Fox News Tells It Like It Is

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

It's French, the language of diplomacy. No wonder you guys don't recognize it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never took French in school, what for? Only thing I remember about the French language was Je me rends, permet de negocier , and Patton's quote, "Id rather have a German Division in front of me then a French one behind me."
Not that as an "ugly American" I don't like the French. LOL

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

When I wrote that I was thinking along the lines of the government negotating the prices of drugs that it purchases through Medicare. I'm pretty sure that they are prohibited from doing so. I also think that in many other countries the govern. negotiates the prices of drugs and services and there may not be any 3rd parties (insurers). I think they also regulate things like what/how many hospitals can perform cat scans and negotiate with the seller what they'll pay for that equipment. So if Medicare negs. the cost of drugs does the cost curve still get altered given there are still 3rd parties? Also, with the price of some drugs over $100,000 per year or treatment as they may be under patent, isn't the supplt/demand curve being altered?

Government becomes the third party if it negotiates prices for individuals. And when it mandates that everyone over a certain age must enroll in one of its plans (e.g. Medicare, etc.) it is not only a negotiator, it is a master regulator of the market, so it can alter the cost curve far more than private third party negotiators.

All third party payers alter the curve because a false price equilibrium is established between the third party and the seller. It can be an advantage for those who contract with a third party payer if the market price is based on what average individuals could afford and be willing to pay out of pocket which is the true equilibrium in a free market. But when third party pay becomes the norm, the price curve shifts in the direction of what the third party can and wishes to pay. And the individuals who contract with the third party will no longer have much to say about it, and will be at a disadvantage without third party help. And prices will escalate beyond their ability to pay. And when the third party can control prices, and can regulate what and in what manner drugs are produced, and has as the regulator an agency such as the FDA which can be and is influenced by lobbyists to create such stringent regulations that competition becomes economically impossible, some astronomical prices can and do occur. Our government has been at the forefront of creating higher costs in the medical field through its mandates and regulations for many years. It creates a problem by supposedly "solving" another problem as, for instance, forcing hospitals by law to accept patients whether they can pay or not, creating a cost/price distortion in the market, as well as doing so with various other medical regulations including the overly stringent process of bringing drugs to market and the crony capitalist favoring of big pharma as well as a constant flow of new regulations on the various suppliers to the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Then the government seizes on the new problem, which it has manipulated into being, by even greater seizure of control so that all will be "affordable" to the individuals who have long ago been taken out of true price equilibrium (their ability and desire to pay for goods and services). And, magically prices go up even higher. Of course, that problem will be solved down the line, by government, and it will have total control of the medical field. And we know that government is the leader in innovation, and in new, smart things. And, as Nancy Pelosi said, then the people will be able to do the things their hearts desire, such as write music or novels or make paintings or whatever. Government will make it so. And as the third, or rather, the only payer/regulator, it has unlimited pockets to pay. And as for a minor item such as the national debt, pshaw! It will somehow find a way to forgive the debt. Perhaps it will finally be the controller of all things, and, as such, the debt will be owed to itself. Pffft.

By the way, as a small aside, it is easier in other countries to bring new medicines to market, and for those in need to have much earlier access to them. Less government control and regulation of the process makes it feasible.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

By the way, as a small aside, it is easier in other countries to bring new medicines to market, and for those in need to have much earlier access to them. Less government control and regulation of the process makes it feasible.

What a load, it's easier because the American system has already subsidized the R&D.

Believe it or not safety is actually a concern. The government is looking after the consumer, in return the producers demand price control to maintain high profit levels.

I think you actually can have safety and affordability but the expense is of course margin.

Here's a very interesting opinion from today's NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/op...vQr2OMAxWf/NKA

-spence

[Pete F.]

That we have it that good is a myth. We could pick anyone of at least a dozen other systems to deal with health care that are less expensive, and deliver better results.
That figure is more than two-and-a-half times more than most developed nations in the world, including relatively rich European countries like France, Sweden and the United Kingdom. On a more global scale, it means U.S. health care costs now eat up 17.6 percent of GDP.

A sizable slice of Americans -- including some top-ranking politicians -- say the cost may be unfortunate but the U.S. has "the best health care in the world."

But let's consider what 17 cents of every U.S. dollar is purchasing. According to the most recent report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- an international economic group comprised of 34 member nations -- it's not as much as many Americans expect.

In the United States:

*

There are fewer physicians per person than in most other OECD countries. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people -- well below below the OECD average of 3.1.
*

The number of hospital beds in the U.S. was 2.6 per 1,000 population in 2009, lower than the OECD average of 3.4 beds.
*

Life expectancy at birth increased by almost nine years between 1960 and 2010, but that's less than the increase of over 15 years in Japan and over 11 years on average in OECD countries. The average American now lives 78.7 years in 2010, more than one year below the average of 79.8 years.

We all need to look seriously at this and not just preserve the status quo, or blindly accept what the clowns and jokers come up with.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

What a load, it's easier because the American system has already subsidized the R&D.

The "American system" you refer to, as it has evolved, is not a free market system. And the greatest facilitator to this system is government and its collusion with crony capitalists and its desire to assume responsibility for the lives of its citizens. Research and development of pharmaceuticals should be a private concern paid for by private entities and purchased by private individuals. Why is R&D for drugs so much more than it is for other industries? How much would costs be affected if we had third party pay for clothing, for cars, for houses (oh yeah Fanny Mae and the housing collapse), food stamps as the method for all to pay. When government subsidizes and other third party pays for the products doesn't that affect prices as opposed to free market transactions by individual buyers and sellers.

Believe it or not safety is actually a concern. The government is looking after the consumer, in return the producers demand price control to maintain high profit levels.

The only control over price the producer has is the maximum amount the buyer can pay. That is, if the producer wants to sell. When the government "looks after" the consumer by mounting an unsustainable debt for its services, the consumer might find a better deal with a reputable free market seller. For the most part, producers would "look after" safety if the market was truly competitive and they wished to stay in business. Even a reputation of poor products that may not be deserved or is exaggerated is enough to cost a producer sales. Would fly-by-night snake oil sellers exist without government "looking after"? Of course. They exist even with it. And much of the snake oil is sold to us by government in terms of overbearing costly regulations and do good policy's and programs. Would some government regulation be good. Sure. Preferably by State and local governments where citizens have more control

I think you actually can have safety and affordability but the expense is of course margin.

Here's a very interesting opinion from today's NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/op...vQr2OMAxWf/NKA

-spence

The article seems to be advocating free market principles--introduce competition by open and honest information rather than clandestine deals between hospitals, doctors, and medical device producers. And the elimination of collusion between lobbyists and government.

The article also points out that the tax does nothing to "solve" the lack of free market transactions nor to lower costs and prices. On the other hand, the tax does put more money into the coffers of government--ill gotten gains from rotten fruit.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

By the way, as a small aside, it is easier in other countries to bring new medicines to market, and for those in need to have much earlier access to them. Less government control and regulation of the process makes it feasible.

That cuts both ways. Certainly some drugs are available quick elsewhere but then you have Thalidomide (in the 60s?) which I believe never got approved here. If you go to Europe you see still people with flippers rather than limbs.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

That cuts both ways. Certainly some drugs are available quick elsewhere but then you have Thalidomide (in the 60s?) which I believe never got approved here. If you go to Europe you see still people with flippers rather than limbs.

The people in Europe with the flippers are those whose malformation occurred 40 to 50 years ago. The European regulatory agencies have long ago restricted the use of thalidomide. The FDA makes mistakes too, from which it has to reverse past decisions. And thalidomide does have medicinal use in fighting certain diseases. In 2006 thalidomide was approved by the FDA for treatment of multiple myeloma.

The EU is far more efficient in bringing new drugs to market than is the FDA. Mostly because it has more rational approach to regulating the production and delivery to market of those drugs. It is also more positive to the approval and delivery of herbal remedies than here because they don't allow pressure from pharmaceutical companies to suppress herbal cures.

The trade-off between presumed safety by extremely costly, time consuming FDA regulatory requirements and the lives lost by too slow delivery of useful drugs to market is fostered more by political agendas rather than by necessary overregulation for safety. Please read the following article that rationally discusses the tradeoff and why the costs could go down considerably if regulations were reasonable rather than draconian.

http://cei.org/op-eds-articles/drug-...-deadly-delays