Obamacare

[Miggs]

I know I'm gonna be in the far minority here and get flamed for this but no, I don't care about other people's healthcare. Yes, I'm wildly aware that other's health and the money they spend or cost the industry helps determine my own rates. I get it. But quite frankly, I don't give a flying **** and care for people who've done nothing but lazily meander through life. Who've done nothing to better their selves. Who've poorly planned their retirement. Who sit and eat fast food 2-3 meals a day. Who never exercise. Who have never once done anything other than suck, suck, suck off the teet of the government. Or better yet, to be forced to have healthcare essentially. I don't follow all the deets of this that closely but from what I recall, wasn't this to basically provide healthcare to all? Yeah, sorry, but again, to force people to have to pay money they don't have is a crock. And yeah, I get the supposed math. I get that when these uninsured people were going to the hospital without insurance, it was costing the industry or government or whoever (because let's face it, they're in bed with one another) even more, so in theory this **** should help lower costs. But yeah, I've yet to see that. Sorry, but I was raised to be independent in all facets. If someone wants health insurance, awesome. If not, they should be able to opt out, as stupid as that is. This whole **** is just another cluster**** of muddled monetary government/corporate doings.

 

[Miggs]

These entitlements piss me off. My school district spends (is given by the gov't) about 4M a year on free breakfast for all. That doesn't even count those (about 90% I think) that also get free or reduced lunch. And the kids expect it and complain that the breakfast sucks as if they should be getting bacon and eggs. Little ****s.

Now, I have no problem giving free food to kids. It's not their problem their parents suck. But if people are unemployed or work less than 40 hours a week, I'd like to see parents be forced to volunteer or do something to earn those freebies. Something like that. Same thing with ****ing prisoners. Whatever happened to chain gangs doing road work in the deep South or DOC guys in orange jump suits cleaning up the litter on the sides of the road? Could we not have these inmates earn 1 "credit" for each hour they work? You have 30 years in prison? Okay, earn 50,000 credits (work 50,000 hours) and you can get out in just over 20 years. Or something like that. Obviously each crime and situation would have to be handled differently. But maybe a "credits" system would empower them to work hard in prison and when they leave, make them feel like somebody.

Christ, when did we begin using kid gloves on everyone? If we can't make the losers of this world know they're **** and have to get their act together, who can we trample on with brutal truth?

 

[franklin]

I know I'm gonna be in the far minority here and get flamed for this but no, I don't care about other people's healthcare. Yes, I'm wildly aware that other's health and the money they spend or cost the industry helps determine my own rates. I get it. But quite frankly, I don't give a flying **** and care for people who've done nothing but lazily meander through life. Who've done nothing to better their selves. Who've poorly planned their retirement. Who sit and eat fast food 2-3 meals a day. Who never exercise. Who have never once done anything other than suck, suck, suck off the teet of the government. Or better yet, to be forced to have healthcare essentially. I don't follow all the deets of this that closely but from what I recall, wasn't this to basically provide healthcare to all? Yeah, sorry, but again, to force people to have to pay money they don't have is a crock. And yeah, I get the supposed math. I get that when these uninsured people were going to the hospital without insurance, it was costing the industry or government or whoever (because let's face it, they're in bed with one another) even more, so in theory this **** should help lower costs. But yeah, I've yet to see that. Sorry, but I was raised to be independent in all facets. If someone wants health insurance, awesome. If not, they should be able to opt out, as stupid as that is. This whole **** is just another cluster**** of muddled monetary government/corporate doings.

These entitlements piss me off. My school district spends (is given by the gov't) about 4M a year on free breakfast for all. That doesn't even count those (about 90% I think) that also get free or reduced lunch. And the kids expect it and complain that the breakfast sucks as if they should be getting bacon and eggs. Little ****s.

Now, I have no problem giving free food to kids. It's not their problem their parents suck. But if people are unemployed or work less than 40 hours a week, I'd like to see parents be forced to volunteer or do something to earn those freebies. Something like that. Same thing with ****ing prisoners. Whatever happened to chain gangs doing road work in the deep South or DOC guys in orange jump suits cleaning up the litter on the sides of the road? Could we not have these inmates earn 1 "credit" for each hour they work? You have 30 years in prison? Okay, earn 50,000 credits (work 50,000 hours) and you can get out in just over 20 years. Or something like that. Obviously each crime and situation would have to be handled differently. But maybe a "credits" system would empower them to work hard in prison and when they leave, make them feel like somebody.

Christ, when did we begin using kid gloves on everyone? If we can't make the losers of this world know they're **** and have to get their act together, who can we trample on with brutal truth?

Classical problems seem to have a tough time getting through to the left bro. Get used to our sissy society. Everyone can be saved. Soon enough all the kids will be on Ritalin and society will be making excuses for all the side effects.

 

[Deleted member 848]

The bolded sentence is something socialists don't seem capable of comprehending.

You simply don't know what the **** you're talking about. Ever heard of Bayer? One of the most large pharmaceutical companies in the world? They're based in Germany-- who's more "socialist" than Canada is. Open your eyes.

Capitalism is the breeding ground for innovation. Medical advances aren't being made in response to the Canadian market.

If you knew any **** about medical advances you'd know how laughably false this is.

There simply is not enough money in it. Canada benefits from the fact that new technology is very inexpensive to deliver once it has been developed. Pharmaceutical companies are the perfect example of an industry that relies on making a huge percentage of their profit in America. If not for this market a large percentage of the R&D money would dry up. The risks of litigation, which are also much greater in the US than elsewhere, are an additional reason that our costs are high. I wonder what percentage of the revenue generated from pharmaceutical class action lawsuits ultimately ends up in lawyers pockets. The major health reform I'd like to see regards litigation, but I honestly have no idea how that could be accomplished.

Just a laughably inaccurate post

 

[JAZZGASM]

You simply don't know what the **** you're talking about. Ever heard of Bayer? One of the most large pharmaceutical companies in the world? They're based in Germany-- who's more "socialist" than Canada is. Open your eyes.




If you knew any **** about medical advances you'd know how laughably false this is.



Just a laughably inaccurate post

Worst post of the thread. It makes no difference where a drug company is located, as stated, they make their money off of U.S. consumers who pay higher amounts than the rest of the world.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You simply don't know what the **** you're talking about. Ever heard of Bayer? One of the most large pharmaceutical companies in the world? They're based in Germany-- who's more "socialist" than Canada is. Open your eyes.




If you knew any **** about medical advances you'd know how laughably false this is.



Just a laughably inaccurate post

You are the one who is inaccurate. I said nothing about where the pharmaceutical companies were based. As a matter of fact, America's largest pharmaceutical, Phizer, has just executed a reverse merger to move a large portion of their operations out of the US for tax reasons. But that does not change the fact that the US is by far their most important market because they are able to charge a lot more for their drugs here than anywhere else.

 

[Deleted member 848]

You are the one who is inaccurate. I said nothing about where the pharmaceutical companies were based. As a matter of fact, America's largest pharmaceutical, Phizer, has just executed a reverse merger to move a large portion of their operations out of the US for tax reasons. But that does not change the fact that the US is by far their most important market because they are able to charge a lot more for their drugs here than anywhere else.

You would think "well, advertising is important on a global perspective!!"-- but then one realizes that drug companies can't actually advertise on TV outside of the United States and New Zealand.

 

[Deleted member 848]

This is the cold, inescapable truth Joe: drug companies would make MORE than enough money to sustain proper research and development if the US moved to single payer health insurance, with restrictions on the pharmaceutical industry that the rest of the developed world shares. The fact that pharmaceutical companies even advertise prescription medications to consumers is rather ****ed up to be quite honest.

 

[Zombie]

You would think "well, advertising is important on a global perspective!!"-- but then one realizes that drug companies can't actually advertise on TV outside of the United States and New Zealand.

That graph makes me think of how silly us humans might seem to a more advanced race.

Imagine playing a nation building strategy game and pissing away your resources on advertising haha.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

This is the cold, inescapable truth Joe: drug companies would make MORE than enough money to sustain proper research and development if the US moved to single payer health insurance, with restrictions on the pharmaceutical industry that the rest of the developed world shares. The fact that pharmaceutical companies even advertise prescription medications to consumers is rather ****ed up to be quite honest.

I agree 100% that pharma advertising ought to be banned, and your graphic makes an excellent point. I'll bet the television broadcasters would fight that with everything they have because they are obviously making millions on these spots.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I agree 100% that pharma advertising ought to be banned, and your graphic makes an excellent point. I'll bet the television broadcasters would fight that with everything they have because they are obviously making millions on these spots.

trust me, it aint the broadcasters that I'd be worried to fight-- it's the lobbyists & how they have their hands in the pockets of an unfortunately large number of American politicians.

 

[Deleted member 848]

and therein lies the problem Joe. The same people who wanna keep this advertising are the same people who want insane insurance premiums, and prevent any movement towards single payer health insurance. Their "BUT WHAT ABOUR OUR R&D" complaints simply lack merit in my opinion-- and I've done laboratory research for three years. I know how expensive it is.

Who wants more graphs?

R&D was nearly 14% of their total revenue.


One other problem with "research" is when you consider what sort of pharmaceuticals these companies are spending money on.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Just think about how many of your taxpayer dollars and insurance premiums are going to companies that invent illnesses in order to make drugs for them.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Dal, we are definitely in agreement on the advertising stuff, and you've made your points well. Pharma advertising didn't used to be allowed. It will definitely be hard to get rid of now that it's here. I'm not even aware that anyone is trying, but they absolutely should.

Your table showing how much more we pay for drugs in America than you do in Canada illustrates the points made earlier about research costs, though. The pharma companies are able to supply products at a lower rate to other countries because of the reasons previously outlined.

 

[JAZZGASM]

and therein lies the problem Joe. The same people who wanna keep this advertising are the same people who want insane insurance premiums, and prevent any movement towards single payer health insurance. Their "BUT WHAT ABOUR OUR R&D" complaints simply lack merit in my opinion-- and I've done laboratory research for three years. I know how expensive it is.

Who wants more graphs?

R&D was nearly 14% of their total revenue.


One other problem with "research" is when you consider what sort of pharmaceuticals these companies are spending money on.

While I agree advertising dollars for pharm is a joke, the US protects speech, including commercial speech that is not deceptive.

The graphs you posted reinforce what I stated above in a staggering way, and directly conflict with the idea that moving the US to a single payer with costs inline with the world would not effect the revenue of pharm or r&d spending (and all other medical).

5% of the worlds population provides 58% of pharm revenue. Holy ****. Convert us to single payer and have us pay rates the rest of the world and reduce revenue by at least
53%?

I would imagine the disparity in drug prices listed is a good representation of pricing in the US compared to tbe World. So we pay a minimum of 3x or more for most medicine, and I imagine most non pharm medical (procedures, etc. follow a similar pattern). If 58% of your revenue is paying a minimum of 3x the rest of the market, it would wipe out the revenue used for advertising and take a huge cut into R&D.

Using 2011 Profits, subtracting 53% of total revenue results in $31,689.75 (in millions) in total revenue with a switch to US to world pricing. $36m in lost revenue. Even if all advertising, admin, etc. was completely removed (obviously a good% of these costs would remain regardless, and we would have to overturn years of precedent protecting commercial speech in the US, but lets continue with this fantasy) that is only $19m is savings. And yes, there would be a tax adjustment, but there is still a huge discrepancy even at a 0% tax rate. So where does the loss of $13m (Assuming 0 tax) come from? Shareholder profit? Sure, theyll go for that. The answer is r&d. Hell, even if the $10 in profits is wiped out, more than half the r&d budget will be wiped out.

So tell me again, how does moving the U.S. to a single payer system not affect medical development and r&d spending???

 

[Siro]

While I agree advertising dollars for pharm is a joke, the US protects speech, including commercial speech that is not deceptive.

I'm not taking a side in the debate, but this isn't a convincing response. Speech is controlled in a million different ways, like advertising tobacco or showing sexual acts.

 

[fishonjazz]

The fact that pharmaceutical companies even advertise prescription medications to consumers is rather ****ed up to be quite honest.

I hate those ads

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I'm not taking a side in the debate, but this isn't a convincing response. Speech is controlled in a million different ways, like advertising tobacco or showing sexual acts.

Did there used to be rules against advertising perscription drugs on TV, or was it just that no one thought of doing it until the last decade or so? Either way, they have got to be the most annoying ads on television. 99% of the airtime seems devoted to the disclaimer talking about all the bad possible side effects of the drug.

And what's with the two people in the Cialis commercial sitting outdoors holding hands in side by side tubs? Does anybody actually see that and think it looks romantic, because to me it looks like the weirdest date ever.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I'm not taking a side in the debate, but this isn't a convincing response. Speech is controlled in a million different ways, like advertising tobacco or showing sexual acts.

Shorthand Answer-sexual advertising involving "prurient interest" can be regulated. The tobacco advertising can be limited due to the harm. Lots of case law on this. Consumers have the right to be informed regarding pharma and what is available to them. Again, the ads must be accurate. Based on all the current precedent in this area (a simple google searxh will show you cases), restricting these pharma ads will be a nearly impossible battle.

That was an ancillary point anyway. If we become a single payer, even if we remove the cost of all ads, r&d $ would cut in half.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Did there used to be rules against advertising perscription drugs on TV, or was it just that no one thought of doing it until the last decade or so? Either way, they have got to be the most annoying ads on television. 99% of the airtime seems devoted to the disclaimer talking about all the bad possible side effects of the drug.

And what's with the two people in the Cialis commercial sitting outdoors holding hands in side by side tubs? Does anybody actually see that and think it looks romantic, because to me it looks like the weirdest date ever.

Lots of precedent on pharma and other commercial advertisements.