Noteworthy News

[The Grand Nudger]

Americans already pay more for healthcare than we would under a single payer system. A fair chunk of that is gouging in the face of the us's inability to negotiate on drug prices.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Americans already pay more for healthcare than we would under a single payer system.  A fair chunk of that is gouging in the face of the us's inability to negotiate on drug prices.

Yup this is why so many Americans come up here for prescription drugs (including ironically enough people I have met who are against universal healthcare )

Stuff like diabetes medications are super common

[brewer]

You'd still be paying for healthcare, every April 15th. There is no free ride, it's simply a cost shift.

‘Free’ in this context can usually be taken to mean ‘no cost to the user at point-of-service’.

There’re plenty of things the US could do to lower the cost of healthcare to the point where where universal healthcare becomes practical and no (or only minor) tax increase would be needed.

I know this because literally every other developed country in the world has managed to do it.

Boru

How much R&D, testing, manufacturing (including infrastructure), man hours do other developed country in the world contribute to developing their health care they provide so inexpensively? It's quite a bit less, often next to none compared to the US. This is more complicated than most think.

Not saying that the US does not have flaws with the system but I think it's more complicated and complex than stating 'compare the end consumer prices of other countries'.

[The Architect Of Fate]

This is often trotted out as the reason by pharmaceutical companies and even the US government. But to date, they have never been able to make the numbers add up to the proportion of expense.

[arewethereyet]

Here's what makes me crazy...I was given a prescription that was around $1,600.00 for a 90 day supply. Our insurance covered all but $100.00. Going to the company website I was able to get text messages sent to me that translate to a $100.00 coupon. That amount of the co-pay and coupon went down to $80.00 per month in 2022.

If that can happen, then it should happen and the insane prices are just that - insane. Some people are going to pay or go without when it's quite obvious that the drug and insurance companies can make the stuff affordable.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

‘Free’ in this context can usually be taken to mean ‘no cost to the user at point-of-service’.

There’re plenty of things the US could do to lower the cost of healthcare to the point where where universal healthcare becomes practical and no (or only minor) tax increase would be needed.

I know this because literally every other developed country in the world has managed to do it.

Boru

How much R&D, testing, manufacturing (including infrastructure), man hours do other developed country in the world contribute to developing their health care they provide so inexpensively? It's quite a bit less, often next to none compared to the US. This is more complicated than most think.

Not saying that the US does not have flaws with the system but I think it's more complicated and complex than stating 'compare the end consumer prices of other countries'.

The only complex bit is that US healthcare is run as a for-profit enterprise. Actual numbers are hard to find, but I’m confident that the R&D/testing on insulin (for example) has been paid for many times over during the last century, yet the price of this vitally important medication in the US continues to be a scandal to the jaybirds.

As for infrastructure, how many new hospitals are built each year in the US? How many new drug manufacturing facilities? How many new research labs? Whatever the answers are (and they’re less than you think), compare those costs to how much profit is generated by  all aspects of the healthcare industry.

Yes, it is indeed more complicated and complex than what end-users have to pay. It’s a mishmash of greed and stunningly incompetent mismanagement. 

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

The majority of the products big pharma sells at an obscene markup here in the us were the product of publicly funded research in publicly funded universities. The majority of research into new medication continues to be done through public funding, at public institutions. What little they do spend on r&d, is..likewise, subsidized by the government. This isn't exactly new. Insulin, as your example - 1920's, University of Toronto.

I'd be careful calling it incompetent mismanagement as they've very successfully captured the us state and very intentionally profit this way and very intentionally gaslight the us public and politicians this way - any idea that they're fucking up is premised on the notion that they exist, like this, for the public benefit.

[HappySkeptic]

I remember in Canada where the U.S. drug manufacturers lobbied for greater patent protection. Their argument was that they won't do any research in Canada if they don't get the protection.

Well, they got their protection, and they still don't do much research in Canada. It was all a big scam.

[brewer]

The majority of the products big pharma sells at an obscene markup here in the us were the product of publicly funded research in publicly funded universities.  The majority of research into new medication continues to be done through public funding, at public institutions.  What little they do spend on r&d, is..likewise, subsidized by the government.  This isn't exactly new.  Insulin, as your example - 1920's, University of Toronto.

I'd be careful calling it incompetent mismanagement as they've very successfully captured the us state and very intentionally profit this way and very intentionally gaslight the us public and politicians this way - any idea that they're fucking up is premised on the notion that they exist, like this, for the public benefit.

https://www.researchamerica.org/sites/de...ll2018.pdf

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a good overview. That every us pharma company.... combined..after having purchased rights to the basic research, still only manage to account for 53% of research funding in the most consequential sectors. Alot of which is spent on things important to a for profit entity (by necessity).

We don't have to propose malfeasance to explain why that pool of private, explicitly for profit, research fails. That's just the icing on the top of the cake that made it more profitable. They would (and do) make obscene profits on their r&d dollars even at a vastly reduced rate. If we think that getting medical research done at a price point society can bear is important (and from the discussion section there it looks like we do) then we're either going to have to strictly regulate the medical industry, or spend directly on more publicly funded research that is then deemed to be public domain. There are something like 500 generic manufacturers in the us that would stand to benefit immensely, in addition to the gains in public health.