341–350 of 595 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Driving with headphones is forbidden where I am. And at minimum you need to be able to hear a carhorn.
Are deaf people forbidden to drive where you are?
Deaf people still are unable to properly hear so are more unsafe when driving. They're legally allowed to do so because of deaf people lobbying legislators to force them to be allowed to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Biden recorder the most votes in history, while winning the fewest counties. That's a head scratcher. Why is that a head scratcher? 40% the us population lives in just 100 counties (of 3000)
The stacking of improbabilities is a head scratcher. 12 million vote increase over Obama with 300+ fewer counties. Must be wildly more popular. Yet was losing the nomination of his own party. Can't 10k views on youtube, but somehow more black people turned out to vote for him in Detroit than Obama. I, like 40%+ of Americans have doubts about this Election.
Counties are a meaningless, nonuninform unit, and even if they were the exact same counties minus 300, so what? That just means bigger margins in the counties he won, which would be consistent with greater regional polarization.
> Yet was losing the nomination of his own party.
Biden was the clear winner much sooner in the process than Obama was.
> more black people turned out to vote for him in Detroit than Obama.
Why is it surprising that more black people turned out to vote against Trump than McCain? (That votes in a two-party system are quite often more against the oppoaing major party than really “for” the partt marked is well-known.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This one is particularly prickly because the high cost paid in the US funds medical R&D and extremely expensive clinical trials which other countries are free riding on by imposing price controls. We still need to fund the R&D and clinical trials (unless they could be made less expensive somehow), so the most obvious solution would be to have other countries pay their fair share so the US could stop subsidizing every…
Pharmaceutical companies spend even more on advertising than on R&D and still highly profitable though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're literally saying is: instead of ending predatory pricing, enforce it for the rest of the world. Here's a novel idea: cut military spending in half, and you can provide all the free medicine to all Americans for the rest of their lives. All the while making the world a safer place.
Are you aware that the US government already spends far more on health care than it does on the military? Half the US defense budget is no where near the amount spent on healthcare in the private sector.
Healthcare:
The federal government spent nearly $1.2 trillion in fiscal year 2019. In addition, income tax expenditures for health care totaled $234 billion.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-much-does-...
Defense:
Defense spending amounted to $714 billion in FY 2020—and is expected to increase to $733 billion in FY 2021.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hospital you end up in is not a free market and usually it's not even a choice. Anyone who who gets in a car accident, falls off a roof, has a heart attack will be lucky to still be conscious when the ambulance picks them up, much less in a state of mind to be considering the relative merits.
Yet emergency care is relatively small portion of health care costs - so maybe deal with that last. It'd be hard for hospitals to make the case that emergency care is substantially more costly than similar procedures they offer.
There was a thread here a while back about something like an emergency-mode uber for replacing ambulances for most ER trips. Something similar might also be done for shopping for cheaper urgent care too perhaps. Say a clinic that is open late and will check out your scary rash/cough/pain without charging so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This one is particularly prickly because the high cost paid in the US funds medical R&D and extremely expensive clinical trials which other countries are free riding on by imposing price controls. We still need to fund the R&D and clinical trials (unless they could be made less expensive somehow), so the most obvious solution would be to have other countries pay their fair share so the US could stop subsidizing every…
Pharmaceutical companies spend even more on advertising than on R&D and still highly profitable though.
According to the CBO pharma R&D was $83 billion in 2019.
References:
https://www.fiercepharma.com/special-report/top-10-ad-spende...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the plural of anecdote is data, when the ACA was first rolled out, someone close to me discovered they had colon cancer. They had been having symptoms for quite some time, but had been managing them with home treatment, the first day the had insurance they went to get it checked out. Lucky they did, as devastating as it was (and continues to be, turns out your chemo is brutal and having large sections of your colo…
Counterintuitive as it may be, the Oregon Experiment showed increased costs. It did show an improvement is psychological outcomes, I presume due to peace of mind, because their wasn’t a corresponding increase in psychiatric medication.
How about Big Telecom and Big Fintech and Banking? Or is it simply because the rest did not pay enough to the lobbyists?
https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-r...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also a third issue: The high cost of medicines that are low cost to produce, and are sold at low cost elsewhere
This one is particularly prickly because the high cost paid in the US funds medical R&D and extremely expensive clinical trials which other countries are free riding on by imposing price controls. We still need to fund the R&D and clinical trials (unless they could be made less expensive somehow), so the most obvious solution would be to have other countries pay their fair share so the US could stop subsidizing every…
It seems to me that US people have been sold FUD by there own pharma companies, if I’m honest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This one is particularly prickly because the high cost paid in the US funds medical R&D and extremely expensive clinical trials which other countries are free riding on by imposing price controls. We still need to fund the R&D and clinical trials (unless they could be made less expensive somehow), so the most obvious solution would be to have other countries pay their fair share so the US could stop subsidizing every…
Idk why any politicians arent picking up on foreign price controls as a means of lowering costs in the US. It should be a part of the discussion during any trade talks with Europe.
You really think that nobody outside the US are making drugs? Like no drugs are ever developed in Europe??