California considers selling its own generic prescription drugs:
California could become the first state to introduce its own brand of generic prescription drugs in an effort to drag down stratospheric healthcare costs. The plan for state-branded drugs is part of California Gov. Gavin Newsom's budget proposal, which he is expected to unveil Friday, January 10.
"A trip to the doctor's office, pharmacy or hospital shouldn't cost a month's pay," Newsom said in a statement. "The cost of healthcare is just too damn high, and California is fighting back." A plan for California to sell its own drugs would "take the power out of the hands of greedy pharmaceutical companies," Newsom said, according to the Associated Press.
Under the plan, the state would contract with one or more generic drug companies, which would manufacture select prescription drugs under a state-owned label, according to an overview of the plan reported by the Los Angeles Times. Those state generics would presumably be offered to Californians at a lower price than current generics, which could spark more competitive pricing in the market overall.
So far, much of the plan's details are unclear, though, including which drugs might be sold and how much money they could save residents and the state.
The conceptual plan so far has garnered both praise and skepticism from health industry experts.
Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy group Health Access California, told the Associated Press that "Consumers would directly benefit if California contracted on its own to manufacture much-needed generic medications like insulin—a drug that has been around for a century yet the price has gone up over tenfold in the last few decades."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 14 2020, @03:11AM (34 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday January 14 2020, @03:18AM (1 child)
A thousand cuts of a billion each, that's your trillion.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @03:20AM
Fucking math, how does it work?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Tuesday January 14 2020, @03:31AM (17 children)
I remember when a million dollars was a lot of money. When there weren't very many millionaires and I had never even heard of a billionaire. When the richest quiz show offered 64,000 dollars to the very few that made it all the way up the ladder.
Are we now on the verge of having trillionaires? We're not there yet, but we do have rich people that have a hundred thousand times as many dollars as the millionaires of yore.
Something's wrong.
Inflation hasn't been more than about a factor of 100 over that time. Just buying a house in one's youth and selling it on retirement has been enough to make one a millionaire. And it doesn't even make one feel really rich when one considers how long that money has to last -- until death.
People starting out now, even with marketable university degrees, are screwed.
-- hendrik
(Score: 5, Insightful) by anubi on Tuesday January 14 2020, @03:47AM (6 children)
I am one who bought a house long time ago. Sell it? Hah! Government considers all that increase in dollars as taxable gain.
Is the house more valuable. Hell no. It's a 50 year old house. It's the dollar that's not worth much. But the tax law does not allow one to take depreciation on holding a dollar, but they will allow me to claim depreciation if I tie up another house I don't live in.
I have homeless people all around me, while tax law goads us to hoard up housing for tax purposes.
The system is fscked up.
We are rewarded for doing destructive things. Penalized for doing constructive things.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by epitaxial on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:49AM (3 children)
Why are used cars taxed every time they change hands? The state already got their cut. Taxing again is pure greed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by anubi on Tuesday January 14 2020, @05:07AM (1 child)
While high speed traders buy and sell all day, sometimes holding for seconds during a move. And avoid tax.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @04:54AM
What are you talking about. If you buy and sell a stock in the same day the profits are considered ordinary income and you pay taxes no different than if you were working.
If you hold a stock over a year then it counts as long term capital gain and you get taxed at a lower rate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @06:51PM
pure theft. they are criminals. until people realize this and start resisting we will remain slaves.
(Score: 1) by VacuumTube on Tuesday January 14 2020, @07:11PM
"I am one who bought a house long time ago. Sell it? Hah! Government considers all that increase in dollars as taxable gain."
In the U.S. you get a $500K exemption ($250K if you're single) every two years on the sale of a home, as long as you've lived in it two of the last five years. https://realestate.findlaw.com/selling-your-home/the-home-sale-tax-exemption.html [findlaw.com]
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday January 17 2020, @02:55PM
Where I live, houses have gone up in price a lot faster than inflation. The winning strategy turned out to be to buy the biggest house you can afford, and later sell it and buy the smaller house you need.
