Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Covid-19

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Re: Covid-19

    Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
    While looking down their nose at "for profit" institutions.
    To be fair, everyone should do that.

    Comment


      Re: Covid-19

      Originally posted by Texsahara View Post
      To be fair, everyone should do that.
      So, pretty much every college in America except for the Service Academies?

      "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
      - President Barack Obama

      Comment


        Re: Covid-19

        Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
        So, pretty much every college in America except for the Service Academies?
        When it comes to healthcare, no corporation should be making a profit

        Comment


          Re: Covid-19

          Originally posted by YankeePride1967 View Post
          When it comes to healthcare, no corporation should be making a profit
          First, if there was zero opportunity to make a profit, what's the incentive for scientific advancement? We'd still be using leeches. Restrict exorbitant profits? Fine. Restrict profits within the insurance industry? Fine. But, "no corporation should be making a profit?" Only if you want to shut down 100% of medical research. Why would an industry accept risk if there was no opportunity for reward?

          Second, what does this have to do with my quoted post? I said that all American Colleges are for-profit colleges, and you answered with a comment about profit in the health care industry.

          "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
          - President Barack Obama

          Comment


            Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
            First, if there was zero opportunity to make a profit, what's the incentive for scientific advancement? We'd still be using leeches. Restrict exorbitant profits? Fine. Restrict profits within the insurance industry? Fine. But, "no corporation should be making a profit?" Only if you want to shut down 100% of medical research. Why would an industry accept risk if there was no opportunity for reward?

            Second, what does this have to do with my quoted post? I said that all American Colleges are for-profit colleges, and you answered with a comment about profit in the health care industry.
            Believe it or not, there are many people out there who are not primarily motivated by money. JonŠs Salk might be an extreme example, but there he is.
            Russian warship, go **** yourself

            Comment


              Re: Covid-19

              Originally posted by JL25and3 View Post
              Believe it or not, there are many people out there who are not primarily motivated by money.
              People? Sure. Corporations? Not so much.

              A person can accept a certain amount of risk for altruistic purposes. A corporation will not invest millions of dollars into research toward a new product, or a new medical procedure, or a new drug, if there's all risk and no possibility of profit. Why would they?

              "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
              - President Barack Obama

              Comment


                Re: Covid-19

                Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
                People? Sure. Corporations? Not so much.

                A person can accept a certain amount of risk for altruistic purposes. A corporation will not invest millions of dollars into research toward a new product, or a new medical procedure, or a new drug, if there's all risk and no possibility of profit. Why would they?
                I mean why would when you can produce a drug that cost around a dollar to produce, had very little R&D cost, and you can charge between $2,300 - $5,000 for a 5 day course of treatment depending on which country you are trying to gouge?
                Baseball is life;
                the rest is just details.

                Comment


                  Re: Covid-19

                  Originally posted by JL25and3 View Post
                  Believe it or not, there are many people out there who are not primarily motivated by money. JonŠs Salk might be an extreme example, but there he is.
                  It doesnít matter what people would do. Doing research costs a ton of money simply based on the materials and instruments. Without capital investment, there would be no new pharmaceuticals.

                  Originally posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
                  I mean why would when you can produce a drug that cost around a dollar to produce, had very little R&D cost, and you can charge between $2,300 - $5,000 for a 5 day course of treatment depending on which country you are trying to gouge?
                  Every drug that succeeds has to also support all of the drugs that fail. The vast majority of drugs fail in clinical trials, and orders of magnitude more fail before even entering the clinic. There is a very important debate about what particular drugs should be priced at, but it is much more nuanced than simply looking at the list pride and saying it seems too high. Some drugs are priced too high-especially generics that lack competition-but identifying those that are is very complicated.

                  One counterintuitive example is Sovaldi, which at the time it was released was one of the most expensive drugs ever sold (I think itís about $84,000 per treatment). But what people donít realize is that this drug is a cure for hep C-a disease that costs insurance companies and the public significantly more than 84,000 per person. So sovaldi is actually a huge cost saver despite the price. Sovaldi was also the end result of decades of costly research and multiple failed companies/drugs from competing companies going after this same prize.

                  And the best part of our system is that the lifetime of patents is only 20 years and development of new drugs takes around 12 years typically. So these really expensive costs essentially fall off of a cliff after 8 years. Once the patent is expired, humankind will forever have an inexpensive cure for hep c.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
                    People? Sure. Corporations? Not so much.

