Slashdot Mirror

Some citations for my numbers:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/pre-existing/
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/health-reform/pre-ex-conditions-findings.html

Notice that the non-government site posits a much higher number. I have more faith in the HHS numbers though.

Census data for the uninsured numbers: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html

you're more likely not to be insured if you have a pre-existing condition

Citation please.

Logic. If they won't sell it to you if you have a pre-existing condition, then you're more likely to have a pre-existing condition if you don't have insurance than if you do. This is a direct result of Bayes theorem. Look into conditional probability.

And even if we accept your #'s as factual, why not consider the break down of them, to quote a book sitting on my shelf (Liberty & Tyranny (Page 107)):

Yup, that's a real impartial source there. ROFL. Actual studies, government or by a respected university (public or private) or STFU.

Also, use numbers that aren't most of a decade old and from before the worst financial crisis of the last 60 years.

One of the early features of Obamacare was expanding access to so called "high risk pools"... know what happened? Not a whole lot of people signed up: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/why-hasnt-anyone-signed-up-for-the-high-risk-health-insurance-pools/239833/

Mostly because people didn't know about it at first- it wasn't well marketed. But FYI, the Maryland plan was sold out for the year months ago. I tried applying for it and was put on the waiting list. And told not to expect to get it this year (I haven't).

Says you (if true)... but still ignoring the immediate secondary effects, not to mention tertiary items such as the loss of insurance by others due to the new law.

Not a single person will lose insurance due to this law. Blatant fearmongering.

And one of those stupid things, apparently, is to be too poor for health insurance..

And yes, at one point long ago, back probably before you were born, the United States used to pride itself on being the longest average lifespan in the world.

Finally, not everybody has the chance to "get an education" that you did. Not everybody was taught how to make "good lifestyle decisions". And even if they were- Americans over the past 40 years have been basically thrown out with the trash, including nerds.

Drug companies love to talk about the cost of developing their drugs, but they easily spend more money Marketing their drugs than they do developing them. If there drugs are so good and wonderfull, shouldn't they sell themselves?

This gives much more information.

I keep hearing that the 2nd amendment would help in this situation but I haven't noticed any militias storming the local branch of the federal administration. I think the best way to protect Democracy is probably through self-motivated knowledge seeking and political activism on how things work instead of guns, but who can argue with a MP5.

Well, our second amendment rights have been eroded... There's no real way for the people to go to a store and buy shotguns to take on the government when they have planes and tanks. Also, it took more than a tax hike on tea to get our founding fathers up in a tizzy. Their real argument was that they weren't represented in the decisions that affected them. King George would come out with some decree that they had to obey yet they had no say in it. Now we could "revolt" simply by forming a new political party and voting the bastards out of office, but there's no real traction for it. All people seem to care about on election day is what candidate will give them back the most money. The Libertarian party would protect our rights, but they're never going to win any major elections as long as they are going to stop paying for Grandma's medication...

Forget about the fact that Grandma's medication can cost ten or more times what it sells for in other countries... The reason is that the pharmaceutical companies know the government has deep pockets and won't let Grandma go without her meds. Catch-22! If you think that drug companies need to have such high prices to fund R&D, here's a breakdown of where drug company revenues go:

• 32% - marketing, advertising, administration (gotta get more people to buy your drug to make more money)
• ~30% - Production
• 18% - Profit
• 14% - R&D
• ~6% - Taxes and "other"

However, I've never seen metrics for the amount of money spent on pharmaceutical advertising/lobbying vs. drug development, and your suggeston that the former outweighs the latter is a little hard to believe. Can you cite some figures? If this is true, I'd like to have them on hand.

here's one. it has an obvious agenda.

My biggest problem with the pharmaceutical companies is fundamental; they have to be profitable like any other company, they need recurring revenue, and being public, they have to grow. We have to need their drugs, we have to remain sick for them to be successful. They don't win by curing diseases. So they need a different business model in which they win when diseases are eradicated. Putting everyone in maintenance mode should be the worst thing of all.

Oh and btw, thanks for your level headed reply. it's... so refreshing here...

Your post is seriously misleading or pure hyperbole. Do you think you can back your claim up with some statistics on the expenses incurred by pharmaceutical companies?

I realize that marketing drugs is a major activity of big pharma, but your claim about where innovation goes on and where drug candidates are developed and how they are developed shows complete ignorance about the complexity of the process and the sorts of risks that companies assume in the process of taking thousands of drug candidates through to bring one or two viable drugs to market.

Nicely dodging my point that it's specious to argue that pharmcos need special protection because of the R&D costs, when in fact they are not risking huge amounts of money upfront. In fact they are trifling amounts, compared to other spending. See, for example, the figures in the report produced by Families USA which shows that Merck spent 6% of revenues on R&D, but spent 15% on marketing. The figures for Pfizer are 15% and 39%. The fact is that the pharmcos are one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington and get lots of, ahem, "special consideration" that I don't think they deserve.

The newer practice of advertising direct to consumers may also benefit consumers by advising them of choices their doctors may not be paying attention to.

Are you for real?!? I guess, given your comments, you or your dad must work for a pharmco, but even so, pretending that dtca benefits consumers is simply risible.

That's accurate in theory, however drug companies spend twice as much on marketing and whatnot than on research.

I hope that after I die, people will say of me: "That guy sure owed me a lot of money."

FUD?
I've read articles that show otherwise..
Drug makers spend FAR more in marketing then R&D.

Family Media Center
Third World Network

This is one companies research so take it with a grain of salt.
Drug companies, like any other business, are in it TO MAKE MONEY. That is their only purpose in life. How many lives are saved in the process is a bonus.

Closely related is the tobacco companies "charitable" contributions. They spent 15 million in a marketing blitz telling the world how they gave some charitible organization 5 million in donations. I could not find any links to this but I have read it in the past, really!

No, patents == possibility to put billions in pharmaceutical bank accounts while spending additional billions on advertising and bribing politicians.

Drug companies set new records in profit every year while telling us that they just can't survive unless the US government stamps out anyone else in the world who would dare to (gasp!) produce medicine for the sick. Don't believe me? Check this out.

Imagine if the current situation had existed when penicillin was discovered. How many millions of people would be dead just so American drug companies can have unprecented profits and pay their CEO's 40 million dollar salaries?

Brazil should be commended for being the first country to extend the finger to American pharmaceutical companies. Brazilian leaders have said that the lives of their own citizens matter more to them than the profits of foreign executives. Only now, and only here, would this be considered a radical position. Hopefully the rest of the world will eventually follow suit.