U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-11-2012, 12:15 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 19,475,293 times
Reputation: 3712

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1 View Post
I can't make too much of a connection between Solyndra and Columbia/HCA, where Rick Scott was CEO. Columbia/HCA was the world's largest health care provider while Solyndra manufactured solar energy products. Columbia/HCA was found guilty of fraudulently billing Medicare and giving kickbacks to doctors for referring patients. Scott resigned with a $10M severance and was not charged with anything. Columbia/HCA was found guilty paid a $650M fine, changed their name, went public and is now a very profitable company. Solyndra went bankrupt last year after receiving a $635M government loan. They are being sued by former employees and investigated by the government. Where is the connection?
solyndra was in a race to produce the cheapest product in a highly competitive industry, in direct competition with a highly supported chinese industry. the chinese companies got their first - making companies like solyndra the losers.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2012, 12:17 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 19,475,293 times
Reputation: 3712
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1 View Post
Right, schools can't prevent diabetes but in 13 years of school, don't you think schools could do a better job of educating children about diet and exercise? I can think of a lot of subjects and projects that kids do in school today that could be replaced by a solid education on health issues. This is the only opportunity many people will ever have to learn about proper nutrition, the benefits of exercise and the consequences of diabetes. This forum is a good starting place. //www.city-data.com/forum/diabetes/
sure - if taxpayers stopped demanding that schools spent less money on these types of things.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 12:21 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 19,475,293 times
Reputation: 3712
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
But you're not looking at it from a cost standpoint. The costs are simply not sustainable (whether it be Medicare/Medicaid or private insurance) and there's no way around that. We can't just look the other way and pretend the costs don't matter. We've been doing that for 40 years now. It's not working. Just about every economist from across the political spectrum says that Medicare is not financially sustainable in its current form.



I think it's a terrible idea because once the government takes something over, it is not held accountable and you never get the necessary reforms. Politicians from Lyndon B. Johnson to George W. Bush to President Obama have been throwing more and more money at the public health care systems to keep voters happy. But no one has made the system responsive or accountable for costs. And your average voter, not knowing or caring about the true costs of the system, will look the other way until there's an abolute crisis. Your average voter thinks diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc. are just normal aspects of aging that you just take a pill for, instead of viewing these diseases as being primarily rooted in poor diet/lifestyle. Once the government takes something over, you never get it back until/unless the system totally collapses and takes the rest of our economy with it.
yes - i realize medicare needs to be modified. to expect that programs can be put in place and work forever without making changes is one of the faults of our government. we never re-evaluate things. but people love talking about "fixing" medicare. it's a stump speech. it's not nearly as difficult as people make it sound. the math isn't that complicated.

as for it being a terrible idea - most other countries' systems rely on preventative care being paid for, and the much higher cost care being covered through private insurance. it makes a ton more sense than our current system, which is basically to put off care until you need a lot of it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 07:26 AM
 
1,736 posts, read 1,673,649 times
Reputation: 1135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libohove90 View Post
Based on my analysis, I have come to the conclusion that the United States is a unique nation regarding to efficiency. It seems to me that the US public sector is much more inefficient than its Western European counterparts. We have high per capita spending on education and produce poor results. We have by far the highest per capita spending on healthcare and the US healthcare system is largely incapable of providing its services to all citizens (for many reasons).
Well...competition. Intuitvly, a look at the geography and history of Europe shows that European countries have had some pretty ferocious competition next door. And countries that haven't kept up, or that haven't pulled together, have often been eliminated or savagely reduced. Lithuania used to be the biggest country in Europe. Brugundy, Austrohungarian Empire...perform or die.

America, in contrast got to expand into a huge, resource-rich, fertile area with technologically inferior individual tribes in. The competition nearby has been Canada, who doesn't really want to compete, and Mexico who is not really good at it.

European nations have certainly had more immediate motivation to keep a minimum of government competence going.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I don't understand why so many people have such a problem with this very simple principle:

Americans believe they are entitled to more health care than they can afford to pay for. It doesn't matter who writes the check---you, your government, or your insurance company---when there is not enough money, you can no longer demand bloated and expensive medical treatment and procedures. You'll have to start making decisions about what medical care you can afford, and resigning yourself to the fact that some day you will get sick and suffer discomfort and die. You can't keep borrowing non-existent money to buy immortality.
Well...that rather sidesteps the important problem: Other first world nations provide as many procedures, at half the cost! Possibly more procedures considering that they provide them to 100 % of the population. And they have lower rates of error.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
It is my understanding that the US bears much of the cost of R&D for the rest of the world...
Respectfully, your understanding is wrong.
America, when adjusted for its lower population, produce about 25 % more research per head than Western Europe, and is slightly behind the total EU in absolute production. The US spends 2,7 % of GDP on Research, compared to the EUs 1,9 %.

That does not even begin to adress research in Japan, Russia, China, Korea, Taiwan, Australia etc, etc.

Some numbers:

US total health care expense 18 % of GDP. 2 300 billion.
US military expense 4,7 % of GDP
Average first world healthcare expense 9 %
Average first world military expense 1,5 - 2,5 %

World biomedical research budget: 70 billion.

Also, an American pays more in taxes towards health care than a Swede, Brit, Canadian etc. He just doesn't see any of it, as the tax-paying american normally don't get any health care from the government.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2012, 12:49 AM
 
5,725 posts, read 9,111,113 times
Reputation: 7981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader View Post


Respectfully, your understanding is wrong.
America, when adjusted for its lower population, produce about 25 % more research per head than Western Europe, and is slightly behind the total EU in absolute production. The US spends 2,7 % of GDP on Research, compared to the EUs 1,9 %.

That does not even begin to adress research in Japan, Russia, China, Korea, Taiwan, Australia etc, etc.

Some numbers:

US total health care expense 18 % of GDP. 2 300 billion.
US military expense 4,7 % of GDP
Average first world healthcare expense 9 %
Average first world military expense 1,5 - 2,5 %

World biomedical research budget: 70 billion.

Also, an American pays more in taxes towards health care than a Swede, Brit, Canadian etc. He just doesn't see any of it, as the tax-paying american normally don't get any health care from the government.

You misunderstand.

Also, % of GDP comparisons have NOTHING to do with ACTUAL $ spent.

that's like saying the % GSP of Cali and Florida are the same.

What I'm saying is that the... call it 'per pill cost' is higher in the US... in order to sudsadise the rest of the wworld, not only in places like Canada, where taxes pay part (Sometimes) but in places like Mexico, Africa, the far east where the drug companies literally charge less for the same drugs.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2012, 02:21 AM
 
1,736 posts, read 1,673,649 times
Reputation: 1135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
You misunderstand.

Also, % of GDP comparisons have NOTHING to do with ACTUAL $ spent.
Actually, multiply the GDP with the % and you get actual $ spent. It is just a different way of writing it. I put it like that to illustrate that America does pull more than its weight in research, but doesn't dominate world production.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
What I'm saying is that the... call it 'per pill cost' is higher in the US... in order to sudsadise the rest of the wworld, not only in places like Canada, where taxes pay part (Sometimes) but in places like Mexico, Africa, the far east where the drug companies literally charge less for the same drugs.
Thats not how it works though. Drug companies research things they think they'll make a profit of researching. And they sell stuff at whatever rate the market will bear. There is no "deal" that if America pays higher prices, they've committed to plowing the extra money into marginal research projects, rather than profits.

Also, extra drugs expense above OECD prices is only about 5 % of US health care spending. Administrative and resources waste, defensive medicine and higher salaries are all bigger factors.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2012, 09:04 AM
 
5,725 posts, read 9,111,113 times
Reputation: 7981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader View Post
Actually, multiply the GDP with the % and you get actual $ spent. It is just a different way of writing it.
Yes, I get that it's a different way of writing it... one that can show seemingly similar numbers when the actual costs can be separated by billions of $.
That was my point...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader View Post
I put it like that to illustrate that America does pull more than its weight in research, but doesn't dominate world production.



Thats not how it works though. Drug companies research things they think they'll make a profit of researching. And they sell stuff at whatever rate the market will bear. There is no "deal" that if America pays higher prices, they've committed to plowing the extra money into marginal research projects, rather than profits.

Also, extra drugs expense above OECD prices is only about 5 % of US health care spending. Administrative and resources waste, defensive medicine and higher salaries are all bigger factors.
Didn't say there was a 'deal'. However it IS fact that in other countries the same drugs cost much less.

The additional waste of admin I recognize, but when your paying $100/Pill and someone else is paying $4 (Random numbers)... it adds up.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2012, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Northern Appalachia
6,556 posts, read 7,410,220 times
Reputation: 8042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post

Didn't say there was a 'deal'. However it IS fact that in other countries the same drugs cost much less.

The additional waste of admin I recognize, but when your paying $100/Pill and someone else is paying $4 (Random numbers)... it adds up.
I think Grim Reader did a good job of explaining this to you but you are still missing the point. He said that, "Drug companies research things they think they'll make a profit of researching. And they sell stuff at whatever rate the market will bear." This is all about maximizing profits. XYZ Drug Company can choose to make $10M selling a drug in some country at 50% of the US price or choose not to sell the drug at all because the profit margins don't meet their expectations. By taking the lower profit margin, they make $10M in profits that they would not have gained. If people in the US are willing to pay more for the drug, the company has every right to make a higher profit.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2012, 07:55 PM
 
5,725 posts, read 9,111,113 times
Reputation: 7981
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1 View Post
I think Grim Reader did a good job of explaining this to you but you are still missing the point. He said that, "Drug companies research things they think they'll make a profit of researching. And they sell stuff at whatever rate the market will bear." This is all about maximizing profits. XYZ Drug Company can choose to make $10M selling a drug in some country at 50% of the US price or choose not to sell the drug at all because the profit margins don't meet their expectations. By taking the lower profit margin, they make $10M in profits that they would not have gained. If people in the US are willing to pay more for the drug, the company has every right to make a higher profit.

Ummm, I'm NOT missing the point, that's what I was talking about.

Delfacto... the US is subsiding the other country's R&D...

All i was saying originally.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2012, 04:01 PM
 
1,736 posts, read 1,673,649 times
Reputation: 1135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
Ummm, I'm NOT missing the point, that's what I was talking about.

Delfacto... the US is subsiding the other country's R&D...

All i was saying originally.
Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well here. Let me try it another way:

The amount of money pharmas spend on R&D is completly independent on what they make from drugs in the USA.

They will research a promising concept if they think it'll be effective enough, and have few enough side effects, to be worth going for. If they don't think that, they won't research it. Cash flow from the US is not a factor in the decision.

Le us say pharma company A makes x amount of money selling stuff, and spends Y on research.

If they start selling stuff in the US, and now make 1,1 x of money, that means profit is up by 0,1 x. Research spending does not change. Profits have priority when it comes to spending.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:02 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top