Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Aslowhiteguy

Trump signs Executive Order regarding Obamacare

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Jwherb said:

Also apparently signed an order that would stop a decrease in mortgage insurance premiums.  

Explain that to me.  How does that help middle America? 

Because the market will automatically set the best risk-adjusted rate without the need for government intervention or subsidy.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sactowndog said:

I will believe his promises of American first when the worlds largest economy led by such a great negotiator pays the worlds lowest drug prices.

I don't think they have to be the lowest, but we shouldn't be footing the entire bill for R&D.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Akkula said:

Nice feel good measure that does absolutely nothing.   The text makes me lol because it doesn't actually direct anyone to do anything specific.   Not surprising since he probably doesn't know how the ACA works.   It is a great con job for his low info voters,  though. 

Yeah that was my thought. When you actually read it it doesn't say much at aIl. I understand the appeal though. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, sactowndog said:

1) Much of the basic research is done by academia.  

2) You also ignore the analysis by the Harvard Business Review that often these days the price increase has no relationship to R&D costs

3) You expect the US Consumer to bear the entire cost of the R&D because in your mind only US parents care about the health of their kids.   

4) based on the above you are fully okay with the US Congress being bought by big Pharma to pass laws to restrict the only possible hindrances to unfettered price increases: government negotiation of prices ( done by every other country) , US consumers buying drugs from other countries....

 

and you wonder why Trump kicked the shit out of mainstream Republicans in the primaries.  +++++ing unbelievable....

If polio vaccine was priced via the current bastardized system, the disease would be rampant and we would have many invalid amongst us.  Drug companies get many regulatory and tax breaks for R&D.  The should only be able to deduct / amortize those cost on US tax return in proportion to US sales consumption of that drug.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sactowndog said:

I will believe his promises of American first when the worlds largest economy led by such a great negotiator pays the worlds lowest drug prices.

Lower drug prices and innovation of new drugs do conflict.  Which do we want?  I'm not arguing for one or the other.  I think it's important to understand this, however.

Edit=> I see others already responded, so ignore

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, sactowndog said:

1) Much of the basic research is done by academia.  

2) You also ignore the analysis by the Harvard Business Review that often these days the price increase has no relationship to R&D costs

3) You expect the US Consumer to bear the entire cost of the R&D because in your mind only US parents care about the health of their kids.   

4) based on the above you are fully okay with the US Congress being bought by big Pharma to pass laws to restrict the only possible hindrances to unfettered price increases: government negotiation of prices ( done by every other country) , US consumers buying drugs from other countries....

 

and you wonder why Trump kicked the shit out of mainstream Republicans in the primaries.  +++++ing unbelievable....

1 - disagree

2 - I believe this report analyzed the protections given drug companies for new drugs introduced into the market to the R&D costs of that specific drug.  Perhaps I read a different report than the one you are referencing.  The price protections, which basically allow for high costs during I think the first 10 yrs a new drug is on the market allows for recovery of R&D costs overall (on many other drugs being developed).

3.  No, but R&D is very important no matter

4.  Congress attempts to create rewards and penalties in almost everything we do, every day, with a goal of influencing behaviors.  An absolute statement like you're making here is intellectually dishonest in this discussion.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

Because the market will automatically set the best risk-adjusted rate without the need for government intervention or subsidy.

That's not what is happening, though. The insurance premiums are still in place.

Obama admin said we have enough in the FHA emergency fund (law mandates 2% and there is 2.32% in the pot now) so let's lower the insurance premiums for our FHA borrowers at this time. That would basically give most FHA borrowers an additional $40-$50 bucks a month they could spend in the economy.  Kind of like a little tax break. 

Trump didn't like that for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Akkula said:

Nice feel good measure that does absolutely nothing.   The text makes me lol because it doesn't actually direct anyone to do anything specific.   Not surprising since he probably doesn't know how the ACA works.   It is a great con job for his low info voters,  though. 

It's not as toothless as you may think.  And not a bad start for day one.  

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, sactowndog said:

1) Much of the basic research is done by academia.  

nejmsa1008268_t2.jpeg

Wrong. Of the 1541 new drugs approved by the FDA in a 17 year period, 143 were brought about due to at least some public research. That's only 9.3%. It's private R&D that is footing the bill and making the breakthroughs.

Quote

2) You also ignore the analysis by the Harvard Business Review that often these days the price increase has no relationship to R&D costs

As opposed to he countless other articles that point to a clear relationship between the prohibitively high cost of bringing a drug to market, the limited amount of time patents allow companies to make money on that investment, and high drug prices. Talk about confirmation bias.

Quote

3) You expect the US Consumer to bear the entire cost of the R&D because in your mind only US parents care about the health of their kids.   

