Socialized medicine

[Kpdemello]

Maybe that's because FDA is spending all its time ensuring new drugs are first to market.

This begs the question as to whether this is a good use of the FDA's resources. As I've pointed out in other previous posts, the American notion of medicating everything that ails us isn't always the best policy. Add to that the penchant for drug companies to focus on patenting new drugs that aren't really much more effective than what we already have just to ensure they have something they can charge exorbitant amounts for (see e.g. insulin).

[XtremeJibber2001]

Maybe that's because FDA is spending all its time ensuring new drugs are first to market.

This begs the question as to whether this is a good use of the FDA's resources. As I've pointed out in other previous posts, the American notion of medicating everything that ails us isn't always the best policy. Add to that the penchant for drug companies to focus on patenting new drugs that aren't really much more effective than what we already have just to ensure they have something they can charge exorbitant amounts for (see e.g. insulin).

I meant to have an /s ... it's just a wild guess on my part.

I'd argue drugs have more benefits than medical devices, but I'm not a device guy

Most of the top-selling drugs are treating things like irregular heartbeat/atrial fibrillation, arthritis/psoriasis, melanoma/Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, etc. I think these conditions are greatly improved or minimized by these drugs and the notion people would be fine (or better?) without them seems preposterous.

I think most pharmas are looking at new drugs that are materially more effective (or treat a rare / new condition), which may get them the blockbuster they need ... now do Pharmas look at existing drugs and try to find new indicators to extend the shelf life of the drugs patent? Sure.

[deadheadskier]

I think the best argument against socialized medicine is the idea that it will inhibit or restrict access to innovation in medicine. I think it's a real concern, but I also think there are ways to mitigate that issue.

One reason I don't like the idea of Medicare for all is that it will put a single entity in control of paying for everyone's health care. The U.S. is too big and diverse for that, and I think we should instead set up multiple competing quasi-public entities to provide health benefits. That way there is some level of competition. I believe this sort of thing has been done in other places (Israel, for instance).

Another concept is to put each state in charge of medical care for their own citizens, though have 50 separate bureaucracies seems like overkill. But this is sort of already done with medicaid right now, so the infrastructure may to some degree already be in place.

Bottom line though is I think we need to put professionals with actual knowledge in charge of this process, both in coming up with a plan and in implementing that plan.

It's not an 'idea' that it will inhibit or restrict access. It does inhibit / restrict access today. A person in the UK will not have access to the same innovative therapies as someone in the USA. This is primarily because the UK's NHS picks and chooses, based on a variety of parameters, which therapies UK citizens can access.

Yeah,

It's a two way street though. I can tell you for a fact that new radiology, anesthesia and cardiac monitoring technology hits the market in the EU as well as many South American and Asian countries often 2-4 years ahead of the US. This is true even for large American medical technology companies such as GE. The path for introducing technology abroad in many locations is quicker.

Why does it hit EU faster than US? FDA slower than the EU equivalent(s)?

Correct

Maybe that's because FDA is spending all its time ensuring new drugs are first to market.[/quote]

I don't think the differences are as great as you think they might be. The FDA is faster for drug approval than the EU on the order of months vs years for devices, which the EU has the advantage.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/f ... tudy-says/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madhatter]

Maybe that's because FDA is spending all its time ensuring new drugs are first to market.

This begs the question as to whether this is a good use of the FDA's resources. As I've pointed out in other previous posts, the American notion of medicating everything that ails us isn't always the best policy. Add to that the penchant for drug companies to focus on patenting new drugs that aren't really much more effective than what we already have just to ensure they have something they can charge exorbitant amounts for (see e.g. insulin).

yeah that's their "penchant"...the more you post the dumber you look...

I meant to have an /s ... it's just a wild guess on my part.

I'd argue drugs have more benefits than medical devices, but I'm not a device guy pretty sure BedPanLickingskier is a device guy..

Most of the top-selling drugs are treating things like irregular heartbeat/atrial fibrillation, arthritis/psoriasis, melanoma/Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, revlamid = 10k dollars per monthetc. I think these conditions are greatly improved or minimized by these drugs being alive isn't exactly an improvement but it's definitely a great outcome...and the notion people would be fine (or better?) without them seems preposterous.nope, according to my leftist friends they could cure this stuff but they don't want to in favor of ongoing subpar treatments designed to make money from the poor while never actually curing anything...or some dumb@ss penchant or other...

I think most pharmas are looking at new drugs that are materially more effective (or treat a rare / new condition), which may get them the blockbuster they need ... now do Pharmas look at existing drugs and try to find new indicators to extend the shelf life of the drugs patent? Sure.

maybe another agency to make sure the FDA does the right thing... oh and a tax too...

[Kpdemello]

Most of the top-selling drugs are treating things like irregular heartbeat/atrial fibrillation, arthritis/psoriasis, melanoma/Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, etc. I think these conditions are greatly improved or minimized by these drugs and the notion people would be fine (or better?) without them seems preposterous.

Agreed that this category of drugs is important and innovation in this area needs to be preserved. You would know better than I about which drugs are top sellers, as I'm not in the field and I get the impression that you are. But the point is that socialized medicine doesn't always mean lack of innovation. The question shouldn't really be "should we do socialized medicine" but rather "how can we do socialized medicine while preserving innovation as much as possible" because the two aren't mutually exclusive. Just look at Europe. Their health care rivals ours.

[deadheadskier]

Maybe that's because FDA is spending all its time ensuring new drugs are first to market.

This begs the question as to whether this is a good use of the FDA's resources. As I've pointed out in other previous posts, the American notion of medicating everything that ails us isn't always the best policy. Add to that the penchant for drug companies to focus on patenting new drugs that aren't really much more effective than what we already have just to ensure they have something they can charge exorbitant amounts for (see e.g. insulin).

I meant to have an /s ... it's just a wild guess on my part.

I'd argue drugs have more benefits than medical devices, but I'm not a device guy

Most of the top-selling drugs are treating things like irregular heartbeat/atrial fibrillation, arthritis/psoriasis, melanoma/Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, etc. I think these conditions are greatly improved or minimized by these drugs and the notion people would be fine (or better?) without them seems preposterous.

I think most pharmas are looking at new drugs that are materially more effective (or treat a rare / new condition), which may get them the blockbuster they need ... now do Pharmas look at existing drugs and try to find new indicators to extend the shelf life of the drugs patent? Sure.

Without the devices used to diagnose the conditions you list, the drugs don't matter. It's too late.

The better the diagnostic equipment, the earlier the detection and intervention; the better the outcomes.

I'm of the opinion that frequent screening by high quality diagnostic equipment is truly the best way towards lowering costs.

Everyone has looked at a hospital bill and has been shocked by the cost for basic care. What you are doing is subsidizing ICU patients. The cost of that level of care is extraordinarily high. If you can catch the ailments earlier while they are easier to treat, then you avoid sending those patients to the ICU at an average cost of $4300-$11,000 per day.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Just look at Europe. Their health care rivals ours.

If you have a disease many others have (say cancer) ... there's a good chance you will get nearly the same care in Brussels as you would in NYC. In Brussels it's 'free' (Belgium has the highest effective rate in Europe at ~50%) and in the US you/your employer pay for coverage. I'd argue, in this example, it's close to a wash. What you spend in the US is similar/close to what you'd spend in Brussels, but where the money comes from is different (e.g., out of pocket vs taxes).

However, if you have a rare disease or are otherwise healthy ... socialized medicine is not ideal. You may not have access to innovative therapies or clinical trials. You can hedge against this with private insurance, but the point of socialized medicine is to avoid having to do this. If you're healthy, you're paying ~50% tax for something you're not leveraging (naturally this gets into the role of govt and our role as humans, but you get my point).

[Kpdemello]

Just look at Europe. Their health care rivals ours.

If you have a disease many others have (say cancer) ... there's a good chance you will get nearly the same care in Brussels as you would in NYC. In Brussels it's 'free' (Belgium has the highest effective rate in Europe at ~50%) and in the US you/your employer pay for coverage. I'd argue, in this example, it's close to a wash. What you spend in the US is similar/close to what you'd spend in Brussels, but where the money comes from is different (e.g., out of pocket vs taxes).

However, if you have a rare disease or are otherwise healthy ... socialized medicine is not ideal. You may not have access to innovative therapies or clinical trials. You can hedge against this with private insurance, but the point of socialized medicine is to avoid having to do this. If you're healthy, you're paying ~50% tax for something you're not leveraging (naturally this gets into the role of govt and our role as humans, but you get my point).

True. It's a cost benefit analysis, and there are trade offs. Other cases to consider are 1) you live in the U.S. and you don't have health care coverage; 2) you have a disease or issue that you're only partly covered for, and have massive out of pocket expenses; 3) you have a condition that you are fully covered for, but you need to change jobs and therefore change coverage, but the new carrier might not cover your care. These are all major and serious problems with our current system that can be solved by socialized medicine. I'm sure there are others that I can't think of.

So is our system better for the majority or is a socialized system better? Seems to me socialized medicine is better for the majority, as I imagine it's a pretty small portion of the population that has a rare disease. On top of that, maybe there are things we can do to ensure access to these treatments for rare diseases under a quasi-socialized system.

[madhatter]

Just look at Europe. Their health care rivals ours.that's your best argument for a complete system upheaval???their system "rivals" ours? no thanks...

If you have a disease many others have (say cancer) ... there's a good chance you will get nearly the same care in Brussels as you would in NYC. In Brussels it's 'free' (Belgium has the highest effective rate in Europe at ~50%) and in the US you/your employer pay for coverage. I'd argue, in this example, it's close to a wash. What you spend in the US is similar/close to what you'd spend in Brussels, but where the money comes from is different (e.g., out of pocket vs taxes).

However, if you have a rare disease or are otherwise healthy ... socialized medicine is not ideal. You may not have access to innovative therapies or clinical trials. You can hedge against this with private insurance, but the point of socialized medicine is to avoid having to do this. If you're healthy, you're paying ~50% tax for something you're not leveraging (naturally this gets into the role of govt and our role as humans, but you get my point).

True. It's a cost benefit analysis, and there are trade offs. Other cases to consider are 1) you live in the U.S. and you don't have health care coverage; 2) you have a disease or issue that you're only partly covered for, and have massive out of pocket expenses; 3) you have a condition that you are fully covered for, but you need to change jobs and therefore change coverage, but the new carrier might not cover your care. These are all major and serious problems with our current system that can be solved by socialized medicine. I'm sure there are others that I can't think of.

So is our system better for the majority or is a socialized system better? the majority are "otherwise healthy" Seems to me socialized medicine is better for the majority, as I imagine it's a pretty small portion of the population that has a rare disease. On top of that, maybe there are things we can do to ensure access to these treatments for rare diseases under a quasi-socialized system.

being that the majority are healthy it seems that most of them would not benefit from a system that taxed them at greater than 50%... but no matter what it MUST be solved by social medicine...

you argument starts with social medicine as the end game...all paths must lead to socialized medicine...you never mention any other options yet act as if you are an authority on the subject looking out for the "greater good"...here's a newsflash gruber, only stupid people want the govt in control of anything but particularly:

fuel and energy

food

housing

healthcare

media

we don't want "free stuff"... we want freedom, especially from you totalitarian collectivists...

[Bubba]

here's some more data for you to get emotional over

Under Trump, Obamacare premiums down second year in a row

Obamacare premiums for midlevel plans will fall by 4% next year, bucking predictions that premiums would soar after the Trump administration and congressional Republicans made changes to the healthcare law.

The drop in 2020 premiums, announced Tuesday, marks the second consecutive year that premiums will go down under President Trump. To go along with the decrease, more insurers are joining Obamacare exchanges, offering customers more options. A total of 175 insurers are offering plans across the U.S., an increase of 20 from the year before.

The trend begins to reverse double-digit premiums and mass insurer exits seen during former President Barack Obama's last two years in office.

"The bottom line under President Trump: Costs are down and options are up," said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar in a phone call with reporters Monday.

The outcomes are despite the latest changes to the healthcare law. As part of the tax law, Republicans zeroed out, starting in 2019, the fine for going uninsured, known as the "individual mandate," and the Trump administration is allowing people to buy plans outside of Obamacare's rules. Democrats and pro-Obamacare groups warned these actions would have a devastating effect on the marketplace, but those predictions appear to have been off the mark.

"The president who was supposedly trying to sabotage the law has been better at running it than the guy who wrote the law," Azar said.


Still, the Trump administration is facing other criticisms over Obamacare. The number of people without health insurance has risen under Trump, and the administration is also siding with Republican states in a lawsuit asking an appeals court to invalidate Obamacare in response to the individual mandate having been zeroed out. A decision on the case is expected in the coming weeks and may confuse customers when they go to sign up for coverage.

Despite the favorable news out Tuesday, health officials stressed in the phone call with reporters that health insurance premiums still priced out too many people.

The rates announced apply to silver plans, which are the midlevel plans on the healthcare.gov exchange. In dollar amounts, they are expected to cost an average of $388 a month, a total that does not include out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles.

The exchange was created under Obamacare to allow people who don't get health insurance through a job or a government program to buy private coverage. How much people pay for coverage is determined by where they live, how much they make, their age, whether they smoke, and what type of plan they pick. Some people are even able to buy plans for $0 a month because of how much the government kicks in.

But middle-class people are priced out of getting subsidies if they make just over about $48,600 a year for an individual. People below that income threshold generally get subsidies from the federal government that make premiums less expensive and that protect them from price increases.