And where I Live your primary residence -- the place you actually live, is not subject to capital gains tax. No, they won't let you live in two places at the same time for this, not let you and your spouse live in different paces without a formal separation or divorce agreement. And if you work at home, the part of your residence used primarily for work is not exempted from capital gains tax. And mortgage interest for your residence is not tax-deductible.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:34AM (5 children)
Yea, its called the fed printing money and giving it to their buddies in the government and big banks. Whoever gets the money first gets the advantage, wherever the spend/loan it gets second advantage, etc. This is called the Cantillion effect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon [wikipedia.org]
You've been alerted, now you have no excuse to further support this crony socialist monetary system.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @12:39PM (4 children)
Socialist (Not the oligarchical faux socialism/communism the world has seen so far) would ensure everybody got the same amount of money, but thanks to the inflation they would still only have the same amount of purchasing power that they had before printing more :)
People really should think more about the comments they make and their accuracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @03:05PM (3 children)
Fascist = Socialist
https://mises.org/library/vampire-economy [mises.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:33PM
No, not really. You need to do more reading. A situation where socialism is inevitable because of economy crashing does indeed provide a fertile ground for fascism and scapegoatism. That does not mean that all socialism must be fascism nor vice versa.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @08:33PM
You should never read mises.org, it is a platform for rightwing nutjobs to spew their ignorant interpretations in order to prop up the magic Capitalism(tm).
Funny how fascists need to project their failings on to others using lies and deception. Almost like they don't want their supporters to understand reality????
Keep marching little neo-nazi, one day you'll get your white picket fence in a white cross burning neighborhood....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @10:18PM
The real fascists https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/ep5t7i/a_christian_high_school_student_in_kentucky_was/ [reddit.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:40AM (2 children)
There's some interesting considerations here.
Jeff Bezos was at over $150 billion but he took a hit from the divorce. Bill Gates is still above $100 billion. He hasn't tossed it all into B&MG, but the major reason is that Microsoft's stock price has tripled since 2016.
If you adjust for inflation, you can find historical figures who had "more worth":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures [wikipedia.org]
I had never seen this list before. John D. Rockefeller is estimated to have been worth around $350 billion in 2017 dollars, Jakob Fugger is estimated at $400 billion (lived from 1459–1525).
There are sketchier estimates, such as $4.6 trillion for Augustus, and "inconceivable" for Mansa Musa [bbc.com]. It's not fair to compare these kings/emperors to modern businessmen, so let's ignore them.
If you look at Rockefeller or that other Fugger, the inflation adjustment doesn't account for the indescribably better stuff that is obtainable by a current day billionaire. Fugger couldn't buy a personal jet, driverless sports car, HVAC, etc. despite having "$0.4 trillion". Today's $100 computers, even if you disregard the networking aspects, have capabilities far out of reach of those people. A poor American, while having more financial uncertainty and less raw resources, land, and manpower than an ancient king, can nevertheless live better than that king in various ways. The poor American without health insurance can probably game the system and get access to better health care, simply because of the vast increase in knowledge, effective drugs, and safer surgery over the centuries. These things are also true if comparing someone in 1950 to someone in 2020. Since the 1970s, productivity has increased while wages have stagnated, but you can have a supercomputer in your pocket and have a better chance of surviving cancer.
There has been speculation about when the first "trillionaire" will appear. I would like to make it harder to achieve this by adjusting for inflation back down to 2015 dollars or some other baseline.
When will we see the world's first trillionaire? [theguardian.com]
Bill Gates could be the world's first trillionaire by 2042 [independent.co.uk]
3 Industries That Will Probably Create the First Trillionaire [inc.com]
Interesting Plausibility that Elon Musk Could Become a Trillionaire with a City on Mars by 2040 [nextbigfuture.com]
It seems to me that the most credible way to become worth 7-10 times as much as Bezos (adjusted) would be related to asteroid mining. Don't get me wrong: turning asteroids into cash will not be easy, estimates like $1 quintillion for asteroid worth are not useful since the mineral amounts would crash the prices, and an asteroid tycoon would probably have to safely get the material to Earth's surface (where most people live and will continue to want to live) to become a trillionaire. I also don't think the Musky One will become a trillionaire.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by driverless on Tuesday January 14 2020, @09:43AM
Showing just how irrational the stock market really is: Microsoft forces Windows 10 on the world at gunpoint and their stock price triples.
