Insurance Over the Summer in US

PsyGuy
Posts: 10789
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Reply

Post by PsyGuy »

@Heliotrope

We disagree. As I state there is absolutely a reason why the US has to pay order of magnitudes more, because the initial costs of research and development are exponentially greater than the costs associated with mere production.

The US rarely manufactures and exports/ships ., like most things that production process is outsources to manufacturers in lesser developed/cheaper countries such as China and India, etc.

We have different experiences, we disagree.

You cant sell that model in the US, even in Europe. They are just different models. Again, we disagree.
Psychometrika
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:08 pm

Re: Insurance Over the Summer in US

Post by Psychometrika »

Most drug companies in the US spend more on marketing (note that drug advertising is actually illegal in many other developed countries) than they do on R&D. The old R&D excuse is just a fear tactic used by corporations to prevent regulation so they can keep their monopoly pricing structure intact.
PsyGuy
Posts: 10789
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Discussion

Post by PsyGuy »

Drugs arent the only treatments involved in medicine, though drugs get a large share of the attention. It also includes advances in diagnostics, procedures, etc. The science behind the at home collection and test for colon cancer based on DNA markers has a high R&D cost. R&D advancements in radiology and nuclear medicine such as fMRI vastly improve body imagery for example. Someone had to put the time, resources and coin in developing that. The technology behind the nano-particle used in a number of COVID vaccines was expensive to develop. But yes medