By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - US Medicare For All Bill as good as dead now?

NightlyPoe said:
RolStoppable said:

Was that the only thing you were being facetious about? I hope so, because the initial claim that innovation would stop is bogus.

No one said innovation would stop.  That's a straw man and decidedly not the point of contention.

However, it would slow down.

I'm pretty sure the pharma industry is already doing their very best to slow down innovation as much as possible. There is no profit to be made in effectively treating or even healing people. I don't see how they would be able to slow it down even further.

The exorbitant pricing and ineffective medicine in contrast to the gigantic profit margins of pharma companies tell pretty much the opposite story. Apparently there is already no competition driving innovation. The only thing they're driving is new ways to collect even more money and pay even more doctors.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
Puppyroach said:

Considering the number of people in the US with Chronic HCV is estimated to be 3,5 million, that investment would pay for itself within a few years with those prices, so it´s obvious that the prices are set to maximize profit. That is the correct way for a company to go about it, but it is rather an argument for the government to do the research instead.

Government funded research wouldn't work to the same degree unless they offered similarly competitive salaries for pharmacologists/biochemists like the private big pharma companies at which point the undertaking of drug development is just as capitally intensive ... 

Pharmaceutical research scientists have unbelievable bargaining power because of their indispensable skills in producing drug candidates ... 

The higher value future doesn't consist of Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft or even Tencent but rather it will be Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, AbbVie, and Gilead ... 

In the not too distant future the former will live in the past where their time ticking bombs will be entering the post silicon world. (many of the computer scientists and engineers will become obsolete and at that point we'll be seeing unions formed for those professions) As people age and nations keep getting more developed there will be more demand for spending specialty drugs that will lead to the latter's meteoric rise ... (the next hot thing will be biologics rather than as seen with consumer electronics for past decades) 

Making humanity a better race means that they need to also produce life enhancing drugs too (intelligence, strength, and other desirable abilities) rather than just life saving drugs ... (I can foretell that there is a massive market to eugenics in which big pharma will be a key instrument)



Puppyroach said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I think the idea of a public option is popular around the world, but people want private options as well. The left really wants government to be the only options because private companies are evil and greedy, blah blah.

I lean to the right, I believe a public may need to happen or healthcare.gov needs to be expanded, but the left is making bigger promises than viable with its healthcare solution. The left tries to make us think rich people will cover the bills, its just not reality.

Yeah, but there is no problem with having private options as well as long as everyone is guaranteed the same high quality healthcare, financed by taxes. In Sweden we also have private healthcare and private healthcare insurance. But you are still guaranteed all the help you need regardless of if you pay for additional private insurance.

And I think there is misdirection on both the right and the left. Healthcare cost will most likely drop significantly for US citizens if universal healthcare would be introduced but it would be a case of, for example, you as a citizen paying 1000$ more in taxes each year but in return you don´t have to pay 1500$ in private insurance each year. And since the wealthy earn so much more than those that make the least, they would pay a much larger proportion in relationship to how many they are.

Its incredibly naive to think the public options is going to be at par with the private option. If that was the case, there wouldn't really be a reason for the private option to exist.

Our government already spends a fortune providing healthcare services to about 1/3 of the country with mixed results.

The wealthy already pay a vast majority of the taxes. For the most part, people want to keep their private options. If the government forces people to pay your hypothetical $1000 into the public option, many may not be able to afford the private option they prefer.

So yeah, some sort of public options existing as option is something many people would support. But don't be surprised if people oppose the government takeover of healthcare. Primarily because we have little faith in government to operate that.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

democraps fucked up my healthcare, i had a $500 deductible before, after obamacare, it went to $4000 and up $1800 a year. yeah fuck the mandates, fuck obamacare. anything that has to be mandated is a fail. stay the fuck out of my wallet and paycheck.



 

Mr Puggsly said:
Puppyroach said:

Yeah, but there is no problem with having private options as well as long as everyone is guaranteed the same high quality healthcare, financed by taxes. In Sweden we also have private healthcare and private healthcare insurance. But you are still guaranteed all the help you need regardless of if you pay for additional private insurance.

And I think there is misdirection on both the right and the left. Healthcare cost will most likely drop significantly for US citizens if universal healthcare would be introduced but it would be a case of, for example, you as a citizen paying 1000$ more in taxes each year but in return you don´t have to pay 1500$ in private insurance each year. And since the wealthy earn so much more than those that make the least, they would pay a much larger proportion in relationship to how many they are.

Its incredibly naive to think the public options is going to be at par with the private option. If that was the case, there wouldn't really be a reason for the private option to exist.

Our government already spends a fortune providing healthcare services to about 1/3 of the country with mixed results.

The wealthy already pay a vast majority of the taxes. For the most part, people want to keep their private options. If the government forces people to pay your hypothetical $1000 into the public option, many may not be able to afford the private option they prefer.

So yeah, some sort of public options existing as option is something many people would support. But don't be surprised if people oppose the government takeover of healthcare. Primarily because we have little faith in government to operate that.

Well, we have that setup in our country, kind of like the US model within education with public schools and charter schools (we also have charter schools).However, private alternatives would likely never be able to exist without government funding. 



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
Puppyroach said:

Considering the number of people in the US with Chronic HCV is estimated to be 3,5 million, that investment would pay for itself within a few years with those prices, so it´s obvious that the prices are set to maximize profit. That is the correct way for a company to go about it, but it is rather an argument for the government to do the research instead.

