Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Gumbel2Gumbel
Apr 28, 2010

It was the least bad option that could have got passed ie it slowed but not stopped the rates at which premiums were riding. Healthcare still sucks.

We could have had single payer like a sane country but Lieberman scuttled it.

No pre-existing conditions clause was worth it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gumbel2Gumbel
Apr 28, 2010

Ein cooler Typ posted:

How else do you expect the pharmaceutical money to recoup their money from R&D if there's so few cases of this rare disease

it makes economic sense to charge a lot for cures to rarer diseases

According to BBC News, in 2013 pharmaceutical companies enjoyed higher average profit margins than carmakers, oil and gas companies and media companies. Only banks had a profit margin comparable to Big Pharma, but Pfizer’s 42% profit margin blew every other company out of the water, prompting even a member of its own industry to say, “I wouldn’t be able to justify [those types of margins].”

Gumbel2Gumbel
Apr 28, 2010

Gumbel2Gumbel posted:

According to BBC News, in 2013 pharmaceutical companies enjoyed higher average profit margins than carmakers, oil and gas companies and media companies. Only banks had a profit margin comparable to Big Pharma, but Pfizer’s 42% profit margin blew every other company out of the water, prompting even a member of its own industry to say, “I wouldn’t be able to justify [those types of margins].”

Also, profit margin is not markup so it gets worse than that. To get a profit margin of 42% the markup multiplier is 72.41%.

So on a cost of a billion dollars they make 724 million in profit.

Not sure why I quoted my own post instead of editing, too much coffee I guess.

Gumbel2Gumbel
Apr 28, 2010

Otto Von Jizzmark posted:

Im glad there are companies investing in cures for rare diseases at all. Even if they are lining their pockets. Greed is powering something positive.

Better to be poor and alive than dead.

It's the goal of most businesses to make as much money as possible, it's the job of the government to regulate it.

Gumbel2Gumbel
Apr 28, 2010

Who What Now posted:

Oh no, the poor destitute drug companies are only making hundreds of millions and not billions!

That wasn't his point at all, his point is that they spend comparatively little on research and more on convincing doctors, nurses, administrators, and everyone in the US that you should be on things like statins despite relatively tiny benefits.

Gumbel2Gumbel
Apr 28, 2010

Who What Now posted:

If that's true then I'll rescind my comment.

It still reads to me that he's saying their profit margins are even lower if you account for R&D tho.

Profit margins take both those into account.

Gumbel2Gumbel
Apr 28, 2010

comedyblissoption posted:

drug companies are not just charging high prices for rare drugs for rare diseases that only 5 people get a year

they're skyrocketing the price of insulin as well and americans are literally dying because they can't afford it [thanks obama]
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insulin-prices-skyrocket-putting-many-diabetics-in-a-bind/

:capitalism:

They made tweaks to the formula and used a lot of that budget to make doctors prescribe the expensive one.

Gumbel2Gumbel
Apr 28, 2010

Plucky Brit posted:

Oh I'd never claim it was similar; it was more to illustrate how absurd the expenses are for US healthcare. I just wanted to correct the misconception that Britain has the NHS and nothing else; while most people use the NHS, private healthcare is still an option. It is also extremely cheap in comparison, though that's helped by the fact that most high cost procedures are done on the NHS.

Edit:


?!?!

Are you seriously telling me that if your child has broken their arm, the first action is to call your insurance rather than taking them to hospital?!

I'm not criticising your parenting skills, you're obviously looking after the interests of your family, but what a loving awful system.

Lol yeah it loving sucks, you can have issues like the lab inside the hospital or the medical facility will not be covered so if you get bloodwork done for your Dr's visit you're on the hook for like $10k

Gumbel2Gumbel
Apr 28, 2010

Plucky Brit posted:

Fair enough. Genuine question: If your kid's ankle gets quite obviously broken (for the sake of argument a compound fracture) would you do the same thing and call insurance before calling an ambulance?

Yeah, but you'd pretend to not believe them first so no one thinks you're cheap

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gumbel2Gumbel
Apr 28, 2010

Otto Von Jizzmark posted:

I dont mind the health care system. You take out some of your pretax paycheck for an HSA. Even with a 3000$ deductable or whatever your better off than one of those liberal soyboy european countries and their high taxes.

Itt I learned you don't know what coinsurance means

  • Locked thread