Healthcare Reform

Making Chimichangas said:
Nothing. 

It is mostly Republicans constantly saying that, "Too much regulation makes everything more expensive."

I simply pointed out that in healthcare, particulary big pharma, regulation was NOT the cause of high prices.
Click to expand...


But, your facts you stated don’t prove anything. 

Simply saying a company spends 19 million on advertising doesn’t mean squat. There are companies where that would be an extremely small percentage of their costs. 

 
http://time.com/money/4462919/prescription-drug-prices-too-high/

Harvard did a study. One of their obvious findings is that it's a complicated subject. Another one:

Five key findings in the JAMA review:

  1. Drug manufacturers in the U.S. set their own prices, and that’s not the norm elsewhere in the world.

Countries with national health programs have government entities that either negotiate drug prices or decide not to cover drugs whose prices they deem excessive. No similar negotiating happens in the U.S.
Click to expand...




Like I said earlier, the prices need to be regulated.

 
BigRedBuster said:
But, your facts you stated don’t prove anything. 

Simply saying a company spends 19 million on advertising doesn’t mean squat. There are companies where that would be an extremely small percentage of their costs. 
Click to expand...


My facts prove that what we (as Americans) pay for prescription meds have NOTHING to do with the regulations governing big pharma.

 
Making Chimichangas said:
My facts prove that what we (as Americans) pay for prescription meds have NOTHING to do with the regulations governing big pharma.
Click to expand...




You haven't posted anything that proves that, and it can't possibly be true that they have nothing to do with it. Obviously regulations cost money, so they're a factor in the cost of medication. For instance there has to be a bunch of thorough testing done (I've talked to statisticians who are involved in it and it's a long drawn-out process that takes a lot of people) and someone has to pay for that. But the thing is the regulations save lives, and honestly they help the companies too because they prevent some lawsuits. You could maybe argue that the benefit of preventing deaths (i.e. lawsuits) balances out the cost of the regulations, but that'd be pretty tough/impossible to calculate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
You haven't posted anything that proves that, and it can't possibly be true that they have nothing to do with it. Obviously regulations cost money, so they're a factor in the cost of medication. For instance there has to be a bunch of thorough testing done (I've talked to statisticians who are involved in it and it's a long drawn-out process that takes a lot of people) and someone has to pay for that. But the thing is the regulations save lives, and honestly they help the companies too because they prevent some lawsuits. You could maybe argue that the benefit of preventing deaths (i.e. lawsuits) balances out the cost of the regulations, but that'd be pretty tough/impossible to calculate.
Click to expand...


Oh on the contrary...

When big pharma spends 19 million on advertising and 9 million on R&D...

There is no conceivable way "regulations" play a major factor into the out of control cost of medications.  NONE.

 
Making Chimichangas said:
Oh on the contrary...

When big pharma spends 19 million on advertising and 9 million on R&D...

There is no conceivable way "regulations" play a major factor into the out of control cost of medications.  NONE.
Click to expand...




You're not being logical, or paying attention to BRB's post. 28 million means nothing when you don't compare it to anything, and it sounds pretty damn small when we're talking about drug companies. Those companies have to make money to survive, so they're going to spend money on advertising. They also need money for R&D, although in the article it says it's overstated how much they need/spend on it. Regardless, you definitely have not made the point you're saying you've made.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
You're not being logical, or paying attention to BRB's post. 28 million means nothing when you don't compare it to anything, and it sounds pretty damn small when we're talking about drug companies.
Click to expand...


The issue in question is regulation and whether it grossly impacts profitabilty to the point where it becomes against a company's best interest to keep doing business.  In the case of big pharma, regulation has had very little impact.  

 
Making Chimichangas said:
The issue in question is regulation and whether it grossly impacts profitabilty to the point where it becomes against a company's best interest to keep doing business.  In the case of big pharma, regulation has had very little impact.  
Click to expand...


No, the issue in question is whether regulation increases the cost for the customer. It does. I happen to think there are a lot of other more important factors (and also that there should be price regulations). But you've stated it has "NOTHING" to do with it, which is just plain wrong. That tends to be the case whenever you talk in absolutes. (Yes - I've just done that, but if regulation costs even 1 cent it has to be a factor).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Making Chimichangas said:
Okay...you're right...in Obama's highly regulated market big pharma not only didn't make any profit, but lost millions because of all that "regulation."
Click to expand...
How did Obama increase regulation in pharmaceutical companies?

How much of a percentage increase in costs did those regulations cause?

How does that cost compare to the cost of advertising?

What benefits came from the regulations?

What negative affects did the regulations cause?

what percentage of time delay do the regulations cause in bringing a medication to market?

 
Moiraine said:
No, the issue in question is whether regulation increases the cost for the customer. It does. I happen to think there are a lot of other more important factors (and also that there should be price regulations). But you've stated it has "NOTHING" to do with it, which is just plain wrong. That tends to be the case whenever you talk in absolutes.
Click to expand...


I get what you're saying...

But big pharma charging 10x (or more) what they should for meds has far more impact on consumers than regulations do.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top