Originally posted by: rudder
Tort reform would help.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rudder
Tort reform would help.
That's a diversionary argument to blame the lawyers. If you think the drug or healthcare industry would pass the lawsuit savings to the consumers, you are illusional. Their goal is clearly to charge as much as the market will support, nothing to do with expenses.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rudder
Tort reform would help.
That's a diversionary argument to blame the lawyers. If you think the drug or healthcare industry would pass the lawsuit savings to the consumers, you are illusional. Their goal is clearly to charge as much as the market will support, nothing to do with expenses.
Originally posted by: amok
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rudder
Tort reform would help.
That's a diversionary argument to blame the lawyers. If you think the drug or healthcare industry would pass the lawsuit savings to the consumers, you are illusional. Their goal is clearly to charge as much as the market will support, nothing to do with expenses.
Of course that's their goal, its the goal of any business. Tort reform, however, would decrease the cost of being in the insurance business, and some companies would take advantage of that and try to gain marketshare by bringing reasonable prices to the table. After bleeding off some customers, the older established companies would also lower their prices to stay competitive. Its the way deregulated business works, as long as you can keep the big companies from gobbling up all the small fries.
Originally posted by: Spencer278
When are people going to realizes that health insurances cost more then being uninsured and pay for what you get in most cases.
Originally posted by: Spencer278
When are people going to realizes that health insurances cost more then being uninsured and pay for what you get in most cases.
I wonder what the revocation of the special patent exemption that drug companies currently receive would do to the price of drugs?
Originally posted by: glenn1
I wonder what the revocation of the special patent exemption that drug companies currently receive would do to the price of drugs?
It would of course bring the price down. The only problem is, the current drugs would be the last ones you'd ever be able to slap price controls on, since there wouldn't be any new ones to come along after to price control. Without IP protection the pharmaceutical companies would stop bothering to put R&D money into developing new drugs. Why would you spend a billion dollars or more developing the cure for (insert disease here) if you didn't have exclusive sales rights to the formula to recover your costs? Putting price controls on drugs would be tantamount to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
They might not stop making drugs, but they would stop making costly new drugs. The reason that drugs are so expensive here is because of the price limits set everywhere else. Its the only place where these companies can recoup massive R&D costs (and massive advertising costs ).Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: glenn1
I wonder what the revocation of the special patent exemption that drug companies currently receive would do to the price of drugs?
It would of course bring the price down. The only problem is, the current drugs would be the last ones you'd ever be able to slap price controls on, since there wouldn't be any new ones to come along after to price control. Without IP protection the pharmaceutical companies would stop bothering to put R&D money into developing new drugs. Why would you spend a billion dollars or more developing the cure for (insert disease here) if you didn't have exclusive sales rights to the formula to recover your costs? Putting price controls on drugs would be tantamount to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I disagree. Price controls exist worldwide. Not here though. The auto industry didn't stop making cars when safety requirements were added, although it acted like it would. Yes, drug companies can stop making drugs. and Ford can stop making cars. Wouldn't be very good for business.
Originally posted by: amok
They might not stop making drugs, but they would stop making costly new drugs. The reason that drugs are so expensive here is because of the price limits set everywhere else. Its the only place where these companies can recoup massive R&D costs (and massive advertising costs ).Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: glenn1
I wonder what the revocation of the special patent exemption that drug companies currently receive would do to the price of drugs?
It would of course bring the price down. The only problem is, the current drugs would be the last ones you'd ever be able to slap price controls on, since there wouldn't be any new ones to come along after to price control. Without IP protection the pharmaceutical companies would stop bothering to put R&D money into developing new drugs. Why would you spend a billion dollars or more developing the cure for (insert disease here) if you didn't have exclusive sales rights to the formula to recover your costs? Putting price controls on drugs would be tantamount to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I disagree. Price controls exist worldwide. Not here though. The auto industry didn't stop making cars when safety requirements were added, although it acted like it would. Yes, drug companies can stop making drugs. and Ford can stop making cars. Wouldn't be very good for business.
As for your analogy, it kindof sucks. Did they demand that Ford lower the price of their cars along with adding those safety features? Does it take them 5-6 years of designing and testing each new car's safety features?
True and false . . . for instance few countries in the world perform half the number of Caesarian sections as the US and there's currently a vigorous debate about the utility of the majority of hysterectomies. To a certain extent, insurance rates reflect risk . . . neurosurgery cannot avoid the risk of opening up the cranium b/c it's called neurosurgery. Unnecessary surgery in OB/GYN is a legitimate issue that will not be addressed at all by tort reform.I will try to find a link, but I was reading an article about malpractice insurance. One specialty, obstetrics, has been hit hard by cost of malpractice insurance. Obsetrics is only second to neurosurgery in the cost of malpractice insurance. This is causing many physicians to drop the ob from their ob/gyn practice. I am not necessarily blaming the lawyers for this problem, but if some type of limits were placed on lawsuits you would not have so many physicians running scared. In the case of OB either the cost having having a baby delivered in a hospital will skyrocket or people will have to start finding midwives. I think in some cases like this, tort reform would help the consumer.
You shouldn't overburden the old farts. Neonatology has ushered in an era where the first year and last year consume a huge amount of our finite healthcare resources.You are correct, if you talk about a young person. Basically medical insurance subsidizes healthcare for older people. You typically will spend 90% of healthcare costs on the last 10% of your life.
Your argument makes sense but alas does not reflect reality. BigPharma is putting relatively little money into "new" drugs. NIH provides the vast majority of funding which goes into the true exploration of new frontiers. Various academic spinoffs or collaboration with Biotechs and BigPharma takes over in the case of promising therapies. The great expense of drug development comes from clinical trials. Despite the lies told by BigPharma even large chunks of the clinical research is now federally-funded.It would of course bring the price down. The only problem is, the current drugs would be the last ones you'd ever be able to slap price controls on, since there wouldn't be any new ones to come along after to price control. Without IP protection the pharmaceutical companies would stop bothering to put R&D money into developing new drugs. Why would you spend a billion dollars or more developing the cure for (insert disease here) if you didn't have exclusive sales rights to the formula to recover your costs? Putting price controls on drugs would be tantamount to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.