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

451–460 of 595 posts

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

#451

Post by madengr »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #426
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Europe does drug R&D and still manages to sell their drugs at a reasonable price to sick people Most novel R&D, in America and Europe, happens in biotech. (“Big” pharma does trials, manufacturing scaling and distribution.) The investment thesis for most of this research does not work without the American market. This doesn’t mean high drug prices are a necessity. Just that the funding needs to be replaced if we wan…

China, and Russia, and other countries, are making big breakthroughs in biotech, but we are hesitant on believing their results--now. They have the advantage of pushing through Clinical trials without much oversight. I am all for strict Clinical trial protocols, but our biotech companies are testing their drugs in countries that don't have strict protocols on safety. I don't get the price increase argument anymore. T…

Well he seems to be doing the opposite.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01/politics/biden-trump-drug-pri...

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

#452

Post by unishark »

iso1210 wrote: post #409
WalterBright wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rise in health care prices at a faster rate than inflation started in 1968, coincidentally with the arrival of Medicare/Medicaid (an attempt to reduce costs).

Health care spending in the US was tracking with countries like Germany, Denmark, Sweden (increasing from 6% of GDP to 8%) throgh the 70s. After 1980 US really took off though. In 1980 US spend 8.2% of GDP, Germany 8.1%, Denmark 8.4% By 1990 US was 11.2%, Germany and Denmark 8% US plataued in 1993 about 12%, lasting until 2000 when it took off again, reaching 16% in 2009, then was mostly flat (slightly reducing) unti…

What are you saying was the cause though? And either way, people still got healthcare and negotiated payments thinking they were close to their deathbeds prior to that era of increase.

Also 1986 was the emergency room mandate, which used Medicare payments as leverage. And of course the obesity epidemic and the low-fat diet (blaming fat for heart disease) started around then. The ACA started in 2010 but phased in over four years.

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

#453

Post by Black101 »

ambicapter wrote: post #265
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I’m not calling you vile. The insurance companies are. Mine is already very intertwined with the hospitals in my area.

I think you misunderstood GP. I don't think he was claiming that the insurance company was literally buying stocks, he is saying his manner of insuring his health is buying hospital stocks (in the hope that their value will go up high enough to pay off any medical procedures he needs in the future).

that is correct

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

#454

Post by bigbizisverywyz »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #361
andyferris wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe does drug R&D and still manages to sell their drugs at a reasonable price to sick people (generally because their governments utilize their buying power for the good of their citizens). It seems to me that US people have been sold FUD by there own pharma companies, if I’m honest.

> Europe does drug R&D and still manages to sell their drugs at a reasonable price to sick people Most novel R&D, in America and Europe, happens in biotech. (“Big” pharma does trials, manufacturing scaling and distribution.) The investment thesis for most of this research does not work without the American market. This doesn’t mean high drug prices are a necessity. Just that the funding needs to be replaced if we wan…

MY understanding (at least in the UK) was that hospitals and universities also do a lot of research (often cutting-edge), and are often the source of innovation. These entities are largely publicly funded.

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

#455

Post by giantg2 »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #433
giantg2 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 fr…

>>the majority of the public want oversight of these sorts of professionals. The majority of the public wants whatever they are lobbied to believe they need. The majority also supports the War on Drugs and criminalizing the sex trade, and for the same reason: fear tactics used to convince them that the mere option of doing an ostensibly harmful activity, is to the detriment of themselves and society at large, even th…

"The majority of the public wants whatever they are lobbied to believe they need."

Ok, can you show me the lobbying that swayed their opinion on this topic then? If they are just gullible like you claim, then do you think these incapable people will have the capacity to choose well after removing license requirements for providers?

"Plenty of medical procedures could be done by nurses and other non-physician medical professionals, yet this entire option is barred to the public."

This is not banned at all. Physician assistants and nurse practitioners exist and can perform some medical procedures/tasks. Even pharmacists. Granted I've personally had some negative experiences with some PAs and try to choose actually physicians for most things.

"There should be a free market, with consenting adults free to choose for themselves who to hire to perform services for them."

That would be nice in many ways, but I can see a downside too. Once someone is found to be incompetent, fraudulent, and harmful, how would they be barred from the profession to prevent the issue from happening to others? Usually things like insurance and bonding are requirements to cover any issues for people in this and other licensed fields.

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

#456

Post by Cthulhu_ »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #301
hyperhopper wrote: post #293

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…

That does not compute though. If prices are lowered, sales volumes will go up because people (and insurance companies) can afford it. I'm no economic, but we've seen time and time again that lowering prices boosts volume sold to the point where eventual profit is much higher.

I mean the government can pitch in via subsidies for medicine R&D if it's really necessary, but honestly the pharma companies are swimming in money, they can afford to funnel money into R&D and pay their taxes instead of pushing it upwards to shareholders and foreign bank accounts.

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

#457

Post by giantg2 »

raspasov wrote: post #268
alisonkisk wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trolling? A hospital has even more lock in than the App Store. They can literally legally lock you in.

At least in the US, that would have to go through a court. I don't think a hospital can force you to stay in.

They mean lock you in to their services only. Once you're in there you're forced to pay for whatever services they provide, which could be a lot in an emergency or if your unconscious. I think they were also referencing the idea that you are forced to pay a high amount for Motrin, when an alternate source would be much cheaper.

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

#458

Post by Cthulhu_ »

hug wrote: post #362
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a 100 year old drug. There are newer formulations that are faster acting, longer lasting, easier to administer, etc. They're newer so they're still under patent so they're a lot more expensive (because the rest of the world makes the US pay to develop the newer formulations). When insurance is paying for it, people prefer the newer formulations. Then, since most people have insurance, there wasn't enough of…

This doesn't pass the smell test. Anyone making the decade-old version of insulin and selling it for 1% of the price would corner a large portion of the market immediately. Anyone without good health insurance, which is a large and increasing part of the population, would immediately jump on the lower priced version. And since when are insurance companies excited to pay for the more expensive drug with limited extra…

^ Exactly this. They can sell the premium version for however much they choose to, but the cheaper one - the affordable, the one that should be given out for free - is simply not available enough, it's being suppressed by the pharma industry in favor of their own premium, expensive product.

I mean what are people else going to do, die? Oh wait.

I don't understand commenters in this thread coming out in defense of pharmacy companies using their monopoly or influence to deny health care to people that need it. It should be considered a criminal offense. It's anti-competitive. I mean with insulin it's a massive hole in the market - why hasn't anyone else been able to jump into that gap and make a killing?

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

#459

Post by m12k »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #361
andyferris wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe does drug R&D and still manages to sell their drugs at a reasonable price to sick people (generally because their governments utilize their buying power for the good of their citizens). It seems to me that US people have been sold FUD by there own pharma companies, if I’m honest.

> Europe does drug R&D and still manages to sell their drugs at a reasonable price to sick people Most novel R&D, in America and Europe, happens in biotech. (“Big” pharma does trials, manufacturing scaling and distribution.) The investment thesis for most of this research does not work without the American market. This doesn’t mean high drug prices are a necessity. Just that the funding needs to be replaced if we wan…

But to be fair, the US pharma sector spends roughly as much on marketing as it does on R&D. And a huge chunk of that R&D budget goes into analogue drugs to either sidestep patents from rivals or maintain profit margins when their own patents expire (they can then use that huge marketing budget to get the newly patented drug to take over for the old one with the nearly-expired patent, despite small or non-existent benefits from a medical perspective). So long story short, there's a pretty good case to be made that public research with somewhere between 1/10th and 1/5th the budget of big pharma is all it takes to match or overtake them in innovation, as measured by actual benefit to the patients.

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

#460

Post by koolba »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #456
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #301

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…

That does not compute though. If prices are lowered, sales volumes will go up because people (and insurance companies) can afford it. I'm no economic, but we've seen time and time again that lowering prices boosts volume sold to the point where eventual profit is much higher. I mean the government can pitch in via subsidies for medicine R&D if it's really necessary, but honestly the pharma companies are swimming in m…

> I'm no economic, but we've seen time and time again that lowering prices boosts volume sold to the point where eventual profit is much higher.

The current system has whoever can afford it pay the high price, whoever can afford less pay a lower price, and whoever can’t pay anything doesn’t pay anything.

Lowering drug costs won’t change the number of people taking drugs. That already based on need. All that changes is the amount of total profits.

The only politically and morally acceptable answer for this is to raise the price of drug costs globally to soften the change in profits.

Post reply on HN