Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Fewer, not less. You can count jobs.

ba-na-na-na-na-na-na-na....

Timmy!!!


Sidd(Lords of the Underworld!)Finch

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Doesn't change the fact that she's a vicious, raving commentator with little to no redeeming literary, political, artistic, or scientific value.S_A_M

takes one to know one

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, that kind of mischaracterizes the situation. It's US drug companies that are selling, so it's not an issue of R&D in Canada vs. the US, it's an issue of total R&D. It's not like drug cos. have fled canada since the government put in price controls.

LIke any co, Drug companies generally need to recoup their R&D somehow. The US market is one of the wealthiest, so they do it here by charging high prices. They sell at lower prices overseas where there's less income to afford the drugs. This type of price discrimination works so long as reimportation rules are enforced. Which the drug cos. are generally able to do, but less easily with Canada. And that's mainly because driving to Canada from detroit is a lot cheaper than flying to, say, London.

Now, one reason Canada's prices are lower is because the government is a bulk purchaser, so can insist on bigger discounts. But it's not like those discounts are limited to drugs. Check out car prices. Most of them are cheaper there--compare, e.g., BMW prices. About 10% cheaper in Canada. Why don't folks in the US buy Canadian cars? Because the warranty doesn't transfer and you have to leand to convert kph into mph, because the dealers aren't allowed to swap out the speedometer plates absent special approval.

they also sell drugs in Sri Lanka, etc. the more volume the more the overhaed gets spread- but profits for the drug cos. come from the State, and if we hold down price you will not see new drug development.
As to the general price of things in Canada v. the States you're wrong- come visit and we'll check license plates at the Best Buy parking lot in Troy some Saturday afternoon.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The complete lack of proof for this proposition fatally undermines your argument.

I'll assume that you intended to post a more nuanced and credible argument, but were typing quickly.

I admit my argument is not as factually butressed as is yours; I found your graph and chart were very effective- and the affidavit evidence will be tough to counter...

I hurled invective, after you may have tried, but miserably failed to perform as advertised above, and did indeed insult me.

To have politely called you intellectual dull-normal was not meant as an insult, but I perhaps should have realized that you are not aware of your status, and would take this rather objective observation as insulting. Ty, here i forgot the lesson of Down and Out in Paris and London.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Again, exactly. The problem is that currently those without extra $$$, but nominal coverage get to treatment no. 2243. YOU WOULD LIMIT THAT WHICH THE MIDDLE CLASS NOW GETS.

Do you actually know anything about the Oregon plan? It had nothing to do with the middle class. The middle class generally was already covered by health insurance provided by employers. The Oregon plan was intended to fill gap between those peope who did not have health insurance, but made too much money to qualify for traditional Medicaid. There were no limits on the middle class, but it gave a hell of a lot of coverage to people who otherwise would have had none.

The state of Oregon asked for a waiver from the Feds from participating in Medicaid the traditional way. The argument was that by limiting the income level for those who qualify for Medicaid, traditional Medicaid already rations health care. Rationing the treatment was much more equitable than rationing the people who can get treatment. Every single person in the state of Oregon would have had coverage. It would not have been comprehensive coverage, but a lot of thought went into determining the distribution. The health department in Oregon, with input from the community and health care providers, went through a series of relative benefit analyses with over 700 conditions and the various treatments for those conditions. Cost was a tiebreaker if the benefits were essentially the same.

HCFA (now CMS) denied the waiver (in an election year), stating that the plan violated the ADA.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You'd be surprised. My poorly-reasoned drivel sells rather well.

S_A_M

I'd forgotten, you work where the judges think the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional- That may be why your work is structured the way it is- carry on!!!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
they also sell drugs in Sri Lanka, etc. the more volume the more the overhaed gets spread- but profits for the drug cos. come from the State, and if we hold down price you will not see new drug development.


As to the general price of things in Canada v. the States you're wrong- come visit and we'll check license plates at the Best Buy parking lot in Troy some Saturday afternoon.

On 1, why should US customers be the only suckers? Furthermore, the problem is even further limited, because it's really people without access to Rx drug coverage. I'm quite sure my insurance company isn't paying the full difference between the "retail" price and the amount I'm co-paying.