And yeah, I know, Azure, but there are a bunch of other cloud services that offer the same thing so it's not that special.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @12:31PM
> A poor American, while having more financial uncertainty and less raw resources, land, and manpower than an ancient king, can nevertheless live better than that king in various ways
No matter how many slaves and horses/camels that king had, there was no way to travel faster than horseback, and no way to preserve food for any time (freezing/refrigeration) or to stay cool in the summer. If you own even a small car, when you put your foot down you have a lot of horses at your command, and the ride is generally a whole lot better in a sedan than in a sedan chair. One of the first to put this in words was Bucky Fuller, he pointed out that we now have access to many "energy slaves".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @09:44AM
And you discover it just now?
Of course something is wrong, you shouda'v listen'd to aristarcus more often.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:37AM (2 children)
At least I can still opt out of the insurance industry scam (and I do, laughing all the way to the bank). Once the government starts doing it there is no more opting out, and that bureaucracy will eventually grow to dwarf the current one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @06:54PM (1 child)
"Once the government starts doing it there is no more opting out"
why not? only cowards, whores, and idiots pay the income tax. what's your excuse?
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday January 17 2020, @03:05PM
Joan Baez (in case you haven't heard of her, she's the cousin of John Baez) (yes, really) once witheld the portion of her income tax that she judged to be supporting military activity. She reported afterward that if the money exists, the government will get it eventually, whether you cooperate or not.
(Score: 4, Funny) by shortscreen on Tuesday January 14 2020, @07:56AM
Yes! It's time for midicare for all. Nobody should get ripped off by overpriced adaptors and dongles. Everybody should be able to connect a Roland SC-55. The Microsoft synthesizer is an afront to human rights!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Tuesday January 14 2020, @07:51PM (9 children)
What makes you (and Newsome) think inserting another entity between generic drug makers and the public will reduce costs? It might be possible push down costs if California was building their own government run production facilities, creating new competition with the established drug makers, but that isn't what they proposed. They want to contract with existing manufacturers to sell under a California label. The only thing the government can do in that case is redistribute the costs (plus extra overhead) by selling at a loss and increasing taxes to cover the shortfall. That may improve access to some of the drugs, but net costs go up instead of down and the existing drug makers get more profits off of taxpayers. Effectively it just ends up being another subsidy to help line the pockets of drug company execs. It would be more effective to just call it that and tie the subsidy to price limits to ensure the improved access.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 14 2020, @08:32PM (8 children)
Why do you think insulin costs 9x more in the USA than in Canada? Profits for the insurance companies and drug distribution companies.
Same with a drug made in India selling for $1 there, but imported to the US and selling for almost $1,000. Look it up.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday January 14 2020, @09:58PM (7 children)
Yes, the costs of the drugs can be reduced via subsidy. I wasn't arguing that they couldn't. I was arguing that the total cost doesn't decrease if the government just pays the drug company the $1000 and then only charges the public $1 for it. So far there's no indication that the drug companies would charge the California government anything less than the current market price.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 15 2020, @12:06AM (6 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by slinches on Wednesday January 15 2020, @01:44AM (5 children)
What do you call "bulk buying by the government" besides a subsidy?
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 15 2020, @02:25AM (4 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:36PM (3 children)
Have you ever been involved in any of these "auction style" procurement processes? A competitive bid system only works when there's already a functioning market. If that were the case, we wouldn't have such high drug prices in the first place. It's likely that CA will have to pay more than the current wholesale price because there's extra paperwork and overhead in dealing with government contracts.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 15 2020, @05:27PM (2 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday January 15 2020, @10:19PM (1 child)
Again, I didn't say it can't be done. I said the plan that the CA governor laid out wouldn't work as described.