Government funded research wouldn't work to the same degree unless they offered similarly competitive salaries for pharmacologists/biochemists like the private big pharma companies at which point the undertaking of drug development is just as capitally intensive ... 

Pharmaceutical research scientists have unbelievable bargaining power because of their indispensable skills in producing drug candidates ... 

The higher value future doesn't consist of Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft or even Tencent but rather it will be Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, AbbVie, and Gilead ... 

In the not too distant future the former will live in the past where their time ticking bombs will be entering the post silicon world. (many of the computer scientists and engineers will become obsolete and at that point we'll be seeing unions formed for those professions) As people age and nations keep getting more developed there will be more demand for spending specialty drugs that will lead to the latter's meteoric rise ... (the next hot thing will be biologics rather than as seen with consumer electronics for past decades) 

Making humanity a better race means that they need to also produce life enhancing drugs too (intelligence, strength, and other desirable abilities) rather than just life saving drugs ... (I can foretell that there is a massive market to eugenics in which big pharma will be a key instrument)

Well, where I live it´s quite common with research in both the public and the private sector and the government buys the medicines to sell to citizens. Some medicine is quite expensive but we have a high-cost safety net where you nver pay more than approx. 265$ per year for medicine. And we still manage to have way lower expenses per capita for healthcare with a better healthcare outcome than the US. So there must be something about our model that just works =).



Unfortunately about half the population of the US enjoys being anally reamed by the high costs of private healthcare. Must be something in the water, or maybe they like the feeling of wasted spending.

Anyway, thankfully the Republican base is literally dying away and as long as Democrats can keep the corporatists from holding the reins to the party (they haven't managed it yet but who knows) then there may actually be a little bit of hope for the United States joining the rest of the world in the most fiscally efficient method of healthcare which will guarantee it to all US citizens like practically every other country in the world.

Last edited by Megiddo - on 08 October 2018

Chris Hu said:
fatslob-:O said:

Your statement pretty much is paranoia ... 

Big pharma is influential in the US simply because they conduct the highest amount of clinical trials compared to ANY continent by virtue ... 

More importantly with biologics on the rise, treatments are becoming more permanent than ever before with gene therapy. Late last year, a biologic containing an AAV vector was approved by the FDA to cure Leber's congenital amaurosis which causes blindness ... 

You don't appreciate what big pharma does because you're too blindsided to not understand that they bring miracles ... 

Price controlling medicine like Europe or other common wealth countries is not a sustainable path for drug development and never will be. Advocates of that stance are too ignorant to not see that it is mainly the US who keeps funding their fragile little bubble ... 

We're waiting when ungrateful Europe will actually start contributing to big pharma in a significant capacity since they are run like charities currently or they could just end up being humiliated by the biggest third world country (China) in drug development ... (personally, I'm more eager to see Europe's social democrat backed price controls to fail then fall behind the likes of China

Massive irony to Europe that they'd be losing in biopharmaceutical research to nation that's constantly accused of "technology transfer" but I guess if they cannot pay for innovation they do not deserve to reap the fruits of it ...  

Bring miracles are you being sarcastic here what was the last major disease that actually got a cure via big pharma. 

Do you know anyone that has cancer?

My dad is alive today solely because of a drug created in the 5 years. 

Do you really think nothing has happened since Polio was cured?



Immersiveunreality said:
the-pi-guy said:

I've asked you this before, do you have a source for that claim?

I did never see evidence of that claim either and why would billionaires come to the US for treatments when Europe has a good/better quality of healthcare for everyone.

As someone who grew up near Mayo Clinic, I can tel you I saw a ton of times super rich famous, or even rulers of other countries fly in to get treatment from Mayo. Areas get blocked off, big secret service type vehicles and guys in suits waiting around areas for a few days. 

Why would some prince or something of a coutnry come all the way to Rochester, Minnesota (for that don't know, that's one of those flyover states) to get treatment if Europe has better healthcare? If they are so insanely wealthy and important that their very names are kept secret and they have secret service surrounding the buildings, could they not afford to go wherever they want or bring whoever they want to them? 



Megiddo said:

Unfortunately about half the population of the US enjoys being anally reamed by the high costs of private healthcare. Must be something in the water, or maybe they like the feeling of wasted spending.

Anyway, thankfully the Republican base is literally dying away and as long as Democrats can keep the corporatists from holding the reins to the party (they haven't managed it yet but who knows) then there may actually be a little bit of hope for the United States joining the rest of the world in the most fiscally efficient method of healthcare which will guarantee it to all US citizens like practically every other country in the world.

Or we've seen no proof to show that universal healthcare would be better for us financially.

Since the AIA, mine, and everyone I knows premiums have all gone up by at least 50% at the minimum.

Medicare and Medicaid suck and doctors and many hospitals even refuse patients who use them because their rate of payment is so shitty. 

Other areas that the government starts trying to help in pricing, just increases prices. Just look at the education. As soon as the government tried to help people pay for college, prices just increased exponentially. (don't bring up the few schools for profit. I'm not talking Trump University. I'm talking the public colleges that have been around for 50-100 years all of a sudden increasing in prices way more than they historically did each year, as soon as the government started guaranteeing kids money to pay fro school.)