The Big Lie: Ryan Hates Medicare

[patrick1]

Politico, you just contradicted what you were spouting in your previous like 4 posts. Don't piss down my leg and tell me it is raining.  Or you can continue to do edits and add ons to posts when you realize that you were full of it....

[Politico]

Ridiculous, the states can't even fund higher education or unemployment benefits.

When something is unaffordable, you either make it affordable somehow or find a way to make do without it. You do not borrow from China only to have them pull the rug out from under us at the end of the decade, turning us completely upside down.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The typical drug requires approximately $1 billion in R&D costs, but only pennies to create afterward. Patent protections FOR A LIMITED time allow the companies to obtain a return on their R&D costs. Take away that incentive to develop new drugs, and we will receive fewer new drugs with each passing year.

After the patent expires, cheap non-brand drugs that are IDENTICAL in all but name are brought to the market at MUCH, MUCH lower costs. It is not like the patent protection is for 100 years or anything. I think it is only seven years, but I am not an expert on the matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Go ask Europe how many new drugs their governments are inventing on a yearly basis and compare it to the number created by pharmaceutical companies here.

The government can do everything perfectly in theory, but in reality it can only do so much so well.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ridiculous, the states can't even fund higher education or unemployment benefits.

When something is unaffordable, you either make it affordable somehow or find a way to make do without it. You do not borrow from China only to have them pull the rug out from under us at the end of the decade, turning us completely upside down.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The typical drug requires approximately $1 billion in R&D costs, but only pennies to create afterward. Patent protections FOR A LIMITED time allow the companies to obtain a return on their R&D costs. After the patent expires, cheap non-brand drugs that are IDENTICAL are brought to the market at MUCH, MUCH lower costs. Take away that incentive to develop new drugs, and we will receive fewer new drugs with each passing year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Go ask Europe how many new drugs their governments are producing on a yearly basis and compare it to the number created by pharmaceutical companies here.

What they need to do is have the government pay for more research of existing products. Suppose some vegetable is as good as an expensive drug but with fewer side effects. No company is going to pay for the studies so that the FDA will let them claim that only to have their competitor do the same thing without paying.

[Politico]

Ridiculous, the states can't even fund higher education or unemployment benefits.

When something is unaffordable, you either make it affordable somehow or find a way to make do without it. You do not borrow from China only to have them pull the rug out from under us at the end of the decade, turning us completely upside down.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The typical drug requires approximately $1 billion in R&D costs, but only pennies to create afterward. Patent protections FOR A LIMITED time allow the companies to obtain a return on their R&D costs. After the patent expires, cheap non-brand drugs that are IDENTICAL are brought to the market at MUCH, MUCH lower costs. Take away that incentive to develop new drugs, and we will receive fewer new drugs with each passing year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Go ask Europe how many new drugs their governments are producing on a yearly basis and compare it to the number created by pharmaceutical companies here.

What they need to do is have the government pay for more research of existing products. Suppose some vegetable is as good as an expensive drug but with fewer side effects. No company is going to pay for the studies so that the FDA will let them claim that only to have their competitor do the same thing without paying.

If we can find a way to lower their R&D costs, we could in turn lower the number of years they have patent protection while still ensuring they get a return on their investment. More tax breaks for R&D may be the answer. Perhaps loosening FDA bureaucracy, albeit to a safe degree, is another way.

Either way, I have far more confidence in a Romney Administration finding a way than I do in the Obama Administration.

[patrick1]

I worked closely with Pharma on many clinical trials and the amount to bring a drug to market is enormously expensive.  There is a mountain of regulatory and huge logistics fees. There are certainly ways to streamline costs and yet at same time companies do need to recoup their outlays for profitability. The costings also makes it such that many potential drugs for rare diseases fell by the wayside. I think there are partnerships afoot that just passed to help with this

Politico there are hundreds of Pharma companies in Europe... just stop.

[Politico]

Also, we need to see a shift away from referring to non-brand name drugs as "generic." The word has a negative connotation that artificially increases demand for the original brand name drug. Brand name and "generic" (I prefer calling them non-brand name) are almost always IDENTICAL in all but name.

[Politico]

Politico there are hundreds of Pharma companies in Europe... just stop.

Yes, and their governments spend more on their NIH equivalent than we do on the NIH. I was responding to a claim that we should dramatically increase drug research funding at the NIH. I am interested in hearing about the amazing drugs developed by the NIH counterparts of our cousins abroad. If they are not developing amazing drugs, if they are not outdoing pharmaceutical companies in Europe and here, what makes us think the NIH can do it?

[Politico]

The costings also makes it such that many potential drugs for rare diseases fell by the wayside.

Good post. You know what you are talking about. I just want to chime in that this is especially tragic, especially if we are talking about FDA regulations being the primary cause in some cases. As I understand it, the FDA requirements are intense, especially for rare diseases. All of the hoops they have to jump through to get to the human testing stage is just too costly. The way I see it, testing on humans who have no hope at least gives those people some hope and could eventually lead to the eradication of certain rare diseases.

[greenforest32]

The question is what makes something 'unaffordable'. It's not the government leading to 7-10% annual increases in cost, but private for-profit healthcare making money through overcharging, excessive healthcare procedures, insurance, patents, etc.

There's no need to have 50 million uninsured. We'd only do that if we insist private profit comes before public health. The Republican proposals would only make things worse: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/paul-ryan-medicaid-plan_n_1778438.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[patrick1]

The costings also makes it such that many potential drugs for rare diseases fell by the wayside.

Good post. You know what you are talking about. I just want to chime in that this is especially tragic, especially if we are talking about FDA regulations being the primary cause in some cases. As I understand it, the FDA requirements are intense, especially for rare diseases. All of the hoops they have to jump through to get to the human testing stage is just too costly, and not worth it. The way I see it, testing on humans who have no hope at least gives those people some hope and could eventually lead to the eradication of certain rare diseases.

There was orphan drug status. Regulations were and I am sure are rather byzantine.  As I saw it, a lot of pharma really did some work pro bono or for pr purposes. However, I think this was largely on already existing drugs, so market forces leave gaps in research that are taken up by NIH or universities.  An important point is that there is a middle ground and collobaration required between private and gov't.  It is not cut and dry with evil pharm vs. evil socialism in each corner.

[Politico]

The question is what makes something 'unaffordable'.

When it means everybody of all income levels paying more than 50% in federal income taxes in 15-30 years, with a job market that is beyond stagnant and a nation full of people without hopes and dreams, it is unaffordable.

[Politico]

The costings also makes it such that many potential drugs for rare diseases fell by the wayside.

Good post. You know what you are talking about. I just want to chime in that this is especially tragic, especially if we are talking about FDA regulations being the primary cause in some cases. As I understand it, the FDA requirements are intense, especially for rare diseases. All of the hoops they have to jump through to get to the human testing stage is just too costly, and not worth it. The way I see it, testing on humans who have no hope at least gives those people some hope and could eventually lead to the eradication of certain rare diseases.

There was orphan drug status. Regulations were and I am sure are rather byzantine.  As I saw it, a lot of pharma really did some work pro bono or for pr purposes. However, I think this was largely on already existing drugs, so market forces leave gaps in research that are taken up by NIH or universities.  An important point is that there is a middle ground and collobaration required between private and gov't.  It is not cut and dry with evil pharm vs. evil socialism in each corner.

Contrary to what you may suspect, I agree with you on this.

The NIH is a fine institution, but it is not God. They are constrained by scarcity, and all it entails for them, like every other entity on the planet. Likewise, pharmaceutical companies do a lot of good in the process of profit-seeking; they are certainly not Satan. People need to realize both of these realities rather than talking about how "government should do everything because pharmaceutical companies are evil." Subsidies and regulations are obviously appealing to those who have rudimentary knowledge of economics, but they have the capacity of doing far more harm than good when it comes to the end results. It's the results that matter, not the good intentions. The noblest of intentions cannot make up for poor results.

[greenforest32]

The question is what makes something 'unaffordable'.

When it means everybody of all income levels paying more than 50% in federal income taxes in 15-30 years, with a job market that is beyond stagnant and a nation full of people without hopes and dreams, it is unaffordable.

There's going to have to be cost control of the total system because the needless profit we allow on these things isn't just bankrupting the government: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/14/health-care-costs-to-surpass-total-income/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Politico]

The question is what makes something 'unaffordable'.

When it means everybody of all income levels paying more than 50% in federal income taxes in 15-30 years, with a job market that is beyond stagnant and a nation full of people without hopes and dreams, it is unaffordable.

There's going to have to be cost control of the total system

A simple refresher on what price controls really mean (i.e., shortages):



As for health care costs exceeding total income for the average consumer, well, that is simply impossible given the very nature of health care services. Something will change between now and then.

[patrick1]

As a long time Republican I never thought I would support or even entertain the idea of so called socialized medicine.  However, having had first hand experience with the efficacy of most private insurance providers, the exponential increases in their rates and the subsequent social costs involved with millions without any health care, I completely re-evaluated long held assumptions.  I  don't think it unreasonable to increase taxes for a system that produces societal benefit. It's obviously not that simple but that will do at 4am.

[Politico]

As a long time Republican I never thought I would support or even entertain the idea of so called socialized medicine.  However, having had first hand experience with the efficacy of most private insurance providers, the exponential increases in their rates and the subsequent social costs involved with millions without any health care, I completely re-evaluated long held assumptions.  I  don't think it unreasonable to increase taxes for a system that produces societal benefit.

The problem in trying to explain why I disagree is that the explicit societal benefits are obvious whereas the implicit societal costs are not, especially in the long-run. The latter outweigh the former, or at least they do in the long-run. In the final analysis, the overall benefits do not outweigh the overall costs. It would take endless hours to fully elaborate.

I agree that it is absurdly late.

[greenforest32]

I don't see why Republicans consider abolishing government-run health insurance (Medicare/aid) as cost control. That's more of an access issue as the underlying costs of the system remain.

Something else will have to be done and I have no confidence in the Republican proposals when they can't even get behind a simple medical loss ratio mandate on private insurers.

It's already extreme and the two factions of the business party are going to have us wait even more.