If they wanted to, CA could just mandate a maximum cost for generic drugs sold in their state, or single payer health care for that matter. The US could do things like revoke patent protection when they think drug companies are abusing that system to gouge the public. These things work to manage corporate misbehavior and wouldn't be a significant cost to the taxpayers. Why are they doing what they propose instead of the things that have been proven effective elsewhere?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @05:12AM
In addition to mandating a maximum price for generic drugs California can also mandate a maximum price for patented drugs. Legally, why not (not saying they should just that there is no legal reason why not). The company that owns the patent can still be the exclusive seller/licensor but if they want to sell to California they must sell at some price.
Just like I can mandate a maximum price I'm willing to pay for a patented drug personally California can mandate a maximum price its willing to allow its citizens to pay for patented drugs. It won't violate the patent as the company doesn't have to sell if they don't like the price just like I don't have to buy a patented drug if I don't like the price. The company still has their exclusive federal monopoly we are just collectively bargaining and saying that we refuse to pay more than x if you want to sell to us.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:12AM (34 children)
I'm all about added players, as long as they are required by law to operate at a reasonable profit. If they're not it's no different than a big corporation selling at a loss until all their competition is starved out. Even less competitors than we have now is something we most certainly do not want. Especially if the last one standing is governmental.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:36AM (18 children)
I would rather end up with a broken government option than a broken private option that creates billionaires living off the real suffering and death of other citizens. Fuck those billionaires, and all the c-suite hell bound scum in Big Pharma. Fuck them, Fuck them, Fuck them with a million mile wide Saguaro cactus up the ass sideways.
Reasonable profit? Just what is that again? Is it cultural? It seems to me that Capitalist sociopaths feel that ever increasing levels of profit are the only option. Was it reasonable for that hell bound cunt of a woman to raise Epipens to $600 a fucking pack? Is is reasonable for some pharma costs to be thousands of times what it is in Cuba? Heck, just check Canada, Mexico, Peru, and about any other country, and you will see just how "reasonable" US pharma costs are. Canadians are afraid of a population nearly 10 times as big as they are competing with them to buy their affordable medication :)
Selling at a loss? You've got to be fucking kidding me. The whole point of this government option is to recoup the expenses of producing the generics, and since their entertaining the corrupt clusterfuck of government contracts, there will be profits to private corporations manufacturing the generics.
No. We don't need to require shit by law in regards to profits. Not when we're contracting private companies to do it. They do that all on their own just fine. So reasonable profit will be built in.
What is fucked up, is this is a half measure again. Only generics. Not to mention, there is no real reason to believe that unreasonably high and abusive profits won't be found somehow in the government contracts. The rent seekers/parasites will still be vying for position. It won't be as bad as right now, but right now is hilariously fucked. We might have a pill be 5x what it actually costs to produce under the government system, but that is quantifiably better than 100x.
I'm actually for California to refuse to acknowledge all pharma patents, and to contract with any private corporation they want to produce our medicine. Profit does not belong in medicine anyways, and it sure as fuck has not benefited medicine.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:42AM (14 children)
You people are nuts. All you have to do is negotiate and offer to... wait for it... pay cash. The healthcare providers don't like dealing with insurance either, so add a 2x-1000x upcharge as a negotiation point. Oh wait, you already gave away your hundreds of thousands of dollars to the insurance company you supposedly hate, now you want to punish everyone smart enough to not get scammed like you. SMH.
(Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Tuesday January 14 2020, @06:56AM (13 children)
Cash don't work for pills. I've never been to a pharmacy where I could negotiate $2000 down to $400.
Come back with an actual fucking point about pills please.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @07:19AM (9 children)
I've never seen pills that were a good idea, but here you go: http://selfpaypatient.com/category/prescription-drugs/ [selfpaypatient.com]
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Tuesday January 14 2020, @03:01PM (5 children)
So companies can sell "expensive" drugs cheaply, but raise the rates exponentially when insurance is involved? I'm no fan of big government but now is the time to step in. You can't sell the same product to different people with wildly different prices. Having insurance companies pay ridiculous sums just means people end up paying more in premiums.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @03:11PM (2 children)
The prices you see your insurance pay on your bill are not what they actually pay. And yes, you can sell the same thing to different people for different prices. If the government steps in (even more) you will see prices rise more and quality/usefulness drop.
Look at college in the US. Only a generation ago you could work a crappy summer job, pay yourself through college, and get a very valuable degree. Then the government got involved. Now people are in debt for half their lives for worthless degrees. Governments take something cheap and useful and turn it into something expensive and worthless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:04PM (1 child)
Pull another one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:46PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chargemaster [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:41PM (1 child)
Certainly you can. That is exactly what insurance does: Insurance pays less because they can theoretically offer up more customers than an organization can scrounge up on its own. The seller (drugstore, physician, hospital, whatever) takes the deal and accepts lower than 'street price' in order to get a greater volume of business. Better two patients paying $4 each than making only one sale at $6. When the seller starts offering those on the street lower rates than the insurance pays the insurance company can come back and say, "hey, we negotiated a discount for increased volume. Time to pay us back for being fraudulent with us." That's the way the system works.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @08:35PM
Lol, peak capitalist mindset. Clue is the lack of critical thinking and use of incredibly simple rationale.
Gee doc, I never thought about it like that! Now slide me a pack of manly Marlboros!
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 14 2020, @08:40PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Tuesday January 14 2020, @11:22PM (1 child)
You've got a mind-boggling level of ignorance and must have lived a (medically) incredibly sheltered life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @11:47PM
Actually, I've got a PhD in pharmacology. These people have no idea wtf they are doing and standards are extremely low, I'd even say profoundly stupid.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday January 14 2020, @09:53AM (2 children)
Two options are possible, both of which are in use by countries outside the US, the government declares certain critical drugs to be generic and buys them from the cheapest source, popular in places like Africa and Asia where the government can't afford to pay $1,000 per patient to deal with a TB epidemic, and the reverse-auction model where the government tells the pharma companies that they're going to be paid $xM for the year for their drugs, take it or leave it. Both of those keep drug prices down to very manageable levels by limiting the greed of the pharma companies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @02:39PM (1 child)
Can you be more specific. The FDA does have drug purity standards. Are you saying that the chemicals aren't tested for purity at the lab (ie: with Spectroscopy, NMR, etc...)? What part of the process is flawed and how?
Thanks.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday January 17 2020, @07:25AM
Are you replying to the right message? My comment was about governments putting limits on pharma companies' abilities to profit off critical medicines, while your comment is about quality control.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:47AM (2 children)
And you think the government doesn't already do the same? You really don't look too hard at the politicians you vote for, do you? Politics is one of the quickest ways to become a millionaire; and on a salary with which it should not be possible.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by meustrus on Tuesday January 14 2020, @02:51PM (1 child)
Give the guy a break. edIII is not personally responsible for the corruption of politicians. Chewing out the voting population one person at a time is not going to change anything.
Though I imagine it makes you feel better about the lizard person you almost certainly voted for.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 15 2020, @12:48AM
I voted for the stoner dude just on the chance it might help throw a monkey wrench in things. Normally I vote for whoever looks like they'll bring about a revolution quicker.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dwilson on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:48AM
Half a percent of a billion is still five million shmuckers. I think most would consider that a pretty reasonable net profit.
- D
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 14 2020, @10:07AM (9 children)
Agreed.
$1/year after paying everything fair and square is a reasonable profit for an entity that has (or should have) the public interest above all.
It can be done and done nicely: see the history of the Golden Gate Bridge [wikipedia.org], a project done under budget and ahead of schedule. Which barely 'survives financialy', and yet is one of the wonders of the modern engineering and brings heck of a lot of value for the bay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 15 2020, @12:51AM (8 children)
You're going full retard, culo. If drug companies make less money they spend less money on research and more people die of things that would have been cured. And cutting the profit out of the drug trade means no more drug companies doing research of any kind.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 15 2020, @02:02AM (7 children)
You are coming as an idiot on this one - once their patent expired (and nobody suggested California intends to break the patent protection), competition should guarantee low profits to be made in generics.
