Senate votes to repeal ACA

[Paul der Krake]

Yes, he was another forum member, the content of whose posts reminded me very much of your own ...

Stylometrist extraordinaire brooklynguy reminds us here of a point that I last posted about on March 29, 2015: namely, it's very difficult to stay anonymous, on a forum or elsewhere, if you give people a nontrivial corpus of text to analyse. This applies not only to picking out members who adopt new usernames (and I have my suspicions about several other users as well) but also to the more general point of anonymity relative to life outside of the MMM forums. Anybody familiar with your writing elsewhere (such as in an employment context) could potentially identify you on this forum even if your posts are otherwise carefully sanitised of personal information.

No risk there, my communication at work consists entirely of funny gifs and smiley faces in various states of distress. :/ ::/ :--/ :( :-((((((

[Metric Mouse]

Yes, he was another forum member, the content of whose posts reminded me very much of your own ...

Stylometrist extraordinaire brooklynguy reminds us here of a point that I last posted about on March 29, 2015: namely, it's very difficult to stay anonymous, on a forum or elsewhere, if you give people a nontrivial corpus of text to analyse. This applies not only to picking out members who adopt new usernames (and I have my suspicions about several other users as well) but also to the more general point of anonymity relative to life outside of the MMM forums. Anybody familiar with your writing elsewhere (such as in an employment context) could potentially identify you on this forum even if your posts are otherwise carefully sanitised of personal information.

No risk there, my communication at work consists entirely of funny gifs and smiley faces in various states of distress. :/ ::/ :--/ :( :-((((((

"Have any of you ever even seen a chicken?"

[Gin1984]

Huge fan of single payer. But the question was why the GOP dislikes it.

Not sure why the Democrats didn't go for it either. Maybe they know something we don't

One reason that I have heard suggested to explain why some Democrats have sometimes not supported universal healthcare is "union contracts".

The larger and more effective unions have successfully negotiated better health insurance packages for the members, in exchange for lower wages.    If the health insurance goes away, it's not like they are likely to get those wages back.  So the Republican talking point is that unions have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and are one of the largest bundlers of donations to Democrats, so therefore Democrats should oppose universal healthcare.

The problem I see with that is that we just don't.  You just don't see Democrats opposing universal healthcare, as a party.  A couple of individuals here and there, maybe, but generally speaking the party platform has always favored extending more health care to more people, by whatever means possible.

Thank you for the insight. So since that explination is not the reason, do you have any insight on why the democrats didn't push for this when they had a filibuster-proof majority in both houses of congress and the executive branch whole-heartedly supporting healthcare reform?

Because Obama still believed in compromise and he is the leader of the party.  Which is why many, many democrats had an issue with Sanders.  He was not running to run the party.

[Iplawyer]

There is a serious divide in this country.  There are some who feel like everyone is on their own and should pay their own way and have total personal freedom.  Except they don't mind several forms of their independent freedom being taken away - just the ite de jour. 

I used to be an extremely conservative person who believed that, since I was able to pull myself up by my bootstraps - everyone should be able to do that.   I was wrong about that.  Not everyone is as smart or as capable as I am.  Not everyone has the tenacity I have. It has taken me a lifetime to learn that I am different.  I cannot expect of others what I demand of myself.

I am a better person now.  So I pay lots of taxes I don't directly benefit from.  I no longer mind.  I want our country to stay healthy and for everyone to have the best primary and secondary education that they can have. I am more compassionate about the plight of people that started off poor like I did, but who are not able to do what I did. Because they are not me.   A good secondary education will help to identify students who should pursue non-college vocations and those that should.

For me - this is an affluent country - and the only affluent country in the world that does not provide healthcare to its citizens. So whether Quindon needs it (RIGHT NOW) or not - I want him to have it too.  Because he says he has a child - and if that child, heaven forbid, gets childhood leukemia - I don't want that child kicked off of the catastrophic plan Quindon says he was happy with before the ACA - as often happened pre-ACA when you got sick on your plan.  And I don't want that child to reach the policy limit and be covered no longer.   

It is easy to say now that you are young and healthy and don't need a fancy plan that covers things - you might not always be.  And maybe it is the wisdom of my age that has taught me that.

[Metric Mouse]

Huge fan of single payer. But the question was why the GOP dislikes it.

Not sure why the Democrats didn't go for it either. Maybe they know something we don't

One reason that I have heard suggested to explain why some Democrats have sometimes not supported universal healthcare is "union contracts".

The larger and more effective unions have successfully negotiated better health insurance packages for the members, in exchange for lower wages.    If the health insurance goes away, it's not like they are likely to get those wages back.  So the Republican talking point is that unions have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and are one of the largest bundlers of donations to Democrats, so therefore Democrats should oppose universal healthcare.

The problem I see with that is that we just don't.  You just don't see Democrats opposing universal healthcare, as a party.  A couple of individuals here and there, maybe, but generally speaking the party platform has always favored extending more health care to more people, by whatever means possible.

Thank you for the insight. So since that explination is not the reason, do you have any insight on why the democrats didn't push for this when they had a filibuster-proof majority in both houses of congress and the executive branch whole-heartedly supporting healthcare reform?

Because Obama still believed in compromise and he is the leader of the party.  Which is why many, many democrats had an issue with Sanders.  He was not running to run the party.

So are you suggesting that Obama felt compromising on a plan that was worse was more important than standing up for a plan that was better, and all of the democrats agreed with him enough to vote for the worse plan instead of supporting the better one?

[sol]

So are you suggesting that Obama felt compromising on a plan that was worse was more important than standing up for a plan that was better, and all of the democrats agreed with him enough to vote for the worse plan instead of supporting the better one?

Yes.  Specifically after they tried to pass the better plan in the 1990s, and were crucified for it.

[RangerOne]

Switching to full single payer is much riskier than what the ACA has done, which is increase access and find a way to coax insurance companies to insure the previously un-insurable. And also make sure everyone gets a baseline level of "adequate" care.

In theory the ACA should have meet less resistance and been the easier transition since it wouldn't effect people already receiving decent healthcare.

Once this became a full partisan issue it became mostly noise. There were probably some valid grips with the new law, but most of that has been drowned out in the noise of the cries to "repeal it" and its a "disaster". Most of the talk and votes now are less about improving or fixing anything and more about winning voter approval and appealing to corporate and private donors.

[scottish]

It would be a huge change.    The income of many elite doctors would drop.   If it included pharmaceuticals, there would be a gorilla negotiating with all the drug companies.

I can see why it would be hard to do.   But I never really understood the philosophical opposition.

[CDP45]

I used to be an extremely conservative person who believed that, since I was able to pull myself up by my bootstraps - everyone should be able to do that.   I was wrong about that.  Not everyone is as smart or as capable as I am.  Not everyone has the tenacity I have. It has taken me a lifetime to learn that I am different.  I cannot expect of others what I demand of myself.

I am a better person now.  So I pay lots of taxes I don't directly benefit from.  I no longer mind.  I want our country to stay healthy and for everyone to have the best primary and secondary education that they can have. I am more compassionate about the plight of people that started off poor like I did, but who are not able to do what I did. Because they are not me.   A good secondary education will help to identify students who should pursue non-college vocations and those that should.

For me - this is an affluent country - and the only affluent country in the world that does not provide healthcare to its citizens. So whether Quindon needs it (RIGHT NOW) or not - I want him to have it too.  Because he says he has a child - and if that child, heaven forbid, gets childhood leukemia - I don't want that child kicked off of the catastrophic plan Quindon says he was happy with before the ACA - as often happened pre-ACA when you got sick on your plan.  And I don't want that child to reach the policy limit and be covered no longer.   

It is easy to say now that you are young and healthy and don't need a fancy plan that covers things - you might not always be.  And maybe it is the wisdom of my age that has taught me that. 

There is a serious divide in this country.  There are some who feel like everyone is on their own and should pay their own way and have total personal freedom.  Except they don't mind several forms of their independent freedom being taken away - just the ite de jour. 

I used to be an extremely conservative person who believed that, since I was able to pull myself up by my bootstraps - everyone should be able to do that.   I was wrong about that.  Not everyone is as smart or as capable as I am.  Not everyone has the tenacity I have. It has taken me a lifetime to learn that I am different.  I cannot expect of others what I demand of myself.

I am a better person now.  So I pay lots of taxes I don't directly benefit from.  I no longer mind.  I want our country to stay healthy  safe and for everyone to have the best primary and secondary education that they can have sound sleep knowing they are safe from terrorists. I am more compassionate about the plight of people that started off poor like I did, but who are not able to do what I did. Because they are not me.  were murdered on 9/11. A good secondary education will help to identify students who should pursue non-college vocations and those that should. Everyone deserves to life to their full potential without being cut-short at the hands of fanatics.

For me - this is an affluent country - and the only affluent country in the world that does not provide healthcare to its citizens. So whether Quindon needs it (RIGHT NOW) or not - I want him to have it too.  Because he says he has a child - and if that child, heaven forbid, gets childhood leukemia - I don't want that child kicked off of the catastrophic plan Quindon says he was happy with before the ACA - as often happened pre-ACA when you got sick on your plan.  And I don't want that child to reach the policy limit and be covered no longer. 

