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

561–570 of 595 posts

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

#561

Post by cloverich »

silexia wrote: post #560
H12 wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's fair to characerize this as a symptom of the emplyment/insurance/hospital loop outlined in issue #1 of the original comment. That relationship between those three parties is the root cause of the messed up incentive model responsible for the ridiculously high costs of all products/services in US healthcare; pharma included.

The true root cause of high pharmaceutical costs in the United States is our competition crushing patent system. If we eliminate patents, we open up the market completely to competition. More competition will bring extremely low prices. Innovation will not be harmed as most innovation is done in universities and is government funded, in the private innovation will happen anyways as the first mover advantage in these…

it’s been a long while but i remember it takes ~15 years and 500 million to push a major drug through fda testing. The argument was who would do that if a competitor could just copy it at the end? has that situation changed? What other changes would need to be included with removing patents to alleviate that issue. genuine question, even 10 or more years since i read up on this.

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

#562

Post by NullPrefix »

TearsInTheRain wrote: post #309
alphaoverlord wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are definitely doctors who will space it out if you’re stable or do a phone refill

I think some tech health platforms like Capsule will even have a pharmacist call your doctor for a refill for you.

It means you need to pay your doctor and this company.

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

#563

Post by R0b0t1 »

throwaway4220 wrote: post #514
R0b0t1 wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people in IT related fields aren't at doctor level pay. I suspect the sentiment is from commonly interacting with absolutely useless doctors. There are a lot of them.

I've seen 200k+ salaries as standard here. Look up salaries of primary care physicians. Then add on the 50k+/year MD debt, and any undergrad debt.

That's not a normal range for most of the country doing SWE. If you know where to get that type of job let me know. I've done blind, sent out tons of applications, whatever. Hurts to know I'm potentially screwing myself out of tens of thousands of dollars, but nobody is contacting me back.

My professional contacts have told me I'm doing senior level work but nobody will respond even for positions below that.

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

#564

Post by giantg2 »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #559
giantg2 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

>>Ok, can you show me the lobbying that swayed their opinion on this topic then? I only deduce it happens. I mean the lobbying happens in ordinary conversations like these, where people with a vested interest in gatekeeping argue it's in the public interest. I'm deducing it happens based simply on the incentives that exist for concentrated interests, in the form of insiders, to engage in it. It also manifests as majo…

"I don't see how the absence of licensure would prevent courts from issuing restrictions on individuals found guilty of criminal misconduct."

That might cover fraud, but that doesn't cover incompetence or other harm.

"The government requiring a conviction in court before restricting someone's right to free association is how it should be."

That is one way to look at it, yet is is not how the legal system works today. The courts have determined that licensure is a lawful restriction on association.

"Yes, because people do far more research for personal consumer choices, where their level of knowledge has a substantial personal impact, than for political positions where their level of knowledge has a minimal impact, or minimal likelihood of impact, on their personal life."

It may have a more direct impact, but that does not mean they will have better outcomes. For one, you will be taken to the nearest hospital in an emergency - you have no choice. The important part is "their level of knowledge". Most people do not possess the level of knowledge to evaluate a medical professional and the information given to them by that medical professional. Most people accept it as truth and do not care to do any research on credible sites like PubMed.

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

#565

Post by CryptoPunk »

giantg2 wrote: post #564
CryptoPunk wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Ok, can you show me the lobbying that swayed their opinion on this topic then? I only deduce it happens. I mean the lobbying happens in ordinary conversations like these, where people with a vested interest in gatekeeping argue it's in the public interest. I'm deducing it happens based simply on the incentives that exist for concentrated interests, in the form of insiders, to engage in it. It also manifests as majo…

"I don't see how the absence of licensure would prevent courts from issuing restrictions on individuals found guilty of criminal misconduct." That might cover fraud, but that doesn't cover incompetence or other harm. "The government requiring a conviction in court before restricting someone's right to free association is how it should be." That is one way to look at it, yet is is not how the legal system works today.…

>>That might cover fraud, but that doesn't cover incompetence or other harm.

If someone acts non-fradulently, and honestly conveys their lack of experience, their lack of competency in carrying out the service is no one's fault than the consumer.

>>The courts have determined that licensure is a lawful restriction on association.

I'm arguing this legal framework, not saying that's how it currently is.

>>It may have a more direct impact, but that does not mean they will have better outcomes. For one, you will be taken to the nearest hospital in an emergency - you have no choice.