Many of those who make more choose to go uninsured or to go with options the Trump administration provided outside of the law, which are less expensive but don't require that insurers cover sick people or charge them the same amount as healthy people.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma took credit for the reduction in premiums and the entrance of new insurers, saying it was due to the administration's "tireless work to mitigate the damage caused by Obamacare."

One of the main ways that the administration was able to lower premiums was by approving reinsurance plans in a dozen states. The plans, which are supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, funnel federal dollars to pay for high medical claims. As a result, premiums fall for everyone on a healthcare plan.

The shopping period to sign up for health insurance will run for most states from Nov. 1 to Dec. 15, and starting a week before customers will be able to window-shop to see what plans will be available.

Is this the same plan that you, Trump, and Republicans in general wanted to totally reject and replace rather than tweak it to make it better? Seems like you’re now acknowledging that tweaks are working.

[madhatter]

here's some more data for you to get emotional over

Under Trump, Obamacare premiums down second year in a row

Obamacare premiums for midlevel plans will fall by 4% next year, bucking predictions that premiums would soar after the Trump administration and congressional Republicans made changes to the healthcare law.

The drop in 2020 premiums, announced Tuesday, marks the second consecutive year that premiums will go down under President Trump. To go along with the decrease, more insurers are joining Obamacare exchanges, offering customers more options. A total of 175 insurers are offering plans across the U.S., an increase of 20 from the year before.

The trend begins to reverse double-digit premiums and mass insurer exits seen during former President Barack Obama's last two years in office.

"The bottom line under President Trump: Costs are down and options are up," said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar in a phone call with reporters Monday.

The outcomes are despite the latest changes to the healthcare law. As part of the tax law, Republicans zeroed out, starting in 2019, the fine for going uninsured, known as the "individual mandate," and the Trump administration is allowing people to buy plans outside of Obamacare's rules. Democrats and pro-Obamacare groups warned these actions would have a devastating effect on the marketplace, but those predictions appear to have been off the mark.

"The president who was supposedly trying to sabotage the law has been better at running it than the guy who wrote the law," Azar said.


Still, the Trump administration is facing other criticisms over Obamacare. The number of people without health insurance has risen under Trump, and the administration is also siding with Republican states in a lawsuit asking an appeals court to invalidate Obamacare in response to the individual mandate having been zeroed out. A decision on the case is expected in the coming weeks and may confuse customers when they go to sign up for coverage.

Despite the favorable news out Tuesday, health officials stressed in the phone call with reporters that health insurance premiums still priced out too many people.

The rates announced apply to silver plans, which are the midlevel plans on the healthcare.gov exchange. In dollar amounts, they are expected to cost an average of $388 a month, a total that does not include out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles.

The exchange was created under Obamacare to allow people who don't get health insurance through a job or a government program to buy private coverage. How much people pay for coverage is determined by where they live, how much they make, their age, whether they smoke, and what type of plan they pick. Some people are even able to buy plans for $0 a month because of how much the government kicks in.

But middle-class people are priced out of getting subsidies if they make just over about $48,600 a year for an individual. People below that income threshold generally get subsidies from the federal government that make premiums less expensive and that protect them from price increases.

Many of those who make more choose to go uninsured or to go with options the Trump administration provided outside of the law, which are less expensive but don't require that insurers cover sick people or charge them the same amount as healthy people.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma took credit for the reduction in premiums and the entrance of new insurers, saying it was due to the administration's "tireless work to mitigate the damage caused by Obamacare."

One of the main ways that the administration was able to lower premiums was by approving reinsurance plans in a dozen states. The plans, which are supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, funnel federal dollars to pay for high medical claims. As a result, premiums fall for everyone on a healthcare plan.

The shopping period to sign up for health insurance will run for most states from Nov. 1 to Dec. 15, and starting a week before customers will be able to window-shop to see what plans will be available.

Is this the same plan that you, Trump, and Republicans in general wanted to totally reject and replace rather than tweak it to make it better? Seems like you’re now acknowledging that tweaks are working.

the MANDATORY part is gone...that was what most had an issue with...it was also the core of obamacare...

the above stated "risk pool" funding was also preferred over the policy mandates...catastrophic plans are an option again also...

the sky high premiums that were supposed to go down were also a huge problem...

I like the way you pretend totally reject means completely abandon and never implement anything that was in it ever again...

pretty sure it's been far more than tweaked....and there's more to be done as well...


personally I'd rather see far less govt intervention but that's unrealistic...

[Kpdemello]

Not to mention, this looks a lot like socialized medicine, where Federal dollars are being used to pay for health care claims.