And yet:
1. Martin Shkreli [wikipedia.org]
2. an 10ml insulin dose costs between $2.28 and $6.16 to produce [businessinsider.com] (with the later being modified for absorption times), yet they are sold at prices that can get to $275 [businessinsider.com.au] in US. And this in spite of competition theoretically existing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 15 2020, @02:23AM (3 children)
To produce? Sure. To have the knowledge and means to produce in large quantities? Not even fucking close. Insulin is not a simple to produce substance.
Mostly it's evergreening though. Yeah, that drug you thought was ancient and long out of patent is a slightly altered version still under patent.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 15 2020, @03:05AM (2 children)
Do you know what "asset amortization costs" mean? It means costs to be deducted over time from the value of those "means of production in large quantities" that were incurred when those were bought/built. As such, they are included in the production cost; and with these already included, the value of an insulin dose doesn't get over $6.50.
Neither any mobile phone is a simple to produce gizmo - and yet...
So, what in the "costs between $2.28 and $6.16" fails your understanding?
Or are you implying the rest of $270 is required to cover the expenses of research for the "how to produce insulin with only $6 bucks"?
---
Buddy, trying to prove yourself right, you sound more idiotic with each new attempt.
Even more tragic as the position you defend is just the regurgitated "without pharma profits, the humanity will not discover new drugs" brain-wash that was fed to you and you accepted without even thinking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:52PM
No but it might be required to pay the expenses of the 50 other drugs a manufacturer takes into the study process that never go anywhere.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 16 2020, @04:19PM
Check the methodology on the shit you cited. That is not in fact the case. It only covers imported materials cost and manufacturing cost.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 15 2020, @02:24AM (2 children)
Regardless, unless you want useful new drugs to cost tens of thousands of bucks per pill, quit bitching about spreading the cost across all the other drugs.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @08:38PM (1 child)
Can you stop being an idiot for maybe one week? It might be easier to not post, but being such a self-made success I'm sure you take pride in self improvement, even if it means taking a tough look at yourself. Right?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 16 2020, @04:14PM
I'm sorry, was there a refutation in that troll somewhere? Let me double check... Nope, just insults because you got nuthin.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 14 2020, @05:22PM (3 children)
I could be wrong, but I suspect that they could operate at a reasonable prophet and still seriously undercut Big Pharma on prices.
If not, then what really is making drugs so expensive?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 15 2020, @12:53AM (2 children)
Failed attempts to find a new drug for $X. If you want the drug companies to keep trying to find ways to fix things, you gotta pay.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 15 2020, @03:00PM (1 child)
Drug companies spend way more on advertising than on R&D. Most drug developments and advancements come from NIH research -- paid by tax dollars.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 16 2020, @04:16PM
Irrelevant. They're gaining profits by doing so or they wouldn't be doing so. Profits which fund the development of every new drug, both failed and successful.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:15AM (19 children)
Drug costs are only 17 % [politifact.com] of total health care spending. I suspect attacking the other 83 % would be more effective. Besides, if you have an incurable illness, or know someone who does, better drugs are what's needed. But go ahead, pinch pennies on the most important category.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deimtee on Tuesday January 14 2020, @10:21AM (6 children)
Some BOTECs.
California has near enough to 40 million people. USA average yearly health cost near enough $9000.
Total $360 billion.
17% of that = $60 billion for pills.
If they can cut that in half, $30 billion is still a fair bit of money.
