Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

costplusdrugs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 191 posts

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#151

Post by antisthenes »

knubie wrote: post #147
arcticbull wrote: post #48

As always the issue with privatized social services is that the goal is to make money, not to provide a service so the incentives are fundamentally misaligned. For-profit care providers make money when the fail to provide care. When they fail to cover procedures. When they can substitute lower-quality or less effective goods and services. When they can sell you catastrophic cover with deductibles and co-pays too high…

> the goal is to make money, not to provide a service I think your entire premise is flawed here. Businesses make money by providing services that people want / need.

Businesses also make money by reducing the inputs that go into services (e.g. lowering the quality of the service), thus achieving a higher profit margin.

It's not a flawed premise. It just doesn't occur 100% of the time. It tends to occur in industries with poor competition (mono/oligo-polies)

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#152

Post by Adrox »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #107
bgia wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because their lives depend on it? Why do people keep paying ransoms? Does it mean that ransoming them is a good thing?

But the point was that they're doing things that either are unneeded or not effective. If either of those are true, their lives do not depend on those procedures.

Exact same thing as Marketing spend. You cannot split the good from the bad.

I really cannot understand how you can even think about doing healthcare system for profit. Posting this from a Single-pay country, Germany.

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#153

Post by bitsnbytes »

vxNsr wrote: post #87
bitsnbytes wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for confirmation and clarification: When you say the prices were about even with what you pay at costco is that comparison with or without healthcare insurance paying part of it? If your insurance paid part of it and its comparable then Cubans pharmacy is a win for those without healthcare insurance.

Costco doesn’t take insurance either

ahh thanks for the clarification, I wasn't aware that they didn't take insurance.

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#155

Post by maxerickson »

specialp wrote: post #89
arcticbull wrote: post #48

As always the issue with privatized social services is that the goal is to make money, not to provide a service so the incentives are fundamentally misaligned. For-profit care providers make money when the fail to provide care. When they fail to cover procedures. When they can substitute lower-quality or less effective goods and services. When they can sell you catastrophic cover with deductibles and co-pays too high…

One thing lost on people is the "for-profit" motive is not solely with insurers or plan providers. Medical practitioners in my experience are extremely motivated to provide as many services as the insurer will pay for regardless of how medically useful they are. This results in often legitimate procedures being denied. But make no mistake, the care providers billing insurance are just as likely or more likely to try…

All the people complaining that they went in for an included annual checkup and got billed for asking a question are running into this, it's the provider that changes or adds the billing code.

(Maybe not the practitioner directly, the providing organization)

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#156

Post by bitsnbytes »

tcmart14 wrote: post #62
KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #16

So is the cost actually low? The last time this came up on HN people agreed the costs are standard and the other pharmacies do not charge the high prices on the comparisons.

This is where it is difficult to judge from where I see it. The last company I worked for had great insurance, really great insurance and this CostPlus in most areas can't beat what I would pay through insurance. However, I am in a new job where the insurance isn't as great, so maybe CostPlus may come out to be cheaper? I havn't delved too much into my current insurance to know yet, but it definitely isn't as good as…

"this CostPlus in most areas can't beat what I would pay through insurance"

But are you taking into account how much a month you are paying into that insurance when comparing the two?

If CostPlus is coming close to what you are getting your prescription for with a paid into insurance plan, than I would call that a win for those without insurance.

Might be worth looking at lowering my own insurance coverage to one that might not be that great for prescription, as long as costplus and costco type places come close to after insurance priced meds.

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#157

Post by an9n »

pc86 wrote: post #105
arcticbull wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK per capita health expenditure: $4650USD (#17). US per capita health expenditure: $11000USD (#1). I don't know what the 'left' is doing there but it seems very efficient.

Don't get me wrong, I think claiming the NHS has been "weaponized by the left" is idiotic, but I don't see how PC expenditures support or refute that point?

I got this terminology straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/12/labour-refu...

'Labour has defended the way it is campaigning on the NHS – but once again refused to confirm that Ed Miliband told the BBC that he wanted to “weaponise” the NHS in the election campaign.'

'The spokesman said: “I am not going to talk about words used in private conversations. They should not be shared and we will not talk about private conversations.'

Another mention of the term: https://nhsproviders.org/news-blogs/blogs/dont-weaponise-the...

If there were no danger of the NHS being weaponised, the term would go out of common use.

Do you still consider my use of a term coined by the left themselves as 'idiotic'?