Only 8% of healthcare spending is on emergency services, which can and should have government involvement to avoid abuse of geography-based monopoly by service providers.

But the remaining ~92% of healthcare spending is made through non-time-sensitive decisions where an individual has plenty of to assess the market options.

>>Most people do not possess the level of knowledge to evaluate a medical professional and the information given to them by that medical professional.

Just as people delegate this analysis to a cadre of politicians in the current monopolistic system, people would be able to delegate analysis to reputable experts in a free market.

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

#566

Post by rayiner »

Worth noting that the Pharma industry, as well as Big Tech and Wall Street, supported Biden. As a Biden supporter I’d like to believe that this is because he’s an old school Democrat and not afraid of biting the hand that feeds him. More cynically, this could be seen as posturing to keep together what is a very weird coalition (Occupy Wall Street and Wall Street under the same tent).

Also maybe relevant: https://ksr.hkspublications.org/2021/05/18/can-conservatism-...

> The best answer, in my view, is that the Republican Party’s remaining connection to the dominant sectors of the American economy occurs through its usefulness as a tool to selectively balance and discipline the members of the Democratic coalition. Big Pharma, for instance, will throw money at the Heritage Foundation to rant against “socialized medicine” whenever talk of the government negotiating drug prices surfaces, but pharma is hardly interested in repealing Obamacare, much less dismantling Medicare. Financial lobbies will rent the Republican Party to ward off troublesome regulations or taxes, but are hardly interested in “sound money” policies or big spending cuts that would derail financial markets, never mind social conservatism. Big Tech will team up with Americans for Prosperity to oppose legislation limiting app store developer fees, all while more aggressively controlling conservative speech online, and so on.

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

#567

Post by _carbyau_ »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #319
wvenable wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2018, the average insulin price in the US was $98.70, compared to $6.94 in Australia, $12.00 in Canada, and $7.52 in the UK. This is a 100 year old drug.

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…

"(because the rest of the world makes the US pay to develop the newer formulations)"

How does the rest of the world make the US do that?!?

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

#568

Post by asdff »

kelnos wrote: post #429
cycomanic wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it fascinating that the HN crowd complains about doctors being too expensive. I mean what is the comparative value that software developers add to society compared to doctors that justify their salaries (which are often on the same level or higher)?

False equivalence. Software developers "charge" companies (that are very much able to pay) for their services. Doctors charge everyone, from the rich to the poor, for their services. The poor (and even not-so-poor) get screwed by this, more often than not. I haven't heard of a bunch of software developers bankrupting people in exchange for their health...

Why is it always "doctors" and not "administrators" in these threads on HN? They don't set the price of the drug. They don't set the price of an ER visit. If their hourly rate seems high, have you seen the hourly rate of a plumber who absolutely did not go to school for ten years?

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

#569

Post by fulafel »

cloverich wrote: post #561
silexia wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The true root cause of high pharmaceutical costs in the United States is our competition crushing patent system. If we eliminate patents, we open up the market completely to competition. More competition will bring extremely low prices. Innovation will not be harmed as most innovation is done in universities and is government funded, in the private innovation will happen anyways as the first mover advantage in these…

it’s been a long while but i remember it takes ~15 years and 500 million to push a major drug through fda testing. The argument was who would do that if a competitor could just copy it at the end? has that situation changed? What other changes would need to be included with removing patents to alleviate that issue. genuine question, even 10 or more years since i read up on this.

Pharma regulators in many countries recognize testing done by selected other countries. It's called "mutual recognition" in the lingo.

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

#570

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Monory wrote: post #510
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To get approval in US and Europe, the trials need to be of the same quality no matter where they are run. Sometimes it may be cheaper in poorer countries because you don't have to pay your volunteers as much. You still need to check all the appropriate boxes regarding informed consent as anywhere else. And, of course, western companies are entirely capable to run trials anywhere in the world. The COVID vaccine trials…

Am Russian, am vaccinated with Sputnik V, would do it again. Yes, the study was rushed and details were missing, but, eventually, all things got in order. And it's a real working vaccine, effects of which I see basically every day on my friends.

> it's a real working vaccine

It is better than nothing. But it’s a far cry from the best vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, and to a lesser degree, AstraZeneca), which protect against novel variants and can produce some level of herd immunity.

Post reply on HN