Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    If DHHS is involved, it's gotta be a stupid idea. They have over 80,000 employees sitting around thinking up stupid things to do because they aren't intelligent enough to work in the real world.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    This is not 'drug prices' but related medical prices. My eye was caught a few years back by a simple study at Washington University of St.Louis.

    They called 2 hospitals in each state plus the District of Columbia to find out what the cost would be for their "62 year old grandmother with no health insurance" to have a total hip replacement. They knew the proper CPT codes for the procedures.

    "The results show that 40% of the top-ranked orthopedic hospitals and 36% of those not in the top rankings were not able to provide an estimated price for a total hip replacement.

    Plus, of those that could give an estimate, there was a tenfold difference between the lowest at $11,100 and the highest at $125,798.

    Rosenthal describes the variation as "striking", particularly as they "tried to give each hospital identical information in terms of what the procedure would require".

    Only 9 of the 20 top-ranked hospitals (45%) and 10 of the ones not in the top ranking (10%) were able to give a completed bundled price for the procedure.

    The researchers were able to compile complete prices for another 3 top-ranked (15%) and 54 non-top-ranked (53%) by contacting the hospitals and the affiliated physician surgeries separately.

    Putting these results together, the complete price ranged from $12,500 to $105,000 at top-ranked hospitals and from $11,100 to $125,798 at non- top-ranked hospitals."

    One cannot use the "market" to control costs if it's impossible to figure out what things are going to cost until you get a bill.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Solver 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Healthcare is mired in political manipulation. This is why many claim it needs to be more manipulated with more politics and more central planning.
      Their motto seems to be, “If it’s broke, break it more.”
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rainman0720 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Putting on my bulls eye...

    Just to play devil's advocate, if the government can force drug manufacturers to list the price of a 30-day supply, why couldn't they force every company that advertises in magazines, on television, or in newspapers to list their prices? I'm just not sure I see why it's considered a positive to force drug companies to include pricing information.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  gharkness 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      I think the "idea" is if all the prices are revealed, the higher-priced ones will be "shamed" into reducing their prices to be more competitive.

      Given the attitude of the guy that sells Epi-Pens, I don't think shame is anywhere in his vocabulary (even though he is currently in prison, or was, recently). I hate, hate HATE to see people gouged (and I DO have a dog in that fight because I have several family members with extreme allergies).

      But it seems to me that this is a great opportunity for an inventor or someone with some character to come in and take away all the high-priced sales. NOT to have it legislated, but with old-fashioned market tactics. There's no good thing about legislated prices, IMO.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        "Shaming" private companies in order to try manipulate prices is not a legitimate function of government.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  gharkness 2 months, 1 week ago
          Didn't say it was. There are many functions of government that are not legitimate and they do it anyway. Big surprise.

          Are you unable to tell the difference between a speculation about reasoning and a defense?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
            You didn't make the distinction yourself while sympathizing with the motive. Are you unable to accept a direct, principled moral judgment you didn't make? You did say you oppose direct price controls.

            As for the practicality of competition, medication that is still relatively new is under patent protection (intellectual property rights), and developing practical alternatives is made much more difficult by additional costs of development caused by the FDA. (There is, however, now an alternative to EpiPen https://www.rn.com/featured-stories/t...

            Here's an interesting recent article on the value of progress against allergies in general https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/... There's no shame in profiting from it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  gharkness 2 months, 1 week ago
              Thank you for the articles; now let's get to the meat of it....Yes, it appears we finally agree on something! I will not accept a "direct, principled, moral judgment I didn't make" until I understand - and accept - the reasoning behind it. If you consider that to be a bad thing, well, sorry.

              I have a lot more to say on the subject but I prefer not to turn it into a personal attack, so I am stopping now.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                Does that mean that you aren't sure whether shaming private companies in order to try manipulate prices is or is not a legitimate function of government?

                My statement of the principle that it is not is not an inability "to tell the difference between a speculation about reasoning and a defense".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  gharkness 2 months, 1 week ago
                  I dont see any reason for further questioning or explanation. The statement I made stands on its own and i did already answer that question.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                    The principle is that the proper purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual through objective law. That excludes manipulating prices in any way and excludes the use of government resources to shame or otherwise publicly denigrate any citizen. You don't have to further discuss it here if you don't want to.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  gharkness 2 months, 1 week ago
                      When I need instruction I will be happy to let you know.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                        When you post on a public forum it is subject to comment and discussion, which you can choose to engage in if you choose. It is not an offer for "instruction".

                        "Shaming" in place of direct argument is dishonestly manipulative and disrespectful, let alone inappropriate for government administration of justice.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
                          The one who is dishonest and manipulative, is you my friend.

                          I made a post, and explained the basis of it quite clearly with the same description and assertion that you just made. The same.

                          You may not like the wording where I started “freedom = responsibility”. However, the manner I defended it you state yourself.

                          There is no ad hominem, analogy, or other fallacy here. You quite clearly agree with me on the fundamental concept as stated in your own words, but can’t accept it. Too bad, but that problem is yours, and I am not out of line.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  gharkness 2 months, 1 week ago
                          It is 100% correct that my comments are open to "comment and discussion." If only it were a discussion instead of a dictation. For myself, I made my statement and explained it once, very clearly. And you still attempt to make me revisit it. Not happening. That's all that will be provided, period.

                          However, I have neither the ability nor desire to direct anyone's actions, so please go right ahead and "comment and discuss" to your heart's content. If you desire further interaction (with me) when I have expressed my clear disinterest, then it would appear that there is a problem here, and it's not mine.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by rainman0720 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        My next observation: Would drug companies be forced to have multiple versions of their commercials with different prices, depending on where the ads were running?

        I can go into a Kroger in Indianapolis and buy a gallon of milk for some price. That same gallon of milk won't cost the same in a Publix in Murrells Inlet SC or a King Soopers in Denver.

        I'm operating under the assumption that the retail prices for a prescription in New York City or Los Angeles will be significantly different than the exact same prescription in Topeka or Dallas or Portland.

        If I'm wrong in that assumption, I'll shut up.

        But if I'm right, then forcing the prices to be revealed would force perhaps dozens of the same ads to be produced, based on the targeted areas.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  gharkness 2 months, 2 weeks ago
          Many, if not most people have zero concern for the 'retail' cost of any drug, because they have insurance. So why should I care that the retail price of an Epi-Pen is $700 if it only costs me $25? No matter where I am.

          The determining factor is what insurance company I use.

          Of course if we end up with single payer, the entire discussion is moot.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 2 months, 2 weeks ago
            Very good point and it's the underlying primary factor in high prices of medical care and products- little (or none) free market price feedback between the one paying and the one receiving the goods. (Remarkably similar to socialism.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 months, 2 weeks ago
            TANSTAAFL - your epi pen does not cost $25. Your out of pocket cost is $25. One way or another you are paying the other $675, either in insurance payments or if your employer is paying then there is less money to pay you.

            The current system makes all providers appear to cost the same. If we started having "lunch" insurance so that your lunch cost the same at fast food or a steak house, would you ever eat fast food again? And would lunch insurance be affordable?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  gharkness 2 months, 2 weeks ago
              I failed to indicate that I don't share this "zero concern for the retail cost of any drug."

              I understand and agree....and I DO care about the price of medication of every sort. It's also interesting to note that in many instances, if one doesn't have "insurance" the price drops dramatically. One frequently just has to let the medical provider know that you won't be burdening them with the insurance requirements. I have an MD friend who often laments the cost to him of an employee whose full-time job is to interface with insurance companies, provide the necessary documents, and obtain the requisite permissions to get paid.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    I’d just like a law that requires US sales to be at less than (let’s say 10%) above the minimum price offered to any buyer, internationally. If they negotiated with another government for a price, let’s get the benefit of it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      There should be no laws imposing price controls.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        Oh, you are still here? Excellent. Maybe you can explain why a person should be responsible for the consequences of their own decisions, a statement you made.

        Sorry, I didn’t forget.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 2 weeks ago
          Read Ayn Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
            I’m not looking for homework. I’m looking for your own logic and wording. It seems massively simple.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              No one gave you homework. You asked a question and received an answer. The topic has been discussed here many times. The article Ayn Rand wrote describing the basis for her ethics is fundamental to her ideas and is the foundation of a proper, individualist politics. The topic of the basis of morality and therefore politics is not "massively simple".

              The individual's own life and happiness is the moral purpose of his own life. Achieving that is not automatic. It requires his own rational thought and choices to achieve over the course of a lifetime, learning from others where possible, but responsible for his own decisions on what to accept as true and what to choose to do. No one else can do someone else's thinking for him and no one else is responsible for the results of his thinking. If you are interested then please read "The Objectivist Ethics".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
                I’m so happy you clarified.

                Just like I said a while ago: Freedom = Responsibility. To have freedom, without imposing on others one must be responsible for their own decisions.

                That sparked a massive 99 volley argument last time. I guess you’ve figured it since then.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Freedom does not equal responsibility. They are different concepts. Each individual is personally responsible for his own decisions by the nature of human beings, prior to any political concepts, which are social in nature. "To have freedom, without imposing on others one must be responsible for their own decisions" is incoherent and not an argument.

                  Your typically snide sarcastic posts are as inappropriate as ever. There was no "99 volley argument" and I did not "figure it since then". My position and explanation have not changed. Political principles follow and depend on moral principles. The conservative mantra "With freedom comes responsibility" is backwards.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
                    If one is free, one is responsible. If one has a guardian (e.g. a child), one is not free, and one is semi responsible.

                    Of course freedom and responsibility are two independent concepts. However, they are inseparable, as you stated so eloquently. Are we forgetting?

                    Sorry if this confuses some unnecessarily confusing and mystical Objectivist dogma ... but it is really simple.

                    With the freedom people seek, must come the responsibility for their own actions.

                    Say it again, just for everyone to hear, like you did before:
                    "People are responsible for the consequences of their own decisions."
                    Like Joe Pesci says about the tire marks, "It's ok. You can say it".
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                      "We" are not "forgetting", but Thoritsu is misquoting out of context, along with his repetitious smears and personal insults.

                      I just wrote: "Each individual is personally responsible for his own decisions by the nature of human beings, prior to any political concepts, which are social in nature." That means morally responsible. It is not a consequence of a political theory. Individuals are already responsible for their own thinking, choices and actions before any consideration of politics. It does not "come from" freedom.

                      Thoritsu's posts can't follow the pattern and direction of the logic, let alone the content, which he smears as "unnecessarily confusing and mystical Objectivist dogma".
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 1 week ago
                  This is my take which may be what you meant-

                  The general rules referred to by ewv may not be clear to all (ie. to me) so I think about examples.
                  For interpretation I rely on Galt's Oath mainly and a bit of reading between the lines, I see the limitation, if it is that, on freedom in acknowledgement that everyone, not just you, has the same rights, this is a key difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism.
                  There are valid obligations to others- within the marriage bond and to one's children. These can be considered as a contract written or not.
                  A valid contract must have value for value agreed to by mentally competent persons.
                  What about an obligation to one's aged and infirm parents? I think there is no general obligation here, this sets Objectivism apart from Confucianism.
                  Armed forces, yes if an adult enlists under a contract.
                  Voluntary slavery, no. But if you own your own life so should you be able to sell or give it away? No, this is a reflexive not a logical statement.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                    I don't know what you mean by the "general rules referred to by ewv".

                    Galt's oath is a moral principle rejecting altruism, one of the requirements for the political principle of freedom. Any politics rests on a view of morality. Before you can know what is proper to do in the political realm you must know what is proper for the individual. One can't start with "freedom" then look for limitations. The concept of political freedom depends on understanding the concept of moral rights, which in turn depends on an individualist, egoistic morality. This is all a matter of the logical dependency in a hierarchy of concepts and principles.

                    You don't have to try to read between the lines. For the systematic, logical dependency of politics on ethics and more fundamental aspects of philosophy you should read Ayn Rand's non fiction, especially Philosophy: Who Needs It?, and should read Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

                    The difference between Objectivism and libertarianism begins with a distinction between categories: Objectivism is a philosophy and libertarianism is a political theory. Libertarians are typically a-philosophical, and in some cases outright hostile to philosophy (and as you see on this forum often hostile to Objectivism).. The result is all kinds of contradictions, such as those who embrace anarchism and the attempts to tolerate or embrace altruism as compatible with capitalism.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
                    I like examples, but this is just way too hard. I am pleased that ewv finally came around to agreeing with me. Sneeky though, using my own words...

                    The only way freedom really works, is if ones own choices do not compel another to support them (slavery).
                    Example - One takes drugs; one becomes infirm and destitute;
                    Socialism - The government forces others to be a safety net and help them recover. One is not responsible for the consequence of one's own actions.
                    Libertarian/Objectivist - One recovers on their own, and/or people voluntarily help (or not). One is responsible the consequences of their own actions.

                    Very very simple. The only way freedom works (really provides freedom to all) is if government does not force people to support others. Otherwise, without exception, one person's freedoms will enslave another.

                    This requires no massive analysis of Objectivist literature, neither does it distinguish Objectivists from Libertarians, which with the political bent of today's society, is like being attacked by a horde of zombies and refusing to use another's shotgun because it is a Mossberg rather than Remington.

                    Someday we'll be Lucky enough to have time to work on that distinction.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                      I did not "come around to agreeing with" Thoritsu, am not "sneeky", and do not use his words.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
                        Wrong-o Batman, you did just that. Here are your words:

                        "People must be responsible for the consequences of their own decisions."

                        Sneaky might be too gracious. Circular, and dogmatic, might be better. However, this could be a great day. The mighty Objectivist Paladin, EWV, says to the trival squire, Thoritsu, "Yes, you were right, I misunderstood what your point was."

                        The Gulch resonates with the sound, and all nod in agreement to 1) the idea and 2) the piety ...

                        ...or we argue more about the ninth decimal place of some obscure equation.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                          Thoritsu's unsubstantiated "quote" is false and out of context, and he repeatedly substitutes sneering personal insults and taunts for honest discussion. To call it ad hominem argument would be an understatement. It is obviously contrary to the guideline for using this forum.

                          I wrote https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... "Freedom does not equal responsibility. [He said "Freedom = Responsibility"] They are different concepts. Each individual is personally responsible for his own decisions by the nature of human beings, prior to any political concepts, which are social in nature. [Thoritu's statement] 'To have freedom, without imposing on others one must be responsible for their own decisions' is incoherent and not an argument."

                          and

                          "Political principles follow and depend on moral principles. The conservative mantra 'With freedom comes responsibility' is backwards'".

                          The moral responsiblity for one's self and the right to pursue it requires as a consequence political freedom and holding criminals responsible before the law for violating the rights of individuals.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fivedollargold 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    The judge is probably correct. This is a matter for Congress to address through legislation. Of course, big pharma has control of most Congressmen, so $5Au is not optimistic anything will get done on this issue.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Congress has no right to dictate or manipulate prices and advertising either. Neither do the other countries, which control health care and use that as a means to "negotiate" prices.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    No surprise there.

    Obama was in bed with big Pharma They helped him push through Obamacare.

    Even though it did not exactly worked out as they expected.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    Why? Everything else has a price. I worry about some of these judges. They must not have enough real work to keep them busy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      I wonder if that CBD oil is worth $85.97 an ounce?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  gharkness 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        I think that all depends on how is buying it and for what reason. (Mine doesn’t cost that much - about $100 for two ounces, which lasts ME about two months.)

        I am far more concerned about the prosecutors for Dallas county ignoring the actual law and continuing to have people arrested and held “while they are testing the concentration of THC in the CBD.”

        At this point, up to .3% is allowed but it’s far too easy to harass people for buying a perfectly legit product. I told this prosecutor that if that was the worst crime she could find to have “investigated,” she should find another job.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo