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

541–550 of 595 posts

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

#541

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

koheripbal wrote: post #260
fallingknife wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a medical condition with no cure, yet I still have to pay a doctor every 6 months to keep my prescription with no changes. Total racket.

Having a doctor verify that you're not having any issues with your prescription medication is pretty normal. Maybe you can find someone that'll do telehealth.

I take a medication for a rest-of-your-life condition I've had since childhood. The simple blood test used to calibrate dosing is about $10 in saner countries. In order to get the blood drawn and tested it costs me >$100 out of pocket and I also have to see a doctor for a half hour ($250) before they'll update my prescription, regardless of if there is any change. This is with insurance, and must happen every 2 years or so. Medication cost is $10/mo or so.

This is completely ridiculous, and yet my situation is downright reasonable compared to what a lot of people have to deal with.

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

#542

Post by l33t2328 »

VictorPath wrote: post #536
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't, so I went and looked it up and you were right from what I found - 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. http…

> Defense spending amounted to $714 billion in FY 2020—and is expected to increase to $733 billion in FY 2021. A soldier whose leg was blown up in Afghanistan and is still in a hospital - is not part of that $714-733 billion. So the US military budget is only that low if your definition of "defense" spending does not cover that. The reality is the US spends over one trillion a year in military spending. Your own link…

> A soldier whose leg was blown up in Afghanistan and is still in a hospital - is not part of that $714-733 billion.

Where are you getting that? From here https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF11442.pdf and the link in the comment you responded to it seems that it is only about 80 billion.

Even if you add that to the 700 billion figure for the military, and add 200 billion for the entire VA, Medicare and Medicade alone account for well over a trillion dollars, and that’s not even the majority of healthcare expenses in the US.

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

#543

Post by SamuelAdams »

the_third_wave wrote: post #106
toomuchtodo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bose’s hearing aids were recently approved by the FDA, and they’re only $850. The APM Marketplace program recently covered this development and the hearing aid monopoly. The sky isn’t going to fall. https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444600/marketplace https://www.bose.com/en_us/products/headphones/earbuds/sound...

> Bose’s hearing aids were recently approved by the FDA, and they’re only $850. Only $850? That is a new use of the word only as far as I'm concerned. These things, which are in many ways similar to if not identical with bluetooth earbuds should not cost more than those - and given the fact that Apple managed to convince people that $200 is a normal price for these things that should leave more than enough margin for…

Hi, I wear hearing aids full time and have been wearing them all my life. They are not identical to Bluetooth earbuds. The sound is completely different. Hearing aids need to be able to be adjusted to the wearer’s particular hearing loss. For example I need more amplification on high frequency pitches and less amplification on lower pitches.

Good hearing aids are also environmentally aware. They will adjust the amplification to be different in a car, bus, and quiet conference room. Cheap hearing aids rarely do this well. There is a very drastic difference between 800 dollar hearing aids and 10,000 aids. Trust me, I’ve tried both of them.

At best these Bluetooth headphones / earbuds you mention can just make all noises louder, across all environments. That helps a bit but it is not the same as what a good pair of hearing aids can do today.

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

#544

Post by fma »

eganp wrote: post #324
fma wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard they're fed up w/ insurance, billing...but the few times I've asked "hey what if I pay cash, not through insurance, is it cheaper?" (I knew I wont meet deductible...) It was actually more expensive. I've stopped asking and feel it's a urban myth.

The list price will nearly always be a multiple of your cost with insurance. The issue here is that insurers have provisions in their network contracts that prevent providers from publically advertising lower prices than what's charged to the insurer, which mandates discounting. In many other industries, these most favored nation arrangements are considered anti-competitive and, thus, illegal. Large hospital systems…

Good to know! Dang 40% is a lot but I believe it hah!

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

#545

Post by bryanrasmussen »

VictorPath wrote: post #536
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't, so I went and looked it up and you were right from what I found - 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. http…

> Defense spending amounted to $714 billion in FY 2020—and is expected to increase to $733 billion in FY 2021. A soldier whose leg was blown up in Afghanistan and is still in a hospital - is not part of that $714-733 billion. So the US military budget is only that low if your definition of "defense" spending does not cover that. The reality is the US spends over one trillion a year in military spending. Your own link…

>A soldier whose leg was blown up in Afghanistan and is still in a hospital - is not part of that $714-733 billion.

first off I thought it was clear from my comment that I had not believed the original comment that healthcare was greater than defense spending, but some initial investigation seems to confirm it.

