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

Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

mattstoller.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 595 posts

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#241

Post by t-writescode »

jdlshore wrote: post #211
alasdair_ wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of that is because it’s far cheaper to catch (say) cancer at an early stage and treat it than it is to catch it at stage 3 or 4 and spend potentially millions on a possibly preventable catastrophe. There is fairly strong evidence that if the cost of routine preventative care isn’t paid by insurance, quite a lot of people opt to skip it because they can’t afford it, leading to worse outcomes.

> leading to worse outcomes. Do you have evidence of this part specifically? Because the Oregon Experiment found no improvement in health outcomes in a large randomized trial of low-income recipients of Medicaid. (Partly because their health was generally good in the first place.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experim...

It’s the entire model to Kaiser Permanente, so it’s working for someone.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#242

Post by throwaway5752 »

giantg2 wrote: post #152
throwaway5752 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed? Patents are being misused. We should fix that. Patents fixed gross injustices when they were created, and we shouldn't forget that, either. Software is probably the worst example of a field for patents and I think the case for patenting algorithms or design is dicey. But if you sink 100M into drug R&D, a novel type of medical device, or a new type of semiconductor CVD process you should have some protection a…

Drug companies spend more on marketing than on R&D. Much of the research is done with grants and government money. The vast majority of medical devices use the 510K process for approval, which means they are substantially similar to existing device (to bypass testing). Sure some protection is necessary. You could make it based on development costs and have much shorter times for things that were cheap to do. "maybe t…

Drug companies are just similar to software in that regard. They acquire a bunch of companies that do basic R&D and get drug pipelines. Those founders get rich because they have patent protection. Just look at biosimilars for a taste of what might happen without patent protections.

I am more familiar with the 510(k) that most people are. It bypasses some testing, but there is still a fair amount of work. It has nothing to do with R&D expenditures that may or may not be behind an submission.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#243

Post by cirrus3 »

Black101 wrote: post #201
the-dude wrote: post #10

> hospital price transparency, Wasn't this already put in place by the previous administration?

yes... One of the good things Trump did

no one took or will take that chump b*itch seriously

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#244

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #221

Is he really in a position to keep doing this? Biden recorder the most votes in history, while winning the fewest counties. That's a head scratcher. The fact remains most of the geographic area of the country voted red. If he keeps this up, states are going to start ignoring his executive orders. That's not how democracy is supposed to work. Laws get passed by legislature, not by dictate of the King.

> Biden recorder the most votes in history, while winning the fewest counties.

Say what now? That doesn’t seem right.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#245

Post by tyre »

josh_today wrote: post #237

Executive orders were a constant theme of the previous administration. It was the first time that I’ve really heard about them consistently as a presidential technique and similarly as much in the media. The lower executive order numbers from the previous 2 administrations before made me think that these were tools used for media attention when I kept hearing about them. Now the current administration is using them (…

Really? They were a huge topic of conversation when W was president and then again for obama.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#246

Post by jimbob45 »

josh_today wrote: post #237

Executive orders were a constant theme of the previous administration. It was the first time that I’ve really heard about them consistently as a presidential technique and similarly as much in the media. The lower executive order numbers from the previous 2 administrations before made me think that these were tools used for media attention when I kept hearing about them. Now the current administration is using them (…

Obama dwarfed Trump’s number of EOs. Bush Jr. and Clinton were extremely high as well. This seems to be a response to congressional stonewalling (with varying outcomes).

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-or...

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#247

Post by throwaway5752 »

Notanothertoo wrote: post #135
throwaway5752 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not great before patents when a big company could steal your work and put you out of business after you put in the R&D effort.

As someone who started a business only to get a bullshit suit that I was unable to afford by one of the largest re insurance providers in the world (#1/2), the idea that the ip/patent legal framework as it is today helps the little guy is a slap in the face. They preemptively sued me in a state I've never worked in or entered for that matter because the favorable corporate law there, and that is why they have their h…

If you tossed out the patent system, would you get any less screwed? Or just screwed in a different way, or worse?

I really don't know. Your experience is awful and clearly unjust and an abuse of the system. You didn't mention Texas, but I'm guessing Texas. What happens there is a national disgrace.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#248

Post by to11mtm »

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #173
revscat wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure what your point is. These contracts between seller and merchant were voluntary. There are other hospitals available should you choose, and if not then you have no one to blame but yourself.

I’ve actually tried to “shop around” for hospitals and it’s basically impossible. Just about everything is hidden behind some barrier and there’s just no way to effectively compare prices. Additionally, you really have no idea what products or services you’ll end up receiving while at the hospital. Most importantly, ALL of this planning and sense of choice goes out the window when you have a true emergency. When that…

> Most importantly, ALL of this planning and sense of choice goes out the window when you have a true emergency. When that happens all that matters is getting to an ER, fast.

Yep. I was a victim of this in the -worst- way. 11 years ago I was hospitalized, and it 'just so happened' that the only doctor that would take me while I was admitted was out of network.

BCBS of Michigan in fact later settled out of court in a class action over this behavior, although the 50 or 100$ I would have gotten certainly did not make up for the hundreds of dollars that the out of network provider cost me.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#249

Post by giantg2 »

renewiltord wrote: post #178
giantg2 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what was the legislation? How was it monopolistic in favor of physicians? The AMA does not really represent physicians. Less than 1/4 of doctors belong to the AMA. Many of them do not feel the AMA represents them. The AMA also accepts substantial donations from other sources, including corporate donors and foundations. https://www.physiciansweekly.com/is-the-ama-really-the-voice...

The lobbying to: A. Limit medical care to being provided by these people B. Limit number of residencies

"Limit medical care to being provided by these people"

Who else would provide this care? This licensure is similar to other professions, like lawyers, and really doesn't take very much lobbying since the majority of the public want oversight of these sorts of professionals.

Residencies simply haven't kept pace with medical student numbers. They have gone up though. The main question is "where does the funding come from for residency training?". Medicare provides most of that funding, but that is a constrained resource. I find it hard to believe that the AMA lobbied for this provision.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#250

Post by WillPostForFood »

t-writescode wrote: post #241
jdlshore wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> leading to worse outcomes. Do you have evidence of this part specifically? Because the Oregon Experiment found no improvement in health outcomes in a large randomized trial of low-income recipients of Medicaid. (Partly because their health was generally good in the first place.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experim...

It’s the entire model to Kaiser Permanente, so it’s working for someone.

It’s the entire model

It is part of large complicated model. If it was their entire model they wouldn't be operating medical offices and hospitals. It is the whole package that helps them control costs.

Post reply on HN