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#158

Post by arcticbull »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #141
arcticbull wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada has substantially the same health outcomes, or better, than the US. This is simply not true. I'm also Canadian, and have lived under both systems. My father fell off a ladder and had a pretty severe head injury, and had both an MRI and a CT scan within a half hour, at no cost. Yes, lower-priority conditions may have to wait, but it's also by definition because they're lower priority - and they'll have to wait…

This article has a couple immediately glaring flaws that lead me to not invest the time to deeply analyze it on the whole... > because of having the kind of health care system you have in making sure that everyone who needs to be treated is treated That's completely false, Canada has a presupplied quota system set by government forecasting and limited by budgets. If you need treatment you will be treated eventually b…

> This article has a couple immediately glaring flaws that lead me to not invest the time to deeply analyze it on the whole...

Good to know you didn't read the article before replying.

> That's completely false, Canada has a presupplied quota system set by government forecasting and limited by budgets. If you need treatment you will be treated eventually but you might die or get sicker in the interim.

Every system in the entire world has a predefined quota. There's no unlimited supply of healthcare resources in any country - and America is no exception. The only difference here is whether these resources are centrally provisioned or not - and whether you ration it based on who can spend the most, or who needs it the most. I vote for central provisioning and need-based allocation.

You are ignoring that once again, there are wait times in America too. The reason I sent you this article is proof that in fact your assessment of the relative strengths of the system isn't grounded in fact. It's grounded in propaganda about the American system. The system you are imagining in America simply does not exist.

> Using a COVID-19 based article to discuss the merits of single payer single provider completely ignores the massive cultural mentality differences -- the US focuses on individual freedoms, Canada focuses on collective good.

This is irrelevant to the quality of a healthcare system and its outcomes. And you are ignoring that 40% of Americans are already covered by socialized medicine. Old people in America love Medicare and have no interest in getting rid of it. 75% of people on Medicare are either satisfied or greatly satisfied, while only 6% are dissatisfied or greatly dissatisfied. This is higher than the for-profit sector.

> Edit: and I might add that it appears that Canada is always intentionally undersupplied such that a moderate wait is guaranteed.

That's a cool, unfounded opinion.

And again, you have ignored the clearly measured equivalence of the two systems in terms of outcomes - while the Canadian system delivers it at literally half the per capita cost and covers everyone.

If you actually look at the data, it's clear. The private care available in America is more expensive and outcomes are either the same, or significantly worse. America has the worst maternal mortality rate in the developed world, for instance. This is quantifiable and you are not utilizing that data, one has to suspect, because it does not support your position. [1]

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801918/

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#159

Post by an9n »

mousetree wrote: post #58
an9n wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's hope you make a better fist of it than the UK - the NHS is currently unreformable to any significant degree, due to it being weaponised by the left.

Could you share more? Curious to understand the issues of the NHS and why it can't be reformed and what it means to be weaponised by the left

See my comment above - the weaponise term is from a quote that was disavowed by the Labour leader-before-last, but that he certainly seems to have spoken.

Here's an article on the topic - from a socialist source: https://www.sochealth.co.uk/2015/04/28/weaponizing-the-nhs-i...

'many campaigners who want to “Save” the NHS seem to want to do the opposite – to politicise the NHS so far that reform becomes a practical impossibility. They create alarm about cuts to local services, privatization, postcode lotteries and TTIP. They seem more motivated by anger, and fixated on political totems, than on trying to promote progress within the NHS.'

'The problem with Labour’s campaign to “weaponize” the NHS and turn it into a key political battleground, and its politically motivated and gimmicky manifesto pledges, is that it distracts from the real work that is needed: devolved reforms led by clinicians. We could have yet another 2 year hiatus. The NHS can ill-afford that.'

The kneejerk downvotes on HN are so depressing, especially when they are borne out of ignorance (not you btw, your comment is good).

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#160

Post by arcticbull »

an9n wrote: post #157
pc86 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get me wrong, I think claiming the NHS has been "weaponized by the left" is idiotic, but I don't see how PC expenditures support or refute that point?

I got this terminology straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/12/labour-refu... 'Labour has defended the way it is campaigning on the NHS – but once again refused to confirm that Ed Miliband told the BBC that he wanted to “weaponise” the NHS in the election campaign.' 'The spokesman said: “I am not going to talk about words used in private conversations. They should not be shar…

What on earth kind of weapon is it? It's a nonsense statement.
Post reply on HN