Our country doesn't currently take the steps it needs to secure our safety, we fight with one hand behind our backs by not allowing effective torture techniques and allowing people who come from countries that promote terrorism to immigrate here.

It is easy to say now that you are young and healthy and don't need a fancy plan that covers things - you might not always be. we need to stick to laws and principles when you haven't been personally attacked.  And maybe it is the wisdom of my age that has taught me that.

----------
2 sides of the same coin - Gov't is not the only answer.

[CDP45]

It would be a huge change.    The income of many elite doctors would drop.   If it included pharmaceuticals, there would be a gorilla negotiating with all the drug companies.

I can see why it would be hard to do.   But I never really understood the philosophical opposition.

Are you confused by other obvious ideas in life too? You don't understand the opposition to nationalizing the healthcare of 350 million people by a government with a relentless track-record of incompetence and waste? Have you heard of the VA?

Does anyone think Hep C would have been cured if Gilead didn't think they would make a profit? Does anyone here go to work for free?

[GuitarStv]

Does anyone think Hep C would have been cured if Gilead didn't think they would make a profit? Does anyone here go to work for free?

Does anyone here think that a treatment for diabetes would have been created if the patent was only going to be sold for three dollars?  Oh wait.  That's exactly what happened.   http://insulinnation.com/treatment/medicine-drugs/selling-lifetime-insulin/

Oddly enough, despite giving away their greatest invention . . . Banting and Best didn't live the life of paupers, and were paid for their time by the university that employed them.  It's an outright lie that greediness is required for human progress, and one that needs to be quashed every time it rears it's ugly head.

[Roland of Gilead]

Does anyone think Hep C would have been cured if Gilead didn't think they would make a profit? Does anyone here go to work for free?

Does anyone here think that a treatment for diabetes would have been created if the patent was only going to be sold for three dollars?  Oh wait.  That's exactly what happened.   http://insulinnation.com/treatment/medicine-drugs/selling-lifetime-insulin/

Oddly enough, despite giving away their greatest invention . . . Banting and Best didn't live the life of paupers, and were paid for their time by the university that employed them.  It's an outright lie that greediness is required for human progress, and one that needs to be quashed every time it rears it's ugly head.

It still costs about $200m to bring ONE drug to market if you have no other failures.  If you don't ignore survivor bias, it actually costs up to $2B to bring a drug to market since over 95% fail between clinical and phase 3.

So how much of the $2B have you personally ponied up?

If I am going to invest $2B in a very risky investment, I want a very large return.  There is great possibility that my drug develops competition in a short period or even has future litigation from side effects that the FDA missed in their evaluation.   I probably want at least a 200% return on investment over the life of the drug, which really isn't that much better than a tech stock over a decade.

So now we need to price a drug to get $6B in profit (not revenue).   $3 a pill starts to sound unreasonble...like selling an I-phone for $10 and making it up on volume?

[CDP45]

Does anyone think Hep C would have been cured if Gilead didn't think they would make a profit? Does anyone here go to work for free?

Does anyone here think that a treatment for diabetes would have been created if the patent was only going to be sold for three dollars?  Oh wait.  That's exactly what happened.   http://insulinnation.com/treatment/medicine-drugs/selling-lifetime-insulin/

Oddly enough, despite giving away their greatest invention . . . Banting and Best didn't live the life of paupers, and were paid for their time by the university that employed them.  It's an outright lie that greediness is required for human progress, and one that needs to be quashed every time it rears it's ugly head.

Tell us how you live your lifestyle from the sole charity from others? You have requested your wage be reduced to a point where you are cash-flow neutral and can accumulate no savings? But also living in a house with running water seems quite extravagant compared to billions of people in the slums right?

[GuitarStv]

Does anyone think Hep C would have been cured if Gilead didn't think they would make a profit? Does anyone here go to work for free?

Does anyone here think that a treatment for diabetes would have been created if the patent was only going to be sold for three dollars?  Oh wait.  That's exactly what happened.   http://insulinnation.com/treatment/medicine-drugs/selling-lifetime-insulin/

Oddly enough, despite giving away their greatest invention . . . Banting and Best didn't live the life of paupers, and were paid for their time by the university that employed them.  It's an outright lie that greediness is required for human progress, and one that needs to be quashed every time it rears it's ugly head.

Tell us how you live your lifestyle from the sole charity from others? You have requested your wage be reduced to a point where you are cash-flow neutral and can accumulate no savings? But also living in a house with running water seems quite extravagant compared to billions of people in the slums right?

I didn't say that people should work for free.  I agree with you that that stance would be completely unreasonable.  The people in the example I gave, Banting and Best didn't work for free.  They didn't have their wages reduced to a point where they were cash flow neutral and can accumulate no savings.  There is a balance to be struck . . . a happy medium somewhere between demanding something for free and gouging people for a product that they need to live.

