Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure • Hacker News Board

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#131

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Jan 01, 2026, 10:39 PM UTC

anthuswilliams wrote: post #129

lotsofpulp wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the central point is that people who have to USE their insurance (i.e. sick people) subsidize the premiums of people who don't (healthy people), and this critique applies regardless of age. You’re losing me here. This claim is categorically false. You cannot consider only the deductible when calculating who subsidizes who. The only way to calculate it is premiums + deductible + out of pocket maximum = total hea…

The claim about who subsidizes who was always hyperbole, I'll grant you that. I included the statement to make the point that this is the phenomenon people are referring to when they make that statement. I happen to think there is validity to the statement if you control for other actuarial factors. But if you don't think that makes sense as a lens through which to look at the problem, I won't quibble, even though I…

> In any case, the central point, that insurers benefit from higher prices, still stands.

All sellers benefit from higher prices. No one limits the price they ask for out of the goodness of their hearts. Lower prices are because a competitor offers a lower price, and because buyers can’t pay a higher price.

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#132

Post by mmooss » Thu, Jan 01, 2026, 11:07 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #128

mmooss wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree about the significance of those large-scale changes; still ... > Reversing the subsidies for things like car-dependency would positively benefit millions of people but it’s a generational change, not something most individuals can do. Individuals frequently can chose to not use a car, of course. Still, it's not realistic for everyone or all the time, especially in a society built for automobile use. > by the…

> Individuals frequently can chose to not use a car, of course To some extent, yes, but my point was that it’s not realistic for many people because we treat walkable neighborhoods like luxuries. If you wake up in your 40s with a bad back and cardio problems because you live in a suburb and drive everywhere, you can’t roll back the clock and build sidewalks, legalize density, or run decent transit and on average don’…

That's what I meant by, it's not realistic for everyone and everywhere.

> I think a growing number of people, especially younger ones, realize this is unsustainable but it took generations to get here and it’ll take a while to change trajectories, too.

Urbanist movements, including walkable communities, are much older than this younger generation. I think within a certain segment - well-educated upper middle class, maybe - it's long had influence.

I think they need to bring those ideas to other segments of society, which they have a hard time doing.

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#133

Post by throw0101a » Fri, Jan 02, 2026, 1:48 PM UTC

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #4

"Rome said the companies seem to be maximizing prices while negotiating discounts behind the scenes with health and drug insurers and then setting yet another price for direct-to-consumer cash-pay sales." This describes the biggest problem in US healthcare. No clear and consistent pricing. If we had a real market, you would get a prescription and then go to the seller with the lowest price. And everybody would get th…

> This describes the biggest problem in US healthcare. No clear and consistent pricing.

AIUI, this is one reason Kenneth Arrow argued (in 1963 [1][2]) that healthcare could not really use a market-oriented solution: information asymmetry.

[1] https://assets.aeaweb.org/asset-server/files/9442.pdf

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15042238/

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#134

Post by acdha » Fri, Jan 02, 2026, 3:02 PM UTC

mmooss wrote: post #132

acdha wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Individuals frequently can chose to not use a car, of course To some extent, yes, but my point was that it’s not realistic for many people because we treat walkable neighborhoods like luxuries. If you wake up in your 40s with a bad back and cardio problems because you live in a suburb and drive everywhere, you can’t roll back the clock and build sidewalks, legalize density, or run decent transit and on average don’…

That's what I meant by, it's not realistic for everyone and everywhere. > I think a growing number of people, especially younger ones, realize this is unsustainable but it took generations to get here and it’ll take a while to change trajectories, too. Urbanist movements, including walkable communities, are much older than this younger generation. I think within a certain segment - well-educated upper middle class, m…

I definitely don’t think that it’s new to the current young generation but I am optimistic that they might have enough political clout to actually make progress. My neighborhood narrowly avoided becoming a highway in the 60s so we have some older folks who have been fighting car culture since before I was born, but there were a lot of people who didn’t really care because it was more affordable in the past, but their kids are a lot more motivated because it’s so financially non-viable now.

In the United States, the other big factor was recognizing how much it wasn’t just car culture but racism driving things. Despite the current moment, I get the impression that a lot of people are more aware of how much avoiding sidewalks and transit was driven by racism and just hurt everyone.