                    A person can accept a certain amount of risk for altruistic purposes. A corporation will not invest millions of dollars into research toward a new product, or a new medical procedure, or a new drug, if there's all risk and no possibility of profit. Why would they?
                    There was a significant gap between leeches and big pharm.
                    Russian warship, go **** yourself

                    Comment


                      Re: Covid-19

                      Originally posted by billyhoyle View Post
                      It doesnít matter what people would do. Doing research costs a ton of money simply based on the materials and instruments. Without capital investment, there would be no new pharmaceuticals.


                      Every drug that succeeds has to also support all of the drugs that fail. The vast majority of drugs fail in clinical trials, and orders of magnitude more fail before even entering the clinic. There is a very important debate about what particular drugs should be priced at, but it is much more nuanced than simply looking at the list pride and saying it seems too high. Some drugs are priced too high-especially generics that lack competition-but identifying those that are is very complicated.

                      One counterintuitive example is Sovaldi, which at the time it was released was one of the most expensive drugs ever sold (I think itís about $84,000 per treatment). But what people donít realize is that this drug is a cure for hep C-a disease that costs insurance companies and the public significantly more than 84,000 per person. So sovaldi is actually a huge cost saver despite the price. Sovaldi was also the end result of decades of costly research and multiple failed companies/drugs from competing companies going after this same prize.

                      And the best part of our system is that the lifetime of patents is only 20 years and development of new drugs takes around 12 years typically. So these really expensive costs essentially fall off of a cliff after 8 years. Once the patent is expired, humankind will forever have an inexpensive cure for hep c.
                      https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...stract/2762308


                      Seems like big pharma profits are doing just fine.
                      Baseball is life;
                      the rest is just details.

                      Comment


                        Re: Covid-19

                        Originally posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
                        https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...stract/2762308


                        Seems like big pharma profits are doing just fine.
                        Do you take issue with any of the points in my post? I said some drugs are overpriced-itís just a bit nuanced to identify which ones and by how much. And many large companies profit less than pharma because they are expected to grow faster (I.e. less present revenue for current market cap due to future returns being priced in). The entire discussion is very complicated

                        Comment


                          Re: Covid-19

                          Originally posted by billyhoyle View Post
                          Do you take issue with any of the points in my post? I said some drugs are overpriced-it’s just a bit nuanced to identify which ones and by how much. And many large companies profit less than pharma because they are expected to grow faster (I.e. less present revenue for current market cap due to future returns being priced in). The entire discussion is very complicated
                          Seems like a national health care system than subsidized R&D costs in exchange for limiting profits would solve a lot of those complicated issues.
                          Baseball is life;
                          the rest is just details.

                          Comment


                            Re: Covid-19

                            Originally posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
                            Seems like a national health care system than subsidized R&D costs in exchange for limiting profits would solve a lot of those complicated issues.
                            Well itís important to keep the profit there, as this is what encourages VC into biotech companies that produce the breakthrough drug that is acquired by the big pharma company. You could implement a national healthcare system if it is properly funded so that the increase in access keeps overall profit similar while bringing down cost per patient. Iím not against universal healthcare at all-Iím a big supporter of it. creating a good plan that maintains innovation is a bit tricky though and will be expensive. My opinion is that we all (middle and upper classes) should pay more in taxes so everyone can get healthcare, much like how NHS is funded. This opinion isnít politically popular though as few are willing to pay more to help others.

                            Comment


                              Re: Covid-19

                              Big Pharma has gotten really good about dribbling their way around patent sunsets and the government has let them get away with it. The story of inhalers for asthma and COPD really fries me. The old inhalers emitted minimal amounts of CFCs. Pharma connived to get the EPA to ban the CFC inhalers, and all the drugs were quickly re-patented with non-CFC delivery systems at far higher prices, many not covered by insurance plans. So for a negligible improvement in the environment, thousands took it you-know-where big time from the drug companies and the insurance companies.
                              "Deep to left! Yastrzemski will not get it! It's a home run! A three-run homer by Bucky Dent! And the Yankees now lead by a score of 3-2!" - New York Yankees announcer Bill White (October 2, 1978)

                              Comment


                                Re: Covid-19

                                This monster....


                                https://twitter.com/therecount/statu...711836681?s=20
                                Wolf Blitzer: "More than 170,000 Americans are now dead ... Would you still suggest that this has been a success story?"

                                Jared Kushner: "Yes."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X