The reason that I had not believed it was that I thought there was an ideological axe to grind behind the statement, so I was surprised.

It seems to me that you maybe are thinking the same thing about me, that is to say I have an ideological axe to grind proving that U.S defense spending is not that high. If so a quick examination of my posting history and the posts here should dissuade you of this.

As far as your argument - I agree the medical costs of the soldier still in the hospital should probably be counted in defense costs somehow but not sure how you would do it as I do not believe a veteran out in the job market working 9-5 and going to the VA for some medical costs should be counted as defense spending. Thus I don't think it is possible to just move all the costs of the VA over and get any fairer an accounting than one has now.

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

#546

Post by bryanrasmussen »

l33t2328 wrote: post #476
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

although I guess it is true the U.S could cut defense spending less than in half and pay 234 billion for everyone, so the original comment isn't totally off.

That’s not accounting private insurance, which is more than a trillion per year[1] [1] https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Sta...

thanks! didn't know that.

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

#547

Post by bryanrasmussen »

l33t2328 wrote: post #542
VictorPath wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Defense spending amounted to $714 billion in FY 2020—and is expected to increase to $733 billion in FY 2021. A soldier whose leg was blown up in Afghanistan and is still in a hospital - is not part of that $714-733 billion. So the US military budget is only that low if your definition of "defense" spending does not cover that. The reality is the US spends over one trillion a year in military spending. Your own link…

> A soldier whose leg was blown up in Afghanistan and is still in a hospital - is not part of that $714-733 billion. Where are you getting that? From here https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF11442.pdf and the link in the comment you responded to it seems that it is only about 80 billion. Even if you add that to the 700 billion figure for the military, and add 200 billion for the entire VA, Medicare and Medicade alone ac…

>Medicare and Medicade alone account for well over a trillion dollars,

damn, right again. That sure is a mind blowing situation the U.S is in.

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Sta...

Medicare spending grew 6.7% to $799.4 billion in 2019, or 21 percent of total NHE.

Medicaid spending grew 2.9% to $613.5 billion in 2019, or 16 percent of total NHE.

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

#548

Post by giantg2 »

long_time_gone wrote: post #537
giantg2 wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then show me a source.

I showed you a source earlier in the thread and you didn't respond. It is the website of AMA, where they celebrate their success in lobbying against any bill that would allow other professionals expanded capabilities. "For over 30 years, the AMA’s state and federal advocacy efforts have safeguarded the practice of medicine by opposing nurse practitioner (NP) and other nonphysician professional attempts to inappropria…

Ah, that prior comment is dead.

So this is a source just saying they oppose inappropriate expansion. That they want PAs and NPs to practice as part of a team that includes a physician. I don't really see this as an issue. I also see PAs, NPs, and nurses as falling into the medical profession and subject to licensing, etc. So I see them as being on the inside of the system, not one of the "other people".

What I was specifically looking for was a source about the second part of this thread - the restriction of residency by the AMA.

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

#549

Post by whoooooo123 »

hyperhopper wrote: post #293
Sophistifunk wrote: post #289

"Big Pharma" in the eyes of the public is two related but separate issues; 1) the weird employment-insurance-hospital loop that has developed in the US, and the terrible second-order-consequences of all the open-high/settle-low insurer carer system it led to, and 2) the medicine advertisements, and all the terrible consequences thereof. The second one seems like a much easier thing to get rid of using hard government…

There is also a third issue: The high cost of medicines that are low cost to produce, and are sold at low cost elsewhere

As a non-American, this is the only thing I think of when the prompt is "Big Pharma", and OP's original two points went right past me.

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

#550

Post by frenchy »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #527
m12k wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ben…

> But to be fair, the US pharma sector spends roughly as much on marketing as it does on R&D. Spending money on marketing lowers prices by increasing volumes. If you spend a billion dollars on R&D and then spend nothing on marketing and sell to 200,000 customers, they would each have to pay $5000 to fund the R&D. If you spend a billion dollars on R&D and two billion dollars on marketing and sell to a million customer…

> Spending money on marketing lowers prices by increasing volumes.

That explains why they do it, but not why it's useful to the public. Marketing isn't necessarily a zero sum game, but it in the case of direct-to-consumer drug advertisments, it's pretty close.

Post reply on HN