The point I was making was that there is a choice we can make.  Posting huge profit isn't necessary for progress.  That's a lie that far too many people swallow without question.

(Yes, owning and living in a large house with running water, easy access to meat, and cheaply made commodities does seem quite extravagant compared to billions of people struggling to survive in the slums.  That this exists in our world is a legitimate problem that we have to address.)

[Iplawyer]

I used to be an extremely conservative person who believed that, since I was able to pull myself up by my bootstraps - everyone should be able to do that.   I was wrong about that.  Not everyone is as smart or as capable as I am.  Not everyone has the tenacity I have. It has taken me a lifetime to learn that I am different.  I cannot expect of others what I demand of myself.

I am a better person now.  So I pay lots of taxes I don't directly benefit from.  I no longer mind.  I want our country to stay healthy and for everyone to have the best primary and secondary education that they can have. I am more compassionate about the plight of people that started off poor like I did, but who are not able to do what I did. Because they are not me.   A good secondary education will help to identify students who should pursue non-college vocations and those that should.

For me - this is an affluent country - and the only affluent country in the world that does not provide healthcare to its citizens. So whether Quindon needs it (RIGHT NOW) or not - I want him to have it too.  Because he says he has a child - and if that child, heaven forbid, gets childhood leukemia - I don't want that child kicked off of the catastrophic plan Quindon says he was happy with before the ACA - as often happened pre-ACA when you got sick on your plan.  And I don't want that child to reach the policy limit and be covered no longer.   

It is easy to say now that you are young and healthy and don't need a fancy plan that covers things - you might not always be.  And maybe it is the wisdom of my age that has taught me that. 

There is a serious divide in this country.  There are some who feel like everyone is on their own and should pay their own way and have total personal freedom.  Except they don't mind several forms of their independent freedom being taken away - just the ite de jour. 

I used to be an extremely conservative person who believed that, since I was able to pull myself up by my bootstraps - everyone should be able to do that.   I was wrong about that.  Not everyone is as smart or as capable as I am.  Not everyone has the tenacity I have. It has taken me a lifetime to learn that I am different.  I cannot expect of others what I demand of myself.

I am a better person now.  So I pay lots of taxes I don't directly benefit from.  I no longer mind.  I want our country to stay healthy  safe and for everyone to have the best primary and secondary education that they can have sound sleep knowing they are safe from terrorists. I am more compassionate about the plight of people that started off poor like I did, but who are not able to do what I did. Because they are not me.  were murdered on 9/11. A good secondary education will help to identify students who should pursue non-college vocations and those that should. Everyone deserves to life to their full potential without being cut-short at the hands of fanatics.

For me - this is an affluent country - and the only affluent country in the world that does not provide healthcare to its citizens. So whether Quindon needs it (RIGHT NOW) or not - I want him to have it too.  Because he says he has a child - and if that child, heaven forbid, gets childhood leukemia - I don't want that child kicked off of the catastrophic plan Quindon says he was happy with before the ACA - as often happened pre-ACA when you got sick on your plan.  And I don't want that child to reach the policy limit and be covered no longer. 

Our country doesn't currently take the steps it needs to secure our safety, we fight with one hand behind our backs by not allowing effective torture techniques and allowing people who come from countries that promote terrorism to immigrate here.

It is easy to say now that you are young and healthy and don't need a fancy plan that covers things - you might not always be. we need to stick to laws and principles when you haven't been personally attacked.  And maybe it is the wisdom of my age that has taught me that.

----------
2 sides of the same coin - Gov't is not the only answer.

Really?  Aren't I and all other taxpayers (ie the government) paying for your protection from those terrorists?  So you are fine with the government paying for your personal safety from terrorists but you object to the government paying a whole lot less for tens of millions of people to have primary health care?

[Lagom]

9/11! 9/11! 9/11!

@CDP45 - Giuliani, is that you??

[acroy]

Will be good to see 10,535 pages of Obamacare regulations... disappear. Whooo!

[CDP45]

Does anyone think Hep C would have been cured if Gilead didn't think they would make a profit? Does anyone here go to work for free?

Does anyone here think that a treatment for diabetes would have been created if the patent was only going to be sold for three dollars?  Oh wait.  That's exactly what happened.   http://insulinnation.com/treatment/medicine-drugs/selling-lifetime-insulin/

Oddly enough, despite giving away their greatest invention . . . Banting and Best didn't live the life of paupers, and were paid for their time by the university that employed them.  It's an outright lie that greediness is required for human progress, and one that needs to be quashed every time it rears it's ugly head.

