I couldn't imagine they would continue to spend that kind of money on advertising if it doesn't generate more revenue than it costs. If it does in fact generate revenue and we make them stop how does that reduce our costs?
I couldn't imagine they would continue to spend that kind of money on advertising if it doesn't generate more revenue than it costs. If it does in fact generate revenue and we make them stop how does that reduce our costs?
1) It's their money; they should be allowed to promote their products to increase sales and ROI on the products they develop.
2) No, they shouldn't, but if they're recieving 2 different antiquated dyslipidemia treatments every month in the mail, most doctors aren't going to call them up and ask them if they'd like the new medicine that works better without the side-effects.
3) Practitioners don't always have as much time as you'd think, and particularly with saturated market segments, like dyslipidemia, they're not going to be constantly asking patients if they'd like to switch to the newest thing.
Do you think that viagra would have ever created a market had doctors had to tell their patients themselves about it? before this, most patients weren't even aware that ED was a disorder that could be treated, let alone something they should feel comfortable asking their doctor about. And a doctor isn't going to just pry into your sexual practices and shortcomings.
And seriously, if ads aren't allowed to increase sales, what do you honestly think will happen? Pharma companies outlay a significant amount of money for R&D, and they have to make a profit to stay in business and continue making drugs. If the number of a particular drug is sold, its price will be raised in order to compensate. Add that to the money no longer in the economy from ad revenue.
So, I disagree. I think there are much more prudent places to cut back health expenses, especially since Pharma costs only make up a small portion of overall healthcare expenditures.
Pens1566
Lifer
- Oct 11, 2005
- 13,819
- 11,471
- 136
I believe that they spend quite a bit more on advertising than they do on R&D ...
So do you think its a good thing they spend extraordinary amounts of money pushing product to people who shouldn't be deciding what they need/take? Maybe that extra money would be better off going to R&D or to just lowering costs for the customer? Nah.
I'm sorry but that is not true. It's interesting that so many people seem to have such short memories when it comes to things like this.
Most of the drugs being heavily advertised were developed when companies were not permitted to advertised to patients and those same drugs cost much less in other countries. In addition, many drugs are actually developed on the government's dime, though grands for basic research (much of which is conducted at universities) and not out of company revenue.
Pharmaceutical companies currently spend twice as much on advertising than they do R&D. They are advertising to increase their profit margin, not to fund R&D -- that's why direct to patient advertising has increased by 43% in the past decade.
Pst, anyone in here debating their personal beliefs read the OP? Where this thread has gone in the short period of time it has been active is a large part of why our representatives fail miserably in trying to get anything done that helps the people. Rather than brainstorm and make a target to work towards, everyone has to interject their own personal pet pieves, hang ups, and crusades into the issue before it's even formed.
Anyway, back on target, anyone wishing to actively participate in a constructive way, please take the list as it stands in the OP, narrow it down to 10 items you agree with needing addressed and order them 1-10 with 1 being the most important and 10 being the least.
Anyway, back on target, anyone wishing to actively participate in a constructive way, please take the list as it stands in the OP, narrow it down to 10 items you agree with needing addressed and order them 1-10 with 1 being the most important and 10 being the least.
You believe wrong, dude. Where are you getting this? Did you read any of what I posted? No, you didn't, because you didn't address any of my points, you simply regurgitated the same stuff - so my response stays the same. For the sake of bandwidth refer to the post above yours.
Sources, please. While you're at it, how about addressing my example of sildenafil, rather than thinking you can simply get away with taking on whatever you think my weakest point is.
STOP DEBATING IN THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!! Read the friggen OP. If you want to debate, there are about 500 other damn UHC threads on this board to do it in.
My list:
1) Rising Costs
2) The denial of treatments, or removal from a plan altogether, at times when such treatments are critical to the survival of a patient -- this is simply unacceptable.
3) Lack of coverage or loss of coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions
a.)Claim denial for seemingly unrelated clerical or informational errors.
4) Health care being tied to employment
5) lack of medical record accessibility / transferrability / online-y goodness
6) don't need full-on doctors for "simple" things (strep throat, etc.)
7) People using the ER for routine medical care
8) rare/non-existent after-hours care for things such as Xrays / labs / etc... (outside of
the emergency room, which should be reserved for people who are severely injured).
9) Lack of uniformity in pricing
10) 18% Uninsured rate (or therabouts)
My list:
1) Rising Costs
2) The denial of treatments, or removal from a plan altogether, at times when such treatments are critical to the survival of a patient -- this is simply unacceptable.
3) Lack of coverage or loss of coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions
a.)Claim denial for seemingly unrelated clerical or informational errors.
4) Health care being tied to employment
5) lack of medical record accessibility / transferrability / online-y goodness
6) don't need full-on doctors for "simple" things (strep throat, etc.)
7) People using the ER for routine medical care
8) rare/non-existent after-hours care for things such as Xrays / labs / etc... (outside of
the emergency room, which should be reserved for people who are severely injured).
9) Lack of uniformity in pricing
10) 18% Uninsured rate (or therabouts)
Whether you have a conventional plan or an HSA you don't a deduction for the premium. An HSA is just an account of before tax money that you can use for actual expenses. And you implied assumption that an High Deductible plan with an HSA is the most reasonable choice for an individual is ...well mistaken.
What can I say? We disagee. The model is faulty. What did I hear this morning? ... "It's like trying to build a couple of extra stories on a building with a sinking foundation" (or something similar).
I think some of those figures were based on people with those ungodly mortgages, people in foreclosure, etc. And no it wasn't the percentage of household expenditure on housing that generated the mess, it was that banks failed in their fiduciary responsibiity to properly assess the risk of lending to people who could not afford their houses.
I was looking at the graph accompanying this article when I wrote that. Other sources estimate it much higher (note West Virginia with almost 30%) but I decided to use the more conservative numbers. The more important thing to remember here, is these are estimates for families with employer paid coverage. If we continue with the same model and costs continue to rise at the same rate as they have over the past decade (which is more or less inevitable if you retain the same model), the projection is that those same families will be spending 44% of their after tax income 10 years from now.
Edit: Sorry I answered before the OP asked to stop using the thread for discussion
11. Affordability. It's not enough to have insurance, you have to be able to take advantage of it and get care without bankrupting your family.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Just what do you think the government does when this happens?
PS I know, and I don't have to speculate.
Pens1566
Lifer
- Oct 11, 2005
- 13,819
- 11,471
- 136
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter