Progressives tout California Health care "success"

[birdog1960]

Try again. You're touching on a tiny fraction.

enlighten us, please. and about that data...

 

The answer, of course, is that the United States absorbs nearly 100% of the R&D and technologies costs.

this is the small fraction. but, the proper question is why should we?

[Jauronimo]

this is the small fraction. but, the proper question is why should we?

Is this the anti-innovation argument?

[Alaska Darin]

enlighten us, please. and about that data...

I'll respond to it when I have time. I don't expect you to understand it, given your penchant for not being able to do anything except regurgitate the same stupid liberal B.S. But I'm still somewhat willing to occasionally bat you clowns around like the cat toys you are.

[birdog1960]

Is this the anti-innovation argument?

nope. why should americans pay the lions share for this? most drug companies are now multinational, why aren't they subsidized multinationally? why are they subsidized at all?

 

I'll respond to it when I have time. I don't expect you to understand it, given your penchant for not being able to do anything except regurgitate the same stupid liberal B.S. But I'm still somewhat willing to occasionally bat you clowns around like the cat toys you are.

generally a cat just goes at it. they're not known for ruminating. never much cared for cats.

Edited July 18, 2013 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

nope. why should americans pay the lions share for this? most drug companies are now multinational, why aren't they subsidized multinationally? why are they subsidized at all?

 

Because other countries dictate the cost of drugs by law, so that the international market doesn't bear the cost of R&D.

[Alaska Darin]

nope. why should americans pay the lions share for this? most drug companies are now multinational, why aren't they subsidized multinationally? why are they subsidized at all?

A big government liberal apologist asks why things are subsidized?

[birdog1960]

Because other countries dictate the cost of drugs by law, so that the international market doesn't bear the cost of R&D.

well, yes. so why should we? patents have a finite life. is that not enough incentive alone to develop new drugs?

 

A big government liberal apologist asks why things are subsidized?

if you think entities like the nih are "subsidized" then i suppose you have an argument. i don't happen to think that they are.

[TakeYouToTasker]

well, yes. so why should we? patents have a finite life. is that not enough incentive alone to develop new drugs?

...

 

 

if you think entities like the nih are "subsidized" then i suppose you have an argument. i don't happen to think that they are.

Dude... are you saying that the NIH isn't publicly funded?

[Nanker]

 

 

Because other countries dictate the cost of drugs by law, so that the international market doesn't bear the cost of R&D.

 

This is exactly right. And the pharmas cave to the demands of the offshore formularies. Which I think is a crock but they're all fraidy scared they won't be allowed to market and sell unless they do. So the American consumer foots the bill for the billions that R&D and trials cost.

 

well, yes. so why should we? patents have a finite life. is that not enough incentive alone to develop new drugs?

 

 

if you think entities like the nih are "subsidized" then i suppose you have an argument. i don't happen to think that they are.

You've got to be joking. A compound might cost hundreds of millions of dollars and 5-8 years to develop and run through trials to get a single indicaton successfully approved by the FDA. Not every compound is a blockbuster like Viagra. So Luddites like yourself would rather no new drug discovery - or no trials? I'm sure YOU would never advocate for increasing the life of drug patents.

 

...

 

 

Dude... are you saying that the NIH isn't publicly funded?

Of course he doesn't think they're publicly funded silly - they're just part of the government.

[B-Man]

Obama’s last campaign: Inside the White House plan to sell Obamacare

 

By Ezra Klein and Sarah Kliff

 

Deep inside the White House, in a bare room that the chief of staff uses for meetings, David Simas is still thinking about turnout.

 

Turnout has been Simas’s job for years now. As director of public-opinion research and polling for President Obama’s reelection campaign, Simas was at the center of the effort to find and persuade young and minority voters to go to the polls like they did in 2008.

 

Many doubted the Obama campaign’s contention that it could recapture the 2008 electorate. Simas’s data, however, convinced the campaign that was possible. And when the smoke cleared, young voters and minorities did show up to the polls, and Obama won.

 

Now Simas, a sad-eyed Massachusetts native with a facility for PowerPoints, needs to reach those same groups again — with a much harder ask. This time, he doesn’t just need them to vote. He needs them to buy health insurance, and, in some cases, spend hundreds of dollars a month for it. If they don’t, the new insurance marketplaces — the absolute core of Obamacare — will be filled with older, sicker people, and premiums will skyrocket. And if that happens, the law will fail.

 

The debate over Obamacare often focuses on the law’s complexity. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has taken to pushing around a seven-foot stack of paper showing the tens of thousands of pages of regulations it has spawned. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has warned that implementing such an intricate statute could be a “train wreck.”

 

But to the White House, the difference between success and failure is straightforward: They need to entice a sufficient number of young and healthy adults into the new insurance marketplaces that open Oct. 1.

 

How many younger people are needed each year to hold down premiums depends on how many people sign up for the marketplaces. If the total this year is 7 million people, then about 2.7 million need to be in the 18-to-35 set.

 

This, then, is the crux of Obamacare’s challenge: Can the federal government persuade young, healthy people to buy health insurance?

 

 

http://www.washingto...macare/?hpid=z1

[birdog1960]

...

 

 

Dude... are you saying that the NIH isn't publicly funded?

no more than the fbi is subsidized. hand over drug development to scientists that have no interest in making the 14th version in the same class of cholesterol drugs and you'll get better science and likely better drugs. and a luddite is anti technology. i'm not.

Edited July 18, 2013 by birdog1960

[B-Man]

Manchin: ‘Trim Job’ Not Enough for Obamacare, Needs ‘a Pretty Good Haircut’

 

Senator Joe Manchin bucked his own party this morning and slammed Obamacare’s “far-reaching tentacles and ramifications.” He also criticized it for running counter to American values.

 

“As Americans, we don’t like to be told what we have to do,” the West Virginia Democrat said on Fox News,”and if we don’t do it, you’re going to penalize me as my country, as my government.”

 

Coming from a union-heavy state, Manchin expressed that union leaders are “concerned” about the law affecting employees’ hours and jobs, especially with the continued uncertainty of the law’s implementation and delays.

 

“There’s a lot of things that aren’t answered,” he said. “And it’s got to be addressed and fixed.”

 

Manchin’s tone on the bill has changed since it was originally debated in Congress. While Manchin was not a senator at the bill’s passage, he voiced support for it as governor of West Virginia. He has since reneged on his support, saying that he would not have backed it if he had been aware of all it entailed.

 

Manchin said he would rather see changes that encourage and incentivize people to be healthy, because “everyone can’t have total, unlimited, unbridled access.”

 

“People have to be held accountable and responsible for their own health, just one size doesn’t fit all,” he said.

 

“This is not a trim job,” he said of the needed changes to the bill. “This is a pretty good haircut that has to be looked upon.”

 

.

[Nanker]

 

no more than the fbi is subsidized. hand over drug development to scientists that have no interest in making the 14th version in the same class of cholesterol drugs and you'll get better science and likely better drugs

They already do that. But they don't run the clinical trials. Those cost billions annually.

[Doc]

How do you account for other countries who deliver better outcomes at half the cost we incur? Worldwide Conspiracy? Deliberate False Reporting? Magic?

The "better outcomes" claim is a fallacy. The problem is not health care delivery; it's poor health care maintenance by American people. And when you cut out innovation, that $2 pill in Manchester suddenly starts costing them $35 and their system goes to hell. Never mind the dismal cancer survival rates.

 

http://www.washingto...macare/?hpid=z1

There's a huge difference between being bussed to polling stations and being given free coffee, pizza, and doughnuts, and shelling out hundreds of dollars a month. Like most libs, it's easier to spend other people's money or have people do stuff for you for free. Spending your own money and doing stuff on your own...not so much.

[DC Tom]

well, yes. so why should we? patents have a finite life. is that not enough incentive alone to develop new drugs?

 

Patents have nothing to do with it. Other countries dictate "Drug X shall cost Y." We have to pay for the R&D, because the legislation of other countries forces us to.

[birdog1960]

They already do that. But they don't run the clinical trials. Those cost billions annually.

they do very little of that. mostly they decide what basic (not applied) research gets funded at universities. most new drugs are me too's as i described and are produced solely for the purpose of profit by the drug companies. there are very few novel molecules produced.

 

Patents have nothing to do with it. Other countries dictate "Drug X shall cost Y." We have to pay for the R&D, because the legislation of other countries forces us to.

so what happens if we stop? ya think big pharma folds it's tents and goes home?

[DC Tom]

so what happens if we stop? ya think big pharma folds it's tents and goes home?

 

Uh...yeah. Generally, that's what happens to companies who sell products on the market at a loss.

[B-Man]

Ed Morrissey: The Great Obamacare Workforce Exodus.

 

 

.

[birdog1960]

Uh...yeah. Generally, that's what happens to companies who sell products on the market at a loss.

uh, no. take a look at their balance sheets and huge salaries. got a lot of room to cut subsidies before those are consumed. and that's before they stop advertising and paying drug reps. they make a better mousetrap, er drug, it will be prescribed and they will do just fine. can you think of any other private industry that requires this level of subsidy for r and d? letterman mentioned that he was watching the all star game and his kid kept asking about reptile dysfunction. he sorted him out by explaing that what was being advertised was a perfomance enhancing drug. wouldn't it be great if all those ads just disappeared?

Edited July 18, 2013 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

uh, no. take a look at their balance sheets and huge salaries. got a lot of room to cut subsidies before those are consumed. and that's before they stop advertising and paying drug reps. they make a better mousetrap, er drug, it will be prescribed and they will do just fine. can you think of any other private industry that requires this level of subsidy for r and d? letterman mentioned that he was watching the all star game and his kid kept asking about reptile dysfunction. he sorted him out by explaing that what was being advertised was a perfomance enhancing drug. wouldn't it be great if all those ads just disappeared?

Investment tends to go to arenas that are the most profitable. The best people tend to go where the best compensation is. Are you saying that we should reduce investment in the pharmacuetical industry, and discourage the best business minds from working in them?

 

Additionally, why do you think it's a good idea to take the marketing of drugs away from those who consume them? The patient shouldn't have any input as to what he wants to put into his own body? He shouldn't know about those products?