Tell us how you live your lifestyle from the sole charity from others? You have requested your wage be reduced to a point where you are cash-flow neutral and can accumulate no savings? But also living in a house with running water seems quite extravagant compared to billions of people in the slums right?

I didn't say that people should work for free.  I agree with you that that stance would be completely unreasonable.  The people in the example I gave, Banting and Best didn't work for free.  They didn't have their wages reduced to a point where they were cash flow neutral and can accumulate no savings.  There is a balance to be struck . . . a happy medium somewhere between demanding something for free and gouging people for a product that they need to live.

The point I was making was that there is a choice we can make.  Posting huge profit isn't necessary for progress.  That's a lie that far too many people swallow without question.

(Yes, owning and living in a large house with running water, easy access to meat, and cheaply made commodities does seem quite extravagant compared to billions of people struggling to survive in the slums.  That this exists in our world is a legitimate problem that we have to address.)

And who should decide what that balance is? The government? "Society?" or..how about the individuals making their own decisions? (Here's the hint: profit and progress are highly correlated)

[sol]

And who should decide what that balance is? The government? "Society?" or..how about the individuals making their own decisions?

Do you believe each individual citizen should also decide how much to pay for their own national defense?  It's the exact same argument, made transparently ridiculous by replacing one communal benefit with another.

[BFGirl]

There is a serious divide in this country.  There are some who feel like everyone is on their own and should pay their own way and have total personal freedom.  Except they don't mind several forms of their independent freedom being taken away - just the ite de jour. 

I used to be an extremely conservative person who believed that, since I was able to pull myself up by my bootstraps - everyone should be able to do that.   I was wrong about that.  Not everyone is as smart or as capable as I am.  Not everyone has the tenacity I have. It has taken me a lifetime to learn that I am different.  I cannot expect of others what I demand of myself.

I am a better person now.  So I pay lots of taxes I don't directly benefit from.  I no longer mind.  I want our country to stay healthy and for everyone to have the best primary and secondary education that they can have. I am more compassionate about the plight of people that started off poor like I did, but who are not able to do what I did. Because they are not me.   A good secondary education will help to identify students who should pursue non-college vocations and those that should.

For me - this is an affluent country - and the only affluent country in the world that does not provide healthcare to its citizens. So whether Quindon needs it (RIGHT NOW) or not - I want him to have it too.  Because he says he has a child - and if that child, heaven forbid, gets childhood leukemia - I don't want that child kicked off of the catastrophic plan Quindon says he was happy with before the ACA - as often happened pre-ACA when you got sick on your plan.  And I don't want that child to reach the policy limit and be covered no longer.   

It is easy to say now that you are young and healthy and don't need a fancy plan that covers things - you might not always be.  And maybe it is the wisdom of my age that has taught me that.

This sound very familiar to my own personal journey and how my thoughts have changed over the years.

[CDP45]

There is a serious divide in this country.  There are some who feel like everyone is on their own and should pay their own way and have total personal freedom.  Except they don't mind several forms of their independent freedom being taken away - just the ite de jour. 

I used to be an extremely conservative person who believed that, since I was able to pull myself up by my bootstraps - everyone should be able to do that.   I was wrong about that.  Not everyone is as smart or as capable as I am.  Not everyone has the tenacity I have. It has taken me a lifetime to learn that I am different.  I cannot expect of others what I demand of myself.

I am a better person now.  So I pay lots of taxes I don't directly benefit from.  I no longer mind.  I want our country to stay healthy and for everyone to have the best primary and secondary education that they can have. I am more compassionate about the plight of people that started off poor like I did, but who are not able to do what I did. Because they are not me.   A good secondary education will help to identify students who should pursue non-college vocations and those that should.

For me - this is an affluent country - and the only affluent country in the world that does not provide healthcare to its citizens. So whether Quindon needs it (RIGHT NOW) or not - I want him to have it too.  Because he says he has a child - and if that child, heaven forbid, gets childhood leukemia - I don't want that child kicked off of the catastrophic plan Quindon says he was happy with before the ACA - as often happened pre-ACA when you got sick on your plan.  And I don't want that child to reach the policy limit and be covered no longer.   

It is easy to say now that you are young and healthy and don't need a fancy plan that covers things - you might not always be.  And maybe it is the wisdom of my age that has taught me that.

This sound very familiar to my own personal journey and how my thoughts have changed over the years.

Your journey to advocating taking other people's money and spending it on others and then claiming some sort of moral superiority? Hoping for more government spending does not equal charity.

You do realize you don't need to wait for government to be charitable? You can just write a check to your local clinic or volunteer there?

[CDP45]

And who should decide what that balance is? The government? "Society?" or..how about the individuals making their own decisions?

Do you believe each individual citizen should also decide how much to pay for their own national defense?  It's the exact same argument, made transparently ridiculous by replacing one communal benefit with another.

So you admit individuals shouldn't be making decisions for themselves? At least you're a consistent statist.
Do I have your argument right:
"People like (whatever), it costs money to provide this, oh let's tax everyone and keep spending as much as possible and anyone who disagrees with this process hates (whatever) vs improving efficiency, questioning the value, or reducing the spending"
Or "there is only 1 possible way (whatever) can be provided, and if anyone questions that they hate (whatever) and are evil, non-compassionate, etc.."

Your existential crisis is probably kicking into high gear with the inauguration this week...must be hard to be a statist when opposite team takes over.

[BFGirl]

There is a serious divide in this country.  There are some who feel like everyone is on their own and should pay their own way and have total personal freedom.  Except they don't mind several forms of their independent freedom being taken away - just the ite de jour. 

I used to be an extremely conservative person who believed that, since I was able to pull myself up by my bootstraps - everyone should be able to do that.   I was wrong about that.  Not everyone is as smart or as capable as I am.  Not everyone has the tenacity I have. It has taken me a lifetime to learn that I am different.  I cannot expect of others what I demand of myself.

I am a better person now.  So I pay lots of taxes I don't directly benefit from.  I no longer mind.  I want our country to stay healthy and for everyone to have the best primary and secondary education that they can have. I am more compassionate about the plight of people that started off poor like I did, but who are not able to do what I did. Because they are not me.   A good secondary education will help to identify students who should pursue non-college vocations and those that should.

For me - this is an affluent country - and the only affluent country in the world that does not provide healthcare to its citizens. So whether Quindon needs it (RIGHT NOW) or not - I want him to have it too.  Because he says he has a child - and if that child, heaven forbid, gets childhood leukemia - I don't want that child kicked off of the catastrophic plan Quindon says he was happy with before the ACA - as often happened pre-ACA when you got sick on your plan.  And I don't want that child to reach the policy limit and be covered no longer.   

It is easy to say now that you are young and healthy and don't need a fancy plan that covers things - you might not always be.  And maybe it is the wisdom of my age that has taught me that.

This sound very familiar to my own personal journey and how my thoughts have changed over the years.

Your journey to advocating taking other people's money and spending it on others and then claiming some sort of moral superiority? Hoping for more government spending does not equal charity.

You do realize you don't need to wait for government to be charitable? You can just write a check to your local clinic or volunteer there?

I'm not claiming moral superiority, I am just saying that my opinion has changed over time.

And I didn't and don't wait for the government to be charitable and have written many checks and volunteer as well.

[Iplawyer]

There is a serious divide in this country.  There are some who feel like everyone is on their own and should pay their own way and have total personal freedom.  Except they don't mind several forms of their independent freedom being taken away - just the ite de jour. 

I used to be an extremely conservative person who believed that, since I was able to pull myself up by my bootstraps - everyone should be able to do that.   I was wrong about that.  Not everyone is as smart or as capable as I am.  Not everyone has the tenacity I have. It has taken me a lifetime to learn that I am different.  I cannot expect of others what I demand of myself.

I am a better person now.  So I pay lots of taxes I don't directly benefit from.  I no longer mind.  I want our country to stay healthy and for everyone to have the best primary and secondary education that they can have. I am more compassionate about the plight of people that started off poor like I did, but who are not able to do what I did. Because they are not me.   A good secondary education will help to identify students who should pursue non-college vocations and those that should.

For me - this is an affluent country - and the only affluent country in the world that does not provide healthcare to its citizens. So whether Quindon needs it (RIGHT NOW) or not - I want him to have it too.  Because he says he has a child - and if that child, heaven forbid, gets childhood leukemia - I don't want that child kicked off of the catastrophic plan Quindon says he was happy with before the ACA - as often happened pre-ACA when you got sick on your plan.  And I don't want that child to reach the policy limit and be covered no longer.   

It is easy to say now that you are young and healthy and don't need a fancy plan that covers things - you might not always be.  And maybe it is the wisdom of my age that has taught me that.

This sound very familiar to my own personal journey and how my thoughts have changed over the years.

Your journey to advocating taking other people's money and spending it on others and then claiming some sort of moral superiority? Hoping for more government spending does not equal charity.

You do realize you don't need to wait for government to be charitable? You can just write a check to your local clinic or volunteer there?

Please don't have that attitude with me.  Read my posts and understand we spend anywhere from 20-40% of a large income on charity.  It is the only reason I am not retired now.  That is in addition to our very large tax bill that supports all kinds of things that I don't agree with but pay anyway.

[sol]

Please don't have that attitude with me. 

Try not to let CDP45 get under your skin, he's been trolling this site for years now with this kind of thing.  Take a deep breath and move on.  Some people are irredeemable.

[Gin1984]

Does anyone think Hep C would have been cured if Gilead didn't think they would make a profit? Does anyone here go to work for free?

Does anyone here think that a treatment for diabetes would have been created if the patent was only going to be sold for three dollars?  Oh wait.  That's exactly what happened.   http://insulinnation.com/treatment/medicine-drugs/selling-lifetime-insulin/

Oddly enough, despite giving away their greatest invention . . . Banting and Best didn't live the life of paupers, and were paid for their time by the university that employed them.  It's an outright lie that greediness is required for human progress, and one that needs to be quashed every time it rears it's ugly head.

It still costs about $200m to bring ONE drug to market if you have no other failures.  If you don't ignore survivor bias, it actually costs up to $2B to bring a drug to market since over 95% fail between clinical and phase 3.

So how much of the $2B have you personally ponied up?

If I am going to invest $2B in a very risky investment, I want a very large return.  There is great possibility that my drug develops competition in a short period or even has future litigation from side effects that the FDA missed in their evaluation.   I probably want at least a 200% return on investment over the life of the drug, which really isn't that much better than a tech stock over a decade.

So now we need to price a drug to get $6B in profit (not revenue).   $3 a pill starts to sound unreasonble...like selling an I-phone for $10 and making it up on volume?

Actually most of the funds for these drugs originally come from federal grants so....yes everyone is paying for it. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[sol]

So you admit individuals shouldn't be making decisions for themselves? At least you're a consistent statist.

I freely admit that we have all ceded control over some decisions to our elected officials.  So have you.  They have decided to invade some middle rastern countries on false pretenses, for example, and if to don't like it you can write to your congressperson.  Same deal with your disability insurance and your social security, congress decided for you.  I'm okay with this arrangement.  Are you? 

Do I have your argument right:

Not not even close.   Maybe you should read all of my posts in this thread, and the other ACA threads, since you clearly haven't bothered to do so before attacking me for the wrong things.

Your existential crisis is probably kicking into high gear with the inauguration this week...

Not at all, I'm actually pretty Zen about the whole thing.  America gets what America deserves, and now we're going to get it nice and hard.   It's the way of democracies to sometimes make horrible mistakes in their attempts to shake things up, and I'm fortunate enough to be personally well shielded from most of Trump's bad ideas.

[GuitarStv]

Does anyone think Hep C would have been cured if Gilead didn't think they would make a profit? Does anyone here go to work for free?

Does anyone here think that a treatment for diabetes would have been created if the patent was only going to be sold for three dollars?  Oh wait.  That's exactly what happened.   http://insulinnation.com/treatment/medicine-drugs/selling-lifetime-insulin/

Oddly enough, despite giving away their greatest invention . . . Banting and Best didn't live the life of paupers, and were paid for their time by the university that employed them.  It's an outright lie that greediness is required for human progress, and one that needs to be quashed every time it rears it's ugly head.

Tell us how you live your lifestyle from the sole charity from others? You have requested your wage be reduced to a point where you are cash-flow neutral and can accumulate no savings? But also living in a house with running water seems quite extravagant compared to billions of people in the slums right?

I didn't say that people should work for free.  I agree with you that that stance would be completely unreasonable.  The people in the example I gave, Banting and Best didn't work for free.  They didn't have their wages reduced to a point where they were cash flow neutral and can accumulate no savings.  There is a balance to be struck . . . a happy medium somewhere between demanding something for free and gouging people for a product that they need to live.

The point I was making was that there is a choice we can make.  Posting huge profit isn't necessary for progress.  That's a lie that far too many people swallow without question.

(Yes, owning and living in a large house with running water, easy access to meat, and cheaply made commodities does seem quite extravagant compared to billions of people struggling to survive in the slums.  That this exists in our world is a legitimate problem that we have to address.)

And who should decide what that balance is? The government? "Society?" or..how about the individuals making their own decisions? (Here's the hint: profit and progress are highly correlated)

Left to their own decisions, some (maybe even many?) individuals will behave decently.  The problem is that not everyone will . . . and the ones that don't are often pretty horrible.  For every Mother Theresa there's a Martin Shkreli.  One of the reasons for the existence of government is to act to keep the worst of society in check and limit the damage that they do, while providing an environment that allows the best to thrive.

You've claimed that profit and progress are highly correlated.  I'll agree that there needs to be a structure set up where hard work is paid well . . . but that only works to a point.  Surely you must agree that there are many scenarios where extra profit doesn't really benefit societal progress any more.  If you make a million dollars a year now, would you really be twice as productive making two million dollars?  If so, why?  (And in the same vein . . . would giving ten researchers a 100,000$ a year be better for progress than the one researcher an extra million?)

