|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
08-24-2010, 11:05 AM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
FYI - 8 of the 15 major players in the pharma industry are US - based. The others are in the UK, France, Switzerland, Germany and Japan. I think Phizer, based in NJ, is still the worlds largest phrama company.
Profit margins are higher in the phrama industry, but are eroded by lower return on assets due to shortening of patent protection, litigation and high R&D costs.
|
Well Phizer just bought out Wyeth so that certainly gets them in the big league, but regardless the off shore companies only have a presence here for access to NIH and University research.
Big pharma will only research diseases that are very common, bigger user base, more profit. If your disease is rare you are SOL.
Shortening patent protection Hoho, can you say Prilosec and Nexium? All Astra Zenica did was tweak the makeup, change the name and voila! a whole new patent.
Then they have the unmitgated gall to state "If you can't afford the medication we may be able to help." Sure if you and your wife only have a yearly income below $35,000. Meanwhile they jack up the cost by 10-12% per year so three guesses who it is that is "helping" these poor folk with their prescription cost.
This BS about the high cost of drugs here is because we are bearing the whole cost of research is just that - BS. We are paying for the advertising, executive salaries, and whatever it costs big pharma to employ all those thieves on K street.
Never heard back from Novartis, guess comparing them to leeches upset them.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|
08-24-2010, 11:09 AM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Another big problem is how slowly reforms are being phased in. For consumers, that was a very expensive compromise. The lobbyists served their clients well by giving them a couple of extra years of price gouging to pad their bankroll. I know our experience has been that each year we pay more for less coverage. It would be cost prohibitive to retain the coverage that we had, so we increase co-pays or deductibles to try and maintain a reasonable monthly nut.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
Tell me about it, between Medicare Part B and Blue Cross Blue Shield we put out a little over $10,000 per year - as of last year. For that we get no better coverage than I got in Ontario for $54 per month. The payroll tax is about equal in both countries.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|
08-24-2010, 11:19 AM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Yeah, that'll fix it good!
|
why not share your wisdom on the subject?
|
08-24-2010, 11:39 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
I have no doubt whatsoever that when the Republicans retake Congress in November and repeal Obamacare health insurance rates will plummet.
John
|
There's no question that the federal coverage mandates in the PPACA have an impact on premiums for both individual and group policies. Estaimtes range from 0 - 2% for large group policies, to 5 - 7% for many small group policies that will require signficant adjustments in coverage.
I doubt seriouly that PPACA will be repealed if the majorities change in Congress following the November elections. At most, if the Republicans attain a majority, there might be leeway to change funding for some requirements of PPACA. However, the President still has the power of the Veto.
|
08-24-2010, 11:50 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
why not share your wisdom on the subject?
|
What would you like to know? Health care delivery, health insurance and coverage, and legislative health reform covers a lot of territory. I work in an area related to delivery of group health insurance to smal and medium - sized businesses, so it is an area of interest.
|
08-24-2010, 11:59 AM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
let's start slow, what do you think of the current state of healthcare?
|
08-24-2010, 01:07 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Again - pretty wide question.
Product - overall, very good. Opportunities for improvement / efficiency can be found that do not negatively impact quality of care.
Delivery - hit and miss, cumbersome, over-regulated
Access - could be improved. Impacted by delivery.
Cost - out of control, over - regulated. The value proposition is fair, but the potential for erosion is increasing.
Regulatory enviroment - a mess. A hodge-podge of local, state and federal regulations that add costs and decrease efficiencies at every level.
Funding - a mess. Federal and state mandates and programs skew the costs and for all participants in the system. Group insurance creates a cost structure that tends to favor the largest groups, or groups that are most favorable (healthy) from an underwriting perspective. Tax treatment for health care premiums creates advantages for some and disadvantages for others, irrespective of income.
Last edited by whell; 08-24-2010 at 01:09 PM.
|
08-24-2010, 01:11 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,913
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Again - pretty wide question.
Product - overall, very good. Opportunities for improvement / efficiency can be found that do not negatively impact quality of care.
Delivery - hit and miss, cumbersome, over-regulated
Access - could be improved. Impacted by delivery.
Cost - out of control, over - regulated. The value proposition is fair, but the potential for erosion is increasing.
Regulatory enviroment - a mess. A hodge-podge of local, state and federal regulations that add costs and decrease efficiencies at every level.
Funding - a mess. Federal and state mandates and programs skew the costs and for all participants in the system. Group insurance creates a cost structure that tends to favor the largest groups, or groups that are most favorable (healthy) from an underwriting perspective. Tax treatment for health care premiums creates advantages for some and disadvantages for others, irrespective of income.
|
Those are very cogent argument in favor of single-payer, IMHO. With single payer, there would be no need for the regulation aspect that you hammer upon. I think the recent health care bill was little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Here's a question: Is there any nation with a system such as ours that functions well. I would have to say that the response is a double negative (no such system and if there was it would be as hosed as ours).
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Last edited by finnbow; 08-24-2010 at 01:14 PM.
|
08-24-2010, 02:13 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
There's no question that the federal coverage mandates in the PPACA have an impact on premiums for both individual and group policies. Estaimtes range from 0 - 2% for large group policies, to 5 - 7% for many small group policies that will require signficant adjustments in coverage.
|
Ample justification for another double digit rate increase.
By the way, it's perfectly reasonable to adjust premiums upward to reflect increased/improved coverage. Heretofore, we've seen premiums rise and coverage fall.
Quote:
I doubt seriouly that PPACA will be repealed if the majorities change in Congress following the November elections. At most, if the Republicans attain a majority, there might be leeway to change funding for some requirements of PPACA.
|
As in defund.
Quote:
However, the President still has the power of the Veto.
|
Well, yes, I think we pretty much all realize that. I guess the sarcasm of my emoticon free post lost something in the reading. Rates will continue to increase when and as the industry wishes, regardless of the party in power (which will be the Democrats but with much reduced majorities).
John
__________________
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
|
08-24-2010, 02:23 PM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Quote:
Again - pretty wide question
|
.
it allows you flexability
Product - overall, very good. Opportunities for improvement / efficiency can
you mean for those with full access correct? What about the others?
.
Quote:
Delivery - hit and miss, cumbersome, over-regulated
|
I would think that 1 0f 11 diagnosis being wrong would be a concern.
by over regulating I assume you mean the insurance companies would like to withhold even more costly services?
Quote:
Access - could be improved. Impacted by delivery.
|
what does that mean?
Quote:
Cost - out of control, over - regulated. The value proposition is fair, but the potential for erosion is increasing.
|
Fair? fair to who? isn't there always a potential for erosion by definition?
Quote:
Regulatory enviroment - a mess. A hodge-podge of local, state and federal regulations that add costs and decrease efficiencies at every level.
Funding - a mess
|
.
Hasn't history taught us that big businness runs a mock less government regulation? (yes it does)
Quote:
Federal and state mandates and programs skew the costs and for all participants in the system.
|
That's how the insiders see the demand from government to actually spend money on healthcare instead of just moving premiums to profits?
Quote:
Group insurance creates a cost structure that tends to favor the largest groups, or groups that are most favorable (healthy) from an underwriting perspective.
|
Good, we agree. One cost for all Americans. Excellent.
Quote:
Tax treatment for health care premiums creates advantages for some and disadvantages for others, irrespective of income.
|
|
All tax codes are mess. This is not unique in healthcare.
Overall I'd say your post was a bunch of Hooey.
Of course I am not in the industry. In fact once I became ill I lost all medical coverage so maybe I am unaware of the great healthcare industry.
Last edited by noonereal; 08-24-2010 at 03:10 PM.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 AM.
|