But the real benefit is that this could be just the first step. It establishes an infrastructure that can then be used to reduce costs in other aspects of healthcare. Or they could start selling the generics to other states or countries.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @12:07PM (1 child)
What the hell are people getting for $10k per year? That's nuts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @05:47PM
Lots of bureaucracy, highly solvent insurance companies, rich old dudes running pharmaceutical companies, and the plebs are turned into wage slaves because they can't afford to quit.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday January 14 2020, @12:56PM (3 children)
If that were possible, why haven't some enterprising pharma types already done it? They could be pocketing a few Billion per year.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @03:13PM (1 child)
Because it is illegal.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday January 14 2020, @05:46PM
TFA says nothing about changing laws or regulations. Whatever is illegal now will be illegal under the new plan.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:12PM
The "enterprising types" got themselves a nice regulatory capture, raised prices through the roof, where do you think those extra dollars are going now?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday January 14 2020, @12:00PM (3 children)
That is a large percent. Let's suppose hypothetically that California could reduce their overall drug costs by half through the proposed scheme. Then they'd a quarter of the way to reducing costs to the same level as France, the next highest (IIRC) developed world health care system (by per GDP).
I'm pretty sure you could submit a similar composition fallacy for any other part of the health care system: reduce the scope of your consideration to 17% or less, then declare that California should be looking at the other 83+%. There's probably plenty wrong with the California approach, but looking at the drug component isn't part of it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @12:09PM (2 children)
For once I'm in agreement with (3766). Every part of the health care system has players that are on the take. If this approach by CA works with generics, the next steps are to extend something similar to (in no particular order): hospitals, doctors, test labs, etc. The only way to take cost out of health care in USA is a little (or a lot) here and a little there--eventually it adds up.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday January 14 2020, @12:58PM (1 child)
Tisk, can't even say the name. I'll just note here that I routinely agree with people who I've strongly disagreed with before. It's liberating once you get used to doing it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @08:41PM
I will credit you with being one of the few around here who at least tries. You've got a long way to go exploring ideas you've been conditioned to reject out of hand, but you're no Buzztard.
(Score: 4, Informative) by epitaxial on Tuesday January 14 2020, @03:05PM (7 children)
Oh bullshit with penny pinching. The price of insulin has doubled in *four* years. Do you honestly think the cost of production has doubled as well? Why the massive increase other than greed? How do other countries like Germany produce and sell it for fractions of the price here without going broke?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @03:16PM (5 children)
Because the government made it illegal to sell the cheaper insulin. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/why_people_with_diabetes_cant_buy_generic_insulin [hopkinsmedicine.org]
Jeez, people in this thread must live in a fog of confusion.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Tuesday January 14 2020, @04:45PM (4 children)
From your link:
A generic version of insulin, the lifesaving diabetes drug used by 6 million people in the United States, has never been available in this country because drug companies have made incremental improvements that kept insulin under patent from 1923 to 2014
Unless the physiology of humans has been changing there is no reason for that. Why is the USA literally the only country in the world with this problem?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @06:37PM
Because it is the seat of the world empire so the federal government attracts all the most corrupt people?
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday January 14 2020, @06:39PM (1 child)
Americans want the good stuff. Apparently the type of insulin [ucsf.edu] ("Activity Profile" graph) affects how often it needs to be injected. I'm no expert, but that seems like an important factor.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 14 2020, @09:04PM
I remember when the analogues first came on the market, higher cost, no real benefits , so even though the higher cost was covered, I refused. Not going to change something that works just fine - seems that many people get caught up with the "it's newer, it's more expensive, it must be better " marketing hype. If your blood sugar is already within norms, changing it won't help, and if it's not, you should be changing your eating and activity levels to fix the problem. Your body will thank you for not having to pee every 8 hours or less.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 14 2020, @08:47PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday January 14 2020, @06:08PM
According to this [diabetesjournals.org], that's the list price. The net price has increased much more modestly. The net price determines manufacturer profits. The fact that pricing is so opaque is a regulatory issue for which the government is responsible. Fix the rules that are on books instead of having the government fail at even more stuff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @01:59PM (1 child)
wow! see a body lying in middle of the road. no traffic yet ... how fast can u rush, grab and pull the body to the side of the road before posibly being run over ... again?
how difficult can it be. it is absolutly strange how getting cheaper medication to population needs any deliberation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @08:46PM
Free market libtards can't question the divine nature of Capitalism, otherwise how will they ever become King of their little hill?