Regardless of who should, society always decides the balance . . . it can be through violent overthrow, meekly accepting abuses of the rich/powerful, or banding together to build a system in order to try to strike a balance in-between.  No approach is perfect but the latter one is of greatest benefit to stability and quality of life for the greatest number of people.

[CDP45]

Actually most of the funds for these drugs originally come from federal grants so....yes everyone is paying for it. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

just like Al Gore invented the internet and the government created the iPhone..right...

[CDP45]

Please don't have that attitude with me. 

Try not to let CDP45 get under your skin, he's been trolling this site for years now with this kind of thing.  Take a deep breath and move on.  Some people are irredeemable.

I'd like to consider myself a voice of reason in the echo chamber of blind faith...

[Roland of Gilead]

Actually most of the funds for these drugs originally come from federal grants so....yes everyone is paying for it. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

This is so false and yet is thrown up all the time.

If it were true, then drugs would be practically free.

What you are referring to is a lot of times the initial research into molecules happens at universities who get some of the money from government grants.

It is a pre-clinical drug at that point and nearly useless and unmarketable.   A good analogy is saying that because the federal government provided funding for the internet, it really means we should own Google, Facebook, etc.   Ignore any of the work involved by the founders of these companies.

So yes, in Gilead's case, Pharmasset (the company who started the Hep-C cure trial process) may have used some research that came from a broad $2 million dollar grant.   Pharmasset then put about one BILLION of their own money into further research and initial trials, then Gilead bought them for eleven BILLION and spent another $200 million bringing the drug to final launch.

So taxpayers could argue under my 200% profit idea that they own about 0.018% of the Hep C cure.   I think Gilead paid about $6B in taxes last year, so taxpayers are likely getting their money back.

[Lagom]

On a somewhat related note, one of the hot things in the biotech startup world is machine learning applications for drug discovery, which promises to dramatically reduce the time, and thus the cost of that research. It will be interesting to see where that eventually leads with regards to drug prices.

[Roland of Gilead]

On a somewhat related note, one of the hot things in the biotech startup world is machine learning applications for drug discovery, which promises to dramatically reduce the time, and thus the cost of that research. It will be interesting to see where that eventually leads with regards to drug prices.

You are still not getting it.  The cost is not in the discovery or the research.   I can go out right now and find about 50 companies trading for pennies who have had lots of drug discoveries and own the rights to many drugs.   The problem is 99% of these are not marketable or have side effects or efficacy problems.

The cost is in the phase I to phase III trials, with control groups, lots of researcher time, managing data, FDA meetings, more data, more reports, more meetings, then wow 6 years later you finally get approved.

If we could eliminate drug testing and just go straight to market with a new drug discovery we could have some dirt cheap drugs.

[Roland of Gilead]

The simple minded here need a solid example, so I will give them one.

The CEO of Endocyte, a drug company who have been researching small molecule drugs for nearly a decade, said back when the company had $230 million dollars in the bank that he *thought* this might be enough to bring one of their drug candidates through phase III testing.  This was about two years ago.

That drug is now nearing the end of dosing studies in phase I and the company said it should have $135m left at the end of fiscal 2016.  Then they will start phase II testing.

Now this $230 million is from a secondary offering, so the former shareholders got diluted and the company has actually spent far more than that to date.

THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE ONE DRUG ON THE MARKET

There is no federal grant that is going to bail out the poor investors who likely will end up losing everything if the drug, EC1456 fails.

[Lagom]

On a somewhat related note, one of the hot things in the biotech startup world is machine learning applications for drug discovery, which promises to dramatically reduce the time, and thus the cost of that research. It will be interesting to see where that eventually leads with regards to drug prices.

You are still not getting it.  The cost is not in the discovery or the research.   I can go out right now and find about 50 companies trading for pennies who have had lots of drug discoveries and own the rights to many drugs.   The problem is 99% of these are not marketable or have side effects or efficacy problems.

The cost is in the phase I to phase III trials, with control groups, lots of researcher time, managing data, FDA meetings, more data, more reports, more meetings, then wow 6 years later you finally get approved.

If we could eliminate drug testing and just go straight to market with a new drug discovery we could have some dirt cheap drugs.

Wow overly aggressive (especially your needlessly insulting second post) and missing my point. I was just noting a neat technological trend, nothing more. You need to chill out.

What computational drug discovery aims to do is increase the likelihood that those pricey trials lead to successful outcomes. Fewer clinical trials = fewer costs. Not exactly rocket surgery. If these companies were providing no value they wouldn't continue to get funding.