Excellent.
Drugs are different from lots of things, in that the productization of them is a lot riskier and more expensive than that of say, a new semiconductor process. Look how many drugs fail FDA required studies.
I believe that in Europe drug advertising is prohibited. Here marketing costs more than R&D. If we just limited marketing to factual information for doctors, we could cut costs rapidly. And no more stupid diseases treated by a given new drug, disease which might be rare before every hypochondriac watching cable news decides they must have it.
Well, let’s roll tape:
I basically gave you the benefit of the doubt here, that you knew what you were talking about.
Since the fact that costs have continued to rise doesn’t contradict the fact that Obamacare IS controlling costs (i.e. keeping the increases affordable long-term, which is all that’s ever meant amongst the health care wonks), I figured that your ‘in fact costs have gone up’ was a slight verbal misstep, where you really meant that the rate of increase was still going up.
None of your cites showed that Obamacare had failed to control health care costs. Two of them did show that health care spending has increased under Obamacare, backing your second assertion but not your first. But I regarded the second as a misstep because it IS a misstep. You can back it up with a hundred cites, but it doesn’t matter because it still won’t show that Obamacare has failed to control health care costs, which is what matters.
Same in Australia, advertising a prescription drug is prohibited. I agree with this and it should be the case everywhere. If the drug is good Doctors will recommend it, if it’s not good it should fail and marketing budget should have nothing to do with it.
Correct. There are people in this country who get very angry when we attempt to subsidize the cost of health care for poor Americans, but are very happy when we subsidize the cost of health care for the French.
Of course, the EpiPen was developed years ago by a different company working with the US Government, the rights to which were purchased by Mylan for the express purpose of raising the price (for Americans) to unheard of levels. A $300 EpiPen doesn’t subsidize anything but dividends and bonuses.
Have to make a distinction of price goiging single drug companies and the old giants and new biotechs who do all the inventing. The first effective Alzheimer drug will be very expensive and probably a monoclonal antibody.
Some random person’s blog is not FACTS.
For those asking when Obama ever said ACA would reduce health care costs, this cite seems to have a couple. Oh and he did say lower costs - not “Will rise at a lower rate than before which Dem apologists will twist into claiming costs have lowered.”
Pardon me but your side of the aisle is twisting what I said or reinterpreting it or something. I stated health care costs have not gone down - they haven’t. You’re side states that the rate of increase has declined and it has but your side goes further and implies my statement was wrong - it isn’t. Health care cost are NOT lower than they were pre-ACA. And Clinton is the only politician I know of that says they will attack the costs directly.
You’re failing your libertarian bona fides. Why is there no competition? Regulation. The pens themselves are patented, so no one can use them. And alternatives don’t get approved.
A proper free market should mean that anyone could sell an Epi-Pen. It was invented in the 1970s, so it should be generic by now.
You are repeatedly attempting to claim that the ACA caused the prices to go up. The actual evidence shows that it brought them down. They were just going up anyways, so bringing costs down still resulted in a net increase.
You’re the one trying to connect correlation and causation, calling Obamacare a failure at reducing costs when it did actually do so. Because you ignore that the increase was caused by a completely different variable.
You are the one twisting things by trying to blame Obamacare for the increase in costs.
Which means you just contradicted yourself. It is due to patent law. This is a drug patent. It should expire in seven years like other drug patents.
And the government ought to be able to pull eminent domain on drug patents and license them out if it turns out the medicine is greatly needed. If you price gouge, you risk losing your patent.
Where is your cite?
That’s just not logical. If they went down, the price would be less. You can claim that they have gone up less than they might have, or gone up more slowly than they had been before, but you can’t say costs went down.
I believe we cannot tell whether the price of drugs is comparatively more or less.
We cannot brag about the Affordable Care Act, nor can we bitch about Obama Care, concerning price.