]
The study: https://jamanetwork.com/journa... [jamanetwork.com]
A quote: "But even high incomes didn’t protect Americans from having worse health. Even the top 10% by earnings—whose after-tax median incomes were $144,000 for Americans and $71,000 for the English—had significantly worse health on 4 of the 16 outcomes that the researchers studied. Americans did not have better outcomes than English adults on
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The US is doing it massively, massively wrong. No idea what people keep defending that model in the face of overwhelming evidence that it does not do its job well. Mindless "US great!" morons?
Re: (Score:2)
"the incentive is to keep people sick so they can keep paying for care, and that's exactly what we see from insurance companies."
But even that doesn't explain it. Switzerland has private insurance and a mix of public and private healthcare providers like the US. While their healthcare costs are high compared to most other OECD nations, that's largely because all their costs are high. In this Switzerland is comparable to Norway, another high cost country but with public healthcare with a capped deductible. H
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem is that Americans are exceptionally bad at capitalism.
All available evidence very much to the contrary. [companiesmarketcap.com]
The problem isn't that Americans are exceptionally bad at capitalism, it's that we're exceptionally good at it. To the point where we've decided that we don't even need to regulate it.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, there's certainly something there. I don't know much about the Swiss system and a quick Google doesn't really give me any insight into the machinations. I'm going to guess that it works because the insurance companies are tightly regulated and aren't allowed to just deny payments to a provider on a whim? At least part of the problem in the USA seems to be an arms race between the providers who charge insanely marked up prices to insurance companies who don't want to pay, and a balance is struck wher
Re: (Score:2)
More and more people are going to Mexico for medical tourism, including Americans.
There's a sliver of truth in your statement, though: America DOES often have very cutting edge medical treatments. Rich hospitals, rich universities. There are certainly pioneering treatments that people sometimes want to get in on and it is time critical, so they can't wait for the procedure to be perfected and then offered at a reasonable cost in their own country.
But I'm really not making this up: https://www.futurity.org/e [futurity.org]
Re: (Score:2)
For what its worth, I agree with your implied point here. As far as i can see, a lot of a nation's healthcare outcomes are determined by lifestyle / fitness / general health level of the population. If the population is all overweight and unfit, then no amount of healthcare is going to lead to a healthy population (statistically speaking, at least).
This seems to be very much the case here in the UK. Whatever one might think about the funding level of the NHS, the general fitness of the UK population decline
Re: (Score:3)
If there was no profit in providing medical care then nobody would do it.
Not true if they worked for the government, not private practice.
Re: (Score:2)
But yeah, subsidising the rich to fleece the poor is the American way & so what the Biden Administration is proposing should be prosecuted as treason. We need proud, patriotic citizens to rise up & take Capitol Hill & defend our poor corporations from these socialist criminals!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How un-american (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there was no profit in providing medical care then nobody would do it.
False. Much of the world socialise medical care and those places still provide excellent medical care for their people.
Sanity (Score:3)
Your argument is an example of the false dichotomy [logical-fallacy.com] (or false dilemma) logical fallacy. That is, you're presenting a choice of two extremes as the only options. Those choices being no profits or lack of income, going broke, or what you're calling "socialism".
It could also be called a strawman [logical-fallacy.com], in that you're not addressing the actual proposal but insteal reframing it to something you'd rather attack because it is easier.
No one, other than industry shills and opposition political shills, are calling for elimi
Re: (Score:2)
That is the stupidest thing I think I've ever read (Score:2)
Really? What about utilities? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Health care in the USA is cr*p.
After an operation, my wife saw her surgeon every week [and you can imagine the cost of that] because the would was not healing. On a trip to the UK, she went into a doctor's office and was treated with a type of bandage that had not been used in the USA, and within the week, her wound had healed.
Re: (Score:2)
Health care in the USA is cr*p.
After an operation, my wife saw her surgeon every week [and you can imagine the cost of that] because the would was not healing. On a trip to the UK, she went into a doctor's office and was treated with a type of bandage that had not been used in the USA, and within the week, her wound had healed.
Well, you don't make much money by healing people quickly. You gotta slow it down, spread it out, keep the consultations, therapies & the prescriptions going. What do you want, socialism or something?!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the US just stepping in to an ER is thousands of dollars if you pay out of pocket. I don't know what the average is but it's above $3k. That's just to step in the door, before anything is actually done.
Most people with insurance don't pay attention what is actually going on. I'm surprised that insurance companies put up with medical systems that automatically charge 100x the actual price just so they can grab the maximum amount any insurance is willing to pay. The system is fucked.
Re: How un-american (Score:2)
" I'm surprised that insurance companies put up with medical systems that automatically charge 100x the actual price just so they can grab the maximum amount any insurance is willing to pay."
That's because you don't understand that under the ACA the insurance company's profits are capped to a percentage of costs of care provided. If the costs go up, so do their profits.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you don't understand that under the ACA the insurance company's profits are capped to a percentage of costs of care provided. If the costs go up, so do their profits.
Correct.
But less than they would have in an uncapped scenario, which is why they're capped.
Insurance prices increased ~20% for me almost yearly from 2000 to the passage of the ACA. They haven't slowed down much, but it's not like it created the problem. It just didn't do a particularly good job at fixing it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the issue of unpaid bills and partially-paid bills. People with Medicaid and Medicare often only get partial coverage for treatment since the government won't pay the entire thing. Hospitals with too many Medicare/Medicaid patients go broke and out of business.
For those without coverage, if/when they can't pay out of pocket, they go into collections and file for bankrupcy which leaves hospitals empty-handed. They recoup their losses wherever possible by overbilling patients that can pay.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's one reason why I don't have Medicare, even though I've been eligible for about a decade. Instead, I have full coverage through the VA, and as I'm 30% disabled, Service Connected, a large part of my medical care, including meds, is free. Early this year, I had my right knee and both feet X-Rayed for various reasons, at the local hospital because the nearest VA medic
Re: (Score:2)
I'm British, so I only have a rudimentary understand of US healthcare. I've no interest in the public vs. private debate, but its always seemed to me that if you're going to have a private healthcare system then the insurance model is an odd way to go about it.
Since the majority of users/patients are covered by insurance they are shielded from the prices. Does a patient in the US who is protected by insurance have much of an incentive (or ability) to shop around or haggle? Do they typically know or care too
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off.
Well put, seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
My dog is a sildenafil patient, why do you want the poor pooch dead?
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, what garbage websites are you visiting?
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to ask that, I need new material for my debunking blog where I make fun of crap like that and the people who believe it.