The proof is in the pudding. We are paying the costs and they aren't. If we suddenly stop, are they going to do an about face and start paying the piper? Hell no, they're weak ass healthcare systems that require them to ration care as is aren't going to magically find more money to pay for new drug research. They don't give a shit about their kids dying and neither do people who want us to start acting like them.

Quote

4) based on the above you are fully okay with the US Congress being bought by big Pharma to pass laws to restrict the only possible hindrances to unfettered price increases: government negotiation of prices ( done by every other country) , US consumers buying drugs from other countries....

Big pharma blah blah blah. Get out of here with that weak ass stuff. The government setting up so many barriers to bring a drug to market is why R&D costs so much. 

They're not entitled to the profits, we aren't entitled to awesome drugs. If you don't want to pay for them that's fine. People can go ahead and die in your world. I prefer that they didn't if they don't have to. And like it or not, this is really where the dividing line in the price capping argument is.

Quote

 

and you wonder why Trump kicked the shit out of mainstream Republicans in the primaries.  +++++ing unbelievable....

Right...Trump won because he had facts, and logic, and reason, and cared about people....

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

If polio vaccine was priced via the current bastardized system, the disease would be rampant and we would have many invalid amongst us.  Drug companies get many regulatory and tax breaks for R&D.  The should only be able to deduct / amortize those cost on US tax return in proportion to US sales consumption of that drug.

The polio vaccines patent window would have sunset long ago. It would be just as cheap and polio would be eradicated just like it is today.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

nejmsa1008268_t2.jpeg

Wrong. Of the 1541 new drugs approved by the FDA in a 17 year period, 143 were brought about due to at least some public research. That's only 9.3%. It's private R&D that is footing the bill and making the breakthroughs.

As opposed to he countless other articles that point to a clear relationship between the prohibitively high cost of bringing a drug to market, the limited amount of time patents allow companies to make money on that investment, and high drug prices. Talk about confirmation bias.

The proof is in the pudding. We are paying the costs and they aren't. If we suddenly stop, are they going to do an about face and start paying the piper? Hell no, they're weak ass healthcare systems that require them to ration care as is aren't going to magically find more money to pay for new drug research. They don't give a shit about their kids dying and neither do people who want us to start acting like them.

Big pharma blah blah blah. Get out of here with that weak ass stuff. The government setting up so many barriers to bring a drug to market is why R&D costs so much. 

They're not entitled to the profits, we aren't entitled to awesome drugs. If you don't want to pay for them that's fine. People can go ahead and die in your world. I prefer that they didn't if they don't have to. And like it or not, this is really where the dividing line in the price capping argument is.

Right...Trump won because he had facts, and logic, and reason, and cared about people....

Sacless is gonna need some aloe vera.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, toonkee said:

That's not what is happening, though. The insurance premiums are still in place.

Obama admin said we have enough in the FHA emergency fund (law mandates 2% and there is 2.32% in the pot now) so let's lower the insurance premiums for our FHA borrowers at this time. That would basically give most FHA borrowers an additional $40-$50 bucks a month they could spend in the economy.  Kind of like a little tax break. 

Trump didn't like that for some reason.

The problem was people were using that extra money to buy the house at a higher price, causing prices in the market to rise and raising he barrier for a first time buyer to enter.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pokebball said:

1 - disagree

2 - I believe this report analyzed the protections given drug companies for new drugs introduced into the market to the R&D costs of that specific drug.  Perhaps I read a different report than the one you are referencing.  The price protections, which basically allow for high costs during I think the first 10 yrs a new drug is on the market allows for recovery of R&D costs overall (on many other drugs being developed).

3.  No, but R&D is very important no matter

4.  Congress attempts to create rewards and penalties in almost everything we do, every day, with a goal of influencing behaviors.  An absolute statement like you're making here is intellectually dishonest in this discussion.

Did you actually read the article?  Here is an excerpt for you...

There are, of course, many other examples of the emerging drug strategy in action, from Turing (whose actions under then-CEO Martin Shkreli provoked a backlash) to Valeant (whose moves sparked Congressional outrage and investigations that led to its CEO’s downfall) to Questcor. In 2001 Questcor bought the rights to Acthar Gel, which is used to treat infantile spasms, a rare form of childhood epilepsy. In 1950 two Mayo Clinic researchers were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for discovering ACTH, the active ingredient in Acthar. Half a century later, a company that did not contribute to the medicine’s creation raised the price of a vial from $40 to $23,000.

Pharmaceutical companies traditionally invest heavily in research and development. The costs required to bring a new drug to market vary widely — anywhere from hundreds of millions to upwards of $2.6 billion, as estimated by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development in 2014. In many cases drug pricing justifiably reflects this investment. What’s troubling is that the emerging breed of pharma companies prioritize profits over drug discovery and manufacturing. They legally acquire the rights to existing drugs and charge exorbitant prices following FDA approval, all without ever having made meaningful research or development investment. In some instances, as is the case with 3,4 DAP, companies like Catalyst take advantage of other companies’ and scientists’ drug research and development without even manufacturing the product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The problem was people were using that extra money to buy the house at a higher price, causing prices in the market to rise and raising he barrier for a first time buyer to enter.

The premiums were reduced in January 2017.  I'm not sure there was time for the reduction to have a significant effect on the market. In any case, what it would do is make FHA loans more competitive with conventional loans as the FHA loan payment with insurance is now closer to the conventional loan payment without insurance, not to mention you need less cash for an FHA down payment. I'd bet somebody didn't like this added competitiveness and they persuaded Trump to squash it. 

But, to your point, you are right in that the "ability to pay" is one of the creators of value, so more money for everybody generally means higher prices however a market would have to be truly dominated by FHA financing to see an uptick in sales prices because of this reduction in insurance premiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

nejmsa1008268_t2.jpeg

Wrong. Of the 1541 new drugs approved by the FDA in a 17 year period, 143 were brought about due to at least some public research. That's only 9.3%. It's private R&D that is footing the bill and making the breakthroughs.

As opposed to he countless other articles that point to a clear relationship between the prohibitively high cost of bringing a drug to market, the limited amount of time patents allow companies to make money on that investment, and high drug prices. Talk about confirmation bias.

The proof is in the pudding. We are paying the costs and they aren't. If we suddenly stop, are they going to do an about face and start paying the piper? Hell no, they're weak ass healthcare systems that require them to ration care as is aren't going to magically find more money to pay for new drug research. They don't give a shit about their kids dying and neither do people who want us to start acting like them.

Big pharma blah blah blah. Get out of here with that weak ass stuff. The government setting up so many barriers to bring a drug to market is why R&D costs so much. 

They're not entitled to the profits, we aren't entitled to awesome drugs. If you don't want to pay for them that's fine. People can go ahead and die in your world. I prefer that they didn't if they don't have to. And like it or not, this is really where the dividing line in the price capping argument is.

Right...Trump won because he had facts, and logic, and reason, and cared about people....

You and your ilk are such apologists for any corporate behavior it's amazing. Even those in the industry are appalled a the corporate behavior of some in the industry.   

No one has a problem with drug companies gaining a return on their investment.   But with no 

  • Diminishing utility (because people will die without them)
  • Legal protections denying people from buying drugs overseas
  • Legal protections preventing Medicare from negotiating drug prices
  • Patent protections against generic competition

Drug companies face a pure vertical demand curve that allow them to price drugs at will regardless of their cost of development.   It is the primary example of Congress passing laws that favor corporate interests at the expense of the American people.   

By the way NIH grants go to far more the public sector research institutions so your data is incomplete.   A better data set would be the percent of drug patents funded by public research institutions or NIH grants.   But keep posting slanted data to support your corporate apologists position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The polio vaccines patent window would have sunset long ago. It would be just as cheap and polio would be eradicated just like it is today.

Yes how many years and deaths later.  But all those deaths would be in the US because only we chose to fund the global defense and medical care at the cost of the everyday American consumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, toonkee said:

The premiums were reduced in January 2017.  I'm not sure there was time for the reduction to have a significant effect on the market. In any case, what it would do is make FHA loans more competitive with conventional loans as the FHA loan payment with insurance is now closer to the conventional loan payment without insurance, not to mention you need less cash for an FHA down payment. I'd bet somebody didn't like this added competitiveness and they persuaded Trump to squash it. 

But, to your point, you are right in that the "ability to pay" is one of the creators of value, so more money for everybody generally means higher prices however a market would have to be truly dominated by FHA financing to see an uptick in sales prices because of this reduction in insurance premiums.

I was referring to the premium cut in 2015. I don't think this one had any time to go into effect.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A large part of what separates the U.S. and other well developed nations from other countries is because we actually have regulations.  Regulations and rules play a very significant part in prosperity.  I think we have to be careful in not broad stroking all regulations as bad and just as barriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I was referring to the premium cut in 2015. I don't think this one had any time to go into effect.

I believe the only cut repealed was the 2017 one, though. HUD releases these updated called "mortgagee letters" and the Trump one "2017-07" only nullifies "2017-01", which was Obama's. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, modestobulldog said:

Because the market will automatically set the best risk-adjusted rate without the need for government intervention or subsidy.

Lol.

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...