California determined to save Obamacare program. Proposals may include a state mandate in California requiring... (to buy, pharmacy)

[SportyandMisty]

Just for a minute, let's talk about what it might actually mean to reduce, in aggregate across the USA, the total dollars of health care consumed. Again, right now it is somewhat more than $10,000 per person on average.

It means consuming less health care goods and services.

It means fewer visits to the doctor.
It means fewer visits to physical therapy.
It means fewer visits to an urgent care or ER.
It means fewer X-Rays.
It means fewer CT Scans.
It means fewer tests.
It means fewer procedures.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Just for a minute, let's talk about what it might actually mean to reduce, in aggregate across the USA, the total dollars of health care consumed. Again, right now it is somewhat more than $10,000 per person on average.

It means consuming less health care goods and services.

It means fewer visits to the doctor.
It means fewer visits to physical therapy.
It means fewer visits to an urgent care or ER.
It means fewer X-Rays.
It means fewer CT Scans.
It means fewer tests.
It means fewer procedures.

For MOST people, stop being a pig and eating crap, smoking crap, and being lazy.

I went to WalMart last week, and saw 2 people probably 15 years younger than me (estimating), who were overweight and using the motorized Walmart Cart to get around the store.

Take a ****ing walk once in a while, and eat a salad once a day.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

That's just silly. Prescription drugs are a COST to the health insurance industry, and they would like the cost to go down.

You can't be serious, Sporty.

Big Pharma’s Big Lobby Money Is Preventing Real Reform on Drug Prices:
Big Pharma

According to the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, it takes at least 10 years to develop a new drug. It is no surprise that the typical monopoly period on an existing drug is also 10-12 years. Why rush to bring a new product to market when a monopoly makes it possible to raise the price of the old one with impunity?

How Government Policy Promotes High Drug Prices:
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10....9.051488/full/

How Much of Big Pharma's Massive Profits Are Used to Influence Politicians?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

It is not a crystal ball. It is economics.

We consume, on average and across the country, somewhat over $10,000 per person per year in health care goods and services (nothing to do with insurance).

THEREFORE, as surely as night follows day, healthcare insurance MUST cost somewhat over $10,000 per person per year on average, plus administrative costs, plus profit.'

If we can materially reduce the cost of health care, we can materially reduce the price of insurance for healthcare.

If we can materially reduce administrative expenses both at health care providers and at insurance companies, we can reduce the price for insurance for healthcare.

The system we had before Obamacare clearly didn't do anything to focus on the costs of health care or insurance administration.

Obamacare didn't do much of anything to reduce the costs of health care or insurance administration.

No proposal to replace Obamacare has any provision to reduce the costs of health care or insurance administration.

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Just for a minute, let's talk about what it might actually mean to reduce, in aggregate across the USA, the total dollars of health care consumed. Again, right now it is somewhat more than $10,000 per person on average.

It means consuming less health care goods and services.

It means fewer visits to the doctor.
It means fewer visits to physical therapy.
It means fewer visits to an urgent care or ER.
It means fewer X-Rays.
It means fewer CT Scans.
It means fewer tests.
It means fewer procedures.

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

For MOST people, stop being a pig and eating crap, smoking crap, and being lazy.

...

Take a ****ing walk once in a while, and eat a salad once a day.

Now here, in these last three posts quoted above, we witness one of the rarest confluences of events in the history of our universe:
Sporty, Cali, and tulemutt in complete agreement on something ...

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

So tell me CA4now, how do you propose a company like Alexion gets back their hundreds of millions of dollars invested to create a drug that saves the lives of only 150-300 people per year?

According to you, you think there should be no profit motive.

As has been pointed out to you by others, you tend to pull your own meaning out of others' posts, and then go off on a tangent. Not to mention that I never said that there should be no innovation in drugs. (Heaven forbid what might happen to your stock portfolio, Cali.)

NO PROFIT MOTIVE IN HEALTH INSURANCE is not the same as no profit motive in drug research and development.

Without a profit motive, insurance companies wouldn't provide coverage to people who needed Soliris.

The people who need Soloris would get it through their physician, with whom it would be provided by Alexion Pharmeceuticals. And most likely, at a lower cost.

Your solution would lead to more death, plain and simple because companies would not create or innovate under a non-profit model.

This is such a ludicrous idea that I must step away from the keyboard.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

NO PROFIT MOTIVE IN HEALTH INSURANCE is not the same as no profit motive in drug research and development.

Uh yes it does. You seem to be implying or thinking that insurance companies are simply inflating the costs of service regardless of the costs of coverage. This is totally unsubstantiated and not how private companies work in a market economy (that does however occur in universal health care systems).

This was my point in the previous post, you think drug prices and insurance costs are totally unrelated and separate. That's not how this industry and market works. You NEED to do some reading and research.

Seriously, go and talk to people who actually invest money into healthcare research.

The people who need Soloris would get it through their physician, with whom it would be provided by Alexion Pharmeceuticals. And most likely, at a lower cost.

How would your model lower costs? Let's work through your scenario. The medication is now being provided by a physician. Great. Now why would cost be lower? Is the physician paying the up front costs of $440,000 and giving a discount? Are Alexion's R&D costs lower? Why would it be cheaper?

This is such a ludicrous idea that I must step away from the keyboard.

If Alexion did not create Soliris, people would definitely die, hundreds per year.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Seriously, go and talk to people who actually invest money into healthcare research.

Yet you don't respond to the articles posted above. (And why would I want to talk to the executive who has made the EpiPen unaffordable?) EpiPen maker blasted for paying top exec $98 million - May. 31, 2017

How Insurance Companies Drive Up the Cost of Live-Saving Drugs for Patients:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-s...b_8710216.html

How Prescription Drugs Get Their Prices, Explained

How would your model lower costs? Let's work through your scenario. The medication is now being provided by a physician. Great. Now why would cost be lower?

Um, no middleman, for one? No mark up? No padding the cost, no....

If Alexion did not create Soliris, people would definitely die, hundreds per year.

Who said that a pharmaceutical company would stop researching or creating a drug? How do you go off on these tangents that have nothing to do with what anyone suggested?

[payutenyodagimas]

those who want single payer system, why not form a cooperative? no profit motive, no government..purely service

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Here is a medical discoveries historical timeline for anyone interested to consider whether profit motive is required to innovate. There was little to no motive in any of the list prior to post WWII.

History of Medicine Timeline

Interesting! Thanks for posting that.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

It is not a crystal ball. It is economics.

We consume, on average and across the country, somewhat over $10,000 per person per year in health care goods and services (nothing to do with insurance).

THEREFORE, as surely as night follows day, healthcare insurance MUST cost somewhat over $10,000 per person per year on average, plus administrative costs, plus profit.'

If we can materially reduce the cost of health care, we can materially reduce the price of insurance for healthcare.

If we can materially reduce administrative expenses both at health care providers and at insurance companies, we can reduce the price for insurance for healthcare.

The system we had before Obamacare clearly didn't do anything to focus on the costs of health care or insurance administration.

Obamacare didn't do much of anything to reduce the costs of health care or insurance administration.

No proposal to replace Obamacare has any provision to reduce the costs of health care or insurance administration.

They can't replace the current systems. If every Insurance company was closed and the Govt ran it, they would need to hire all the workers needed (Ex health company workers), but all the needed equipment to keep track of everyone, upper management, supervisors, inspectors and more. Then Govt when running something always spends more than the private companies, pays higher wages and benefits which would drive the costs up even more. The Govt run plans would simply cost more or cover way less.