On 2, I'm sure it goes both ways, depending on the product and the ability of the manufacturer to impose resale price maintenance provisions. But if what you're saying is that the only thing that's cheaper in Canada is Rx drugs, doesn't that tell us something also? Like, US drug consumers are being soaked for a bunch of R&D, and thus are subsidizing foreign consumers' health needs? I say fuck that. I'm not sure of the best way to fuck that, but it should be fucked hard.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
However, your point rests on the assumption that drug companies will not accept any less profit than they now make in order to remain in business, but will instead wither up and die (or take their money and run away) in the face of price resistance from the U.S. government. The complete lack of proof for this proposition fatally undermines your argument.

This assumption has merit. They will not accept significantly less profit. Instead what they will do is stop or significantly decrease investing in R&D (an expense) and trim jobs to right size the operation, which will negatively effect technical progress (e.g., good luck coming up with a cure for Alzheimers). They will also be less profitable over the long haul, which will have the effect of producing less wealth for the millions of people who have invested their retirement savings through 401(k)s mutual funds, etc.

I will continue to harp on this, but there are consequences to every action that need to be considered.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Do you actually know anything about the Oregon plan?

SAM wants to extend something similar to the whole country. I was making a parellel argument using the cutoffs as an example of what would occur to most of us. Agian, I do not have much problem with providing an extended safety net. I have a problem with screwing things up for the vast majority of the country.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
On 2, I'm sure it goes both ways, depending on the product and the ability of the manufacturer to impose resale price maintenance provisions. But if what you're saying is that the only thing that's cheaper in Canada is Rx drugs, doesn't that tell us something also? Like, US drug consumers are being soaked for a bunch of R&D, and thus are subsidizing foreign consumers' health needs? I say fuck that. I'm not sure of the best way to fuck that, but it should be fucked hard.

now you are ready for the red pill. About a year ago both Fluffy and I laid out in reasoned details the support for invading Canada. The time is now, the challenge one we cannot shirk.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
takes one to know one

My word, someone's undies are in a bunch!

Who knew that health care reform (or opposition thereto) was Hank's hot button issue?

Carry on, my good man, and pray that you never lose your job.

S_A_M

P.S. Comparing me to AC really is "fighting words".

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'd forgotten, you work where the judges think the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional- That may be why your work is structured the way it is- carry on!!!

You really don't pay any attention, do you? Just as well.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This assumption has merit. They will not accept significantly less profit. Instead what they will do is stop or significantly decrease investing in R&D (an expense) and trim jobs to right size the operation, which will negatively effect technical progress (e.g., good luck coming up with a cure for Alzheimers).

Sure, but your assumption is that prices for drugs are currently at their optimal level. (By optimal I mean welfare maximizing, and that includes both producer and consumer surplus). They are not. Let's put aside the cross-border-subsidies and look just at the US. Each drug manufacturer charges a monopoly price for its drug. Right there, you've lost consumer surplus and create dead-weight loss. We need go no further. But we can, because of the degree to which medicine is generally subsidized in this country. If people were forced to pay their own medical bills, do you honestly believe that 1/7 of all spending would go to medicine? No chance (and that's true even if wealth is distributed more fairly). Every insurance plan creates gross overincentives for treatment, either through testing or drugs, neither of which would happen if the full price were paid by the consumer (e.g., I recently went for a $2500 PET scan "just to rule out any possibility" of a certain disease. I paid a 10% copay, which meant I didn't question the need for the test at all). So, drug makers also benefit from artificially inflated demand induced by subsidized products.

In short, you need to start from the right baseline before you say it's a bad thing to reduce R&D.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You really don't pay any attention, do you? Just as well.

S_A_M

Well it could be accurate one of these days. Or maybe 1/2 right. Quack quack.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
SAM wants to extend something similar to the whole country. I was making a parellel argument using the cutoffs as an example of what would occur to most of us.

But, as RT noted, your argument was firmly grounded in a misunderstanding of my point (which by this time appears to be willful) as well as complete ignorance of the actual terms of the program you used as your example.

Hank, while your non sequiturs lured me a few yards into that swamp, I never proposed adopting a full-fledged single-payor system. At most I said that it might be possible to make one work well.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Agian, I do not have much problem with providing an extended safety net. I have a problem with screwing things up for the vast majority of the country.

I now see the method to your madness. You keep your won/loss ratio skewed heavily to the positive by engaging in and winning unopposed arguments.

QED 659-3.

S_A_M