211–220 of 355 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because profit is disproportionately earned in America. Europe, Canada, and the whole world enjoy lower prices because we pay higher prices.
I don't need to agree or to disagree, but I need to ask: why downvote the parent without offering any replies? (Upvoted, just out of the feeling of irritation at this.)
Something to keep in mind is the population that typically has chronic Hep C requiring this drug. It's IV drug users who share needles. Think they have $84K? Nope. Think they have insurance? Nope. Guess who pays for it. Oh that's right, it's Medicaid! It's you, the taxpayers. Where is there a large concentration of people that have Hep C? Prisons. Guess who pays for it then? Still you! The prison systems are obligate…
Is there a way to take the taxpayer money being spent on medicine that's priced high to recoup the research investment, and shift it to directly funding the research in the first place? Obviously you'd have to spend a while funding both R&D and Medicaid/etc, while the new drugs are in development and the old ones are still under patent, and I'm sure there's other details I've missed, but it seems like there should be…
I won't try to rehash all of the permutations of ways that might work (just search HN for any discussion of drug companies and patents and you will be able to enumerate them). I suspect that there are ways to improve the present system substantially, but I concede that the problem is much harder than I can solve. Hopefully someone will be able to do it some day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a private global (excluding USA) medical insurance that covers costs (no in-patient) up to 1M and it costs me $1k/year. I've been hearing about Obamacare for years and always thought "well, it's good that more people will have insurance". But when my colleagues in US told me what their deductibles on a good insurance plan are ( thousands of dollars. my deductibles are $375) I was floored. The whole medical sys…
America subsidizes the health care of the entire world. Because such a large portion of health profit comes from the US. If the US ceased to exist then global prices would increase and global research would decrease.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. But if they demanded a trillion dollars per pill, the government shouldn't have to pay for it. It would bankrupt the country. They shouldn't be able to set a price and force the government to pay it. The only reason we have this crazy system is because people refuse to put an economic value on life.
> if they demanded a trillion dollars per pill Then nobody would buy it and they would lose their investment. > force the government to pay it They can't force the government to do anything. Of course, the government can just take the pills from them, but if they did that, then no more cures would be developed. > people refuse to put an economic value on life People do all the time. Every time you (and everyone else)…
Surprised no-one has pointed to the real culprit here: the patent system, which allows individual companies to own knowledge like this and sell it at any rate it desires... private taxation by and for the rich, on the rest of society.
All testing, research, and funding has to be private for some reason.
Surprised no-one has pointed to the real culprit here: the patent system, which allows individual companies to own knowledge like this and sell it at any rate it desires... private taxation by and for the rich, on the rest of society.
"Gotta have patents and profits, or there's no reason to fund it." All testing, research, and funding has to be private for some reason.
This is yet another perverse collision of care and market regulation. Other examples abound. Why do we accept this? Do we even dare think of alternatives? What if western governments stop enforcing drug development intellectual rights? Not going to happen before hell freezes over, but let's have a short thought experiment. Quality health care for all would probably blossom thanks to more access to affordable drugs th…
No new drugs. Pretty simple.
Now you ask, is that a bad thing? well yes, yes it is. Right now, we are running out of (or have run out of) top end antibiotics.
Partly from over use (I'm looking at you America.) mostly from using them to get much higher yields in farm animals (yup, thats right, last line antibiotics are being used on pigs, so they can be packed in much higher densities. )
So what I hear you say? Well TB thats what. There is a resurgence in TB, the white death. Now, you might be content with each lung collapsed in turn, in a vein attempt to cure it[1]. However I'm not.
1 in 3 people get cancer. The survival rates are not good. Loads of people are diabetic. (mainly because they eat shit and are fat(unless its type1 which is genetic))
Opensource model is just bollocks. I don't want to be treated by some drug thats only had patchy test coverage. I don't want to be beholden to some amateur who thought it'd be good to reinvent for the billions time penicillin.
Who is going to pay for the time? its not like you can provide charge for support is it?
No, the way forward is actually having a proper handle on insurance. Here in the UK, drugs are purchased nationally[2] but more importantly you only pay a nominal upfront fee. Its not more expensive, in fact its hovering around 6% of GDP compared to 18% for the US (and with much better care too)
[1]http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/pdfaccess.ashx?Reso... [2]https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/formulary/bnf/current/5-infectio...