Obama appointed judge rules in favor of Big Pharma to stop drug pricing disclosures
Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 9 months ago to Politics
Is another Obama appointee corrupt?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
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.
Their motto seems to be, “If it’s broke, break it more.”
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.
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.
Are you unable to tell the difference between a speculation about reasoning and a defense?
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.
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.
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".
"Shaming" in place of direct argument is dishonestly manipulative and disrespectful, let alone inappropriate for government administration of justice.
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.
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.
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.
The determining factor is what insurance company I use.
Of course if we end up with single payer, the entire discussion is moot.
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?
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.
Sorry, I didn’t forget.
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".
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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
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.
Dr Johnson
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.
"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.
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.
she is not allowed to tyrannize over people? Oh, boo-hoo-hoo!
Obama was in bed with big Pharma They helped him push through Obamacare.
Even though it did not exactly worked out as they expected.
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.