details of bernie's "medicare for all" plan released

[JSt0rm]

Check your facts, NIH does virtually nothing when it comes to orphan treatments beyond some basic funding which then is turned over to the companies to actually take production forward.

And love it how you liberals are all for innovation and progress except when it comes at a cost that is counter to a progressive agenda.

Like I said, if companies can't make money to fund R&D and turn a profit why would they put the effort in?

Read up...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/

"The cost of developing a new drug has been estimated to be more than $1 billion. Development of this scale involves multiple financing mechanisms, as well as the involvement of numerous partners throughout the process"

"While basic discovery research is funded primarily by government and by philanthropic organizations, late-stage development is funded mainly by pharmaceutical companies or venture capitalists. "

How does any of that contradict my statement? The companies let the nhi do the real work of casting wide nets with lots of failures and then pick up the bread crumbs of viable things. So it costs them a billion? And? Are you saying if they dont make 15 billion off that drug that they wont do it? I dont think so.

 

[JSt0rm]

I could make ketchup, without a license.

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/232397/homemade-ketchup/

go ahead. Nobody is stopping you.

 

[compuwiz1]

We have a lazy segment of society that won't get off their asses and produce for themselves. That is what I hate about the current system....that it enables people to be lazy government leeches. The welfare state system is enabling, not empowering. I was raised to be ashamed of relying on the government to provide things I should work for. I still believe I should work for everything and every benefit, including health care. Only when I am physically unable, would I believe in such a program and that is what the system should be for, not used for wealth distribution, stealing from the haves, to give to the able, but lazy. Being dependent on the government is just something some folks do.

 

[JSt0rm]

capitalism has winners and losers. It has to have them to be capitalism. What do you suggest we do with our "losers"? Let them starve? Ask the french royalty how that worked out for them.

 

[Grooveriding]

Check your facts, NIH does virtually nothing when it comes to orphan treatments beyond some basic funding which then is turned over to the companies to actually take production forward.

And love it how you liberals are all for innovation and progress except when it comes at a cost that is counter to a progressive agenda.

Like I said, if companies can't make money to fund R&D and turn a profit why would they put the effort in?

Read up...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/

"The cost of developing a new drug has been estimated to be more than $1 billion. Development of this scale involves multiple financing mechanisms, as well as the involvement of numerous partners throughout the process"

"While basic discovery research is funded primarily by government and by philanthropic organizations, late-stage development is funded mainly by pharmaceutical companies or venture capitalists. "

I'm not sure what your argument is here, it seems you're referring to drug development and the pharmaceutical industry ? I haven't read the plan mentioned in this thread, but countries with universal health care are not nationalizing the drug industry, generally they are not even covering pharmaceuticals. Pharma is doing just fine, they're one of the most profitable industries in the world, and will continue to be so even if the US goes sane on healthcare like everyone else has. Drug development costs are actually higher than a billion in many cases. My father worked in R&D for one of the largest pharma companies, they're already ignoring a lot of beneficial drug research and have been for a long time now. Not because of universal care, but because they are focused on profits, and the profits come from drugs you take long-term like Lipitor or the latest pill to help you 'manage' your stress. Many of the drugs you really need are short-term therapies, ie. antibiotics. Short term = less ROI.

The facts on the ground are that the US spends more money per capita than any other nation in the world on healthcare, this without having a universal system, and delivers a lower standard of care on a per capita basis than a long list of other first world nations. Your healthcare system is a disaster and this is held up by the numbers. The point can be argued and cries of socialism! can be used, but in the end, the numbers hold up that it's a failure for all but those profiting from it. How do people miss that socialized systems are in every government and you benefit from them every day; law enforcement, roads, sanitation, military etc. etc. The US has significant examples of socialism, more so than many other nations, just look at the financial bailout of some of the richest people in the country. Huge act of socialism, nationalized the financial institution's debt, why not health care ?

Now, as far as R&D apart from pharma, universal care is no impediment. I'm a physician and work in several hospitals here and there are large groups in all of them doing research. Cancer, new surgical procedures, HIV, diagnostics, Alzheimer's, transplants. Just off the top of my head. Research is part of the system and does not grind to a halt under a universal care system. It gets funded and it happens. The US should see more research without the waste that it currently has in what is the most inefficient healthcare system in the world, that does not even provide universal care.

I think it's a psychology and problem on one hand, with the notion of healthcare not deserving to fit into the socialized systems bubble currently in the US and secondly it's simply the industries interests are more important to the government than the welfare of its citizens. I don't see the US ever achieving a proper universal care system accounting for the majority of coverage like we have in Canada. But I could see a good two tier system implemented that functions well, best case with a 50/50 split.

 

[theeedude]

Just do it already. I mean the private health insurance system has discredited itself thoroughly, and it's only heading downhill. When you hear shit like "a physical is preventative care, but any issues you bring up will be billed separately," you know the system is messed up beyond repair. Not to mention raw metric, spending twice as much as our global competitors for worse outcomes.

 

[bozack]

How does any of that contradict my statement? The companies let the nhi do the real work of casting wide nets with lots of failures and then pick up the bread crumbs of viable things. So it costs them a billion? And? Are you saying if they dont make 15 billion off that drug that they wont do it? I dont think so.

the NIH doesn't do the "real work" as you put it as this is done by companies with some NIH and other grant funding....and again that is only some, and it costs many/most companies many billions of dollars to bring a new product to market.

I am saying if they are only going to make a fixed amount off of that drug and if it is a relative low amount, which is most likely will have to be, then companies will not put as much effort as they do now

Ultimately it doesn't matter as I get the sense most folks think companies which work in this space should do it as a public service, and that everything should cost as much as a generic.

I'm not sure what your argument is here, it seems you're referring to drug development and the pharmaceutical industry ? I haven't read the plan mentioned in this thread, but countries with universal health care are not nationalizing the drug industry, generally they are not even covering pharmaceuticals. Pharma is doing just fine, they're one of the most profitable industries in the world, and will continue to be so even if the US goes sane on healthcare like everyone else has. Drug development costs are actually higher than a billion in many cases. My father worked in R&D for one of the largest pharma companies, they're already ignoring a lot of beneficial drug research and have been for a long time now. Not because of universal care, but because they are focused on profits, and the profits come from drugs you take long-term like Lipitor or the latest pill to help you 'manage' your stress. Many of the drugs you really need are short-term therapies, ie. antibiotics. Short term = less ROI.

The facts on the ground are that the US spends more money per capita than any other nation in the world on healthcare, this without having a universal system, and delivers a lower standard of care on a per capita basis than a long list of other first world nations. Your healthcare system is a disaster and this is held up by the numbers. The point can be argued and cries of socialism! can be used, but in the end, the numbers hold up that it's a failure for all but those profiting from it. How do people miss that socialized systems are in every government and you benefit from them every day; law enforcement, roads, sanitation, military etc. etc. The US has significant examples of socialism, more so than many other nations, just look at the financial bailout of some of the richest people in the country. Huge act of socialism, nationalized the financial institution's debt, why not health care ?

Now, as far as R&D apart from pharma, universal care is no impediment. I'm a physician and work in several hospitals here and there are large groups in all of them doing research. Cancer, new surgical procedures, HIV, diagnostics, Alzheimer's, transplants. Just off the top of my head. Research is part of the system and does not grind to a halt under a universal care system. It gets funded and it happens. The US should see more research without the waste that it currently has in what is the most inefficient healthcare system in the world, that does not even provide universal care.

I think it's a psychology and problem on one hand, with the notion of healthcare not deserving to fit into the socialized systems bubble currently in the US and secondly it's simply the industries interests are more important to the government than the welfare of its citizens. I don't see the US ever achieving a proper universal care system accounting for the majority of coverage like we have in Canada. But I could see a good two tier system implemented that functions well, best case with a 50/50 split.

I am not suggesting they are planning on nationalizing the drug industry, and please clarify "pharma is doing just fine" as what I see is a good deal of companies that have virtually nothing in their pipelines, working hard to consolidate, cut resources, and focus on extending their IP protection through manipulations of patent law in the hopes they can focus on hopefully something new.

Would research continue if the US is taken out as being the last free market option, sure, but I believe it would occur at an even slower pace than it does now.

 

[1prophet]

You (he) are only spreading higher costs around. That is what Socialism/Government does.

But it does it less efficiently than free markets and Capitalism.

-John

Free markets and Capitalism work best when one still understands that the people through the government protects those free markets, impoverish those same people in the name of profit while demanding government defends your corporate rights is what opens the door to the Socialists/Communists you loathe so much.

 

[Brainonska511]

That's a nice pie-in-the-sky idea, but I don't see the benefit of reopening the health care debate from the Democrats' side. Sure, a single-payer system would be better, but politics is about trade-offs and doing the possible, and there are many other items on the agenda that would be better to push forward at this point.

 

[michal1980]

once again liberals want government running everything, now they want to control >1/16 of the us economy.

I wonder why?

Could it be so that they can lock in voters for life?
Just make everyone dependent on government. Its the ultimate liberal goal.

 

[IronWing]

That's a nice pie-in-the-sky idea, but I don't see the benefit of reopening the health care debate from the Democrats' side. Sure, a single-payer system would be better, but politics is about trade-offs and doing the possible, and there are many other items on the agenda that would be better to push forward at this point.

While the Dem establishment has no reason to re-open the debate, liberals certainly do. Obamacare was not any sort of compromise, it was complete capitulation on the part of the Dem Party to the private insurance industry, which lavishly funds the Dem Party. Obamacare was born of original sin.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

And again who is to say companies will take the money they are paying for health plans and transfer that back to employees, I could see companies just keeping that using the claim that it is going to the new government fees meaning employee salaries stay the same but now they have to pay more in taxes...for those with high deductible plans then sure, but for others with good plans they may lose out.

We had this same debate in the forum around the time of the Obamacare debate. Anyone who seriously thinks that companies would pass on any healthcare savings to their rank and file employees in the forms of raises or other compensation is extremely naïve. The only people who would see more money from any savings are at the top.

 

[IronWing]

once again liberals want government running everything, now they want to control >1/16 of the us economy.

I wonder why?

Because healthcare spending is 23% 21% of my personal economy (total healthcare spending/total compensation including employer premium contribution). This is with a HDHP/HSA, the savior of us all, according to conservative insurance company shills. The private healthcare insurance industry is sucking the lifeblood out of the American economy, making our companies far less competitive in the global economy. It is an anchor that holds America down.

 

[Genx87]

Seems surprisingly reasonable. But I don't like taxing long term cap gains at regular income rates.

 

[brianmanahan]

Because healthcare spending is 23% of my personal economy (total healthcare spending/total compensation including employer premium contribution). This is with a HDHP/HSA, the savior of us all, according to conservative insurance company shills. The private healthcare insurance industry is sucking the lifeblood out of the American economy, making our companies far less competitive in the global economy. It is an anchor that holds America down.

agreed. i wouldn't have thought so until my dad's employer dropped insurance, and now he pays 8$k in premium per year for a 13$k deductible policy. so there's no coverage until spending about %25 or %30 of yearly income. and if you're unlucky enough to get sick and past the deductibles near the end of the year, they reset and there's another 20$k you have to spend.

 

[Bitek]

A few thoughts:

1. This is going nowhere. GOP is 100% against this, and they will control some or all of Congress. All of the Dems aren't in favor of this. No path forward.
2. The proposed taxes show just how expensive this is, and will have political enemies coming out of the woodwork.
3. Nationalized healthcare isn't necc great. I've spoken before how I have British family and have seen first hand how well the NHS works. Some things are nice, but many things leave a lot to be desired. Their motto should be "you get what you get and you don't get upset." No one to complain to anyway, as it's all govt, and there is no where else to go without spending a fortune.

This is literally a waste of breath. It's not happening, at least for a generation. It makes me skeptical of Bernie as none of his plans are based in political reality.

 

[nageov3t]

considering that Obama was defeated by his own party on the single-payer option and Congress voted to repeal Obamacare again just this week, is there really a chance the health care industry in our country is going to be revolutionized rather than trying to push slow and steady changes?

feels like if the next POTUS were to make universal healthcare his Day 1 priority, it would do nothing but waste political capital.

 

[shady28]

Bernie is unlikely to make this his #1 priority.

Much more likely to make campaign finance reform his #1 priority.

He stated in the debate that until that is done, then everything else is a waste of breath because it will be thwarted by the super PACs and big money.

He is correct on that, and it's echoed in sentiments about his plans.

Now if he were successful in getting campaign finance reform done, then everything else becomes possible. Whether he is the one that does it or not would be irrelevant.

 

[Bitek]

While the Dem establishment has no reason to re-open the debate, liberals certainly do. Obamacare was not any sort of compromise, it was complete capitulation on the part of the Dem Party to the private insurance industry, which lavishly funds the Dem Party. Obamacare was born of original sin.

Dems had the Whitehouse and Congress with a supermajority and couldn't get it done.

Liberals thinking they move this forward is just as absurd as tea parties thinking they can repeal Obamacare by govt shutdowns.

Take the win and go home. Nothing more to be gained other than more lost elections. Bigger fights remain.

 

[dank69]

We had this same debate in the forum around the time of the Obamacare debate. Anyone who seriously thinks that companies would pass on any healthcare savings to their rank and file employees in the forms of raises or other compensation is extremely naïve. The only people who would see more money from any savings are at the top.

So free market forces would not have any effect on employee compensation?

 

[Bitek]

So free market forces would not have any effect on employee compensation?

Problem is that hc bennies are not a visible part of compensation, and they are not very comparable between companies, so it's very hard to put a value on them.

Will some space be created in some industries/companies that will allow them to compete more aggressively on wages? Sure.

Will it be across the board, and in amounts large enough to make up the difference in tax increases? I have severe doubts.

You could very well end up in a situation where all people see are higher tax bills, but little change in their everyday experience of healthcare (which is little used by the vast majority on a day to day basis) and when anything ever is wrong it's one more reason to blame govt.

 

[IronWing]

Problem is that hc bennies are not a visible part of compensation, and they are not very comparable between companies, so it's very hard to put a value on them.

My employer puts their contribution amount to my health insurance premium on every pay stub. I really wish all employers did this. I think this single action would shift the debate.

 

[Bitek]

Ezra Klein destroys Sander's single payer plan.

So does Paul Krugman


"Puppies and rainbows"

In the absence of these kinds of specifics, Sanders has offered a puppies-and-rainbows approach to single-payer — he promises his plan will cover everything while costing the average family almost nothing. This is what Republicans fear liberals truly believe: that they can deliver expansive, unlimited benefits to the vast majority of Americans by stacking increasingly implausible, and economically harmful, taxes on the rich. Sanders is proving them right.

 

[BoberFett]

Our energy system is essentially a government monopoly and yet it hasn't stopped companies from innovating worth regards to energy so I reject your notion. In fact, I would surmise that companies would be quite innovative with regards to health care simply because they will want a piece of that health care pie that will now be controlled by a single customer, the government. I would also guess that businesses will also be catering to niche markets that cater to people who want solutions to health care issues that the government may not offer or that are available only to the wealthy.

I'd argue that your example is the exact opposite of what you intended. Government has to either force energy company's hands by limiting the creation of new coal plants or giving away massive sums of money to convince them to try alternatives. Nuclear power plants are ancient dated designs because of government limits on building new nuclear plants, therefore why bother with newer, safer, more efficient designs.

 

[dank69]

Problem is that hc bennies are not a visible part of compensation, and they are not very comparable between companies, so it's very hard to put a value on them.

Will some space be created in some industries/companies that will allow them to compete more aggressively on wages? Sure.

Will it be across the board, and in amounts large enough to make up the difference in tax increases? I have severe doubts.

You could very well end up in a situation where all people see are higher tax bills, but little change in their everyday experience of healthcare (which is little used by the vast majority on a day to day basis) and when anything ever is wrong it's one more reason to blame govt.

I don't understand where this requirement to "make up the difference in tax increases" is coming from. The lack of employee contribution alone should more than make up for that. Any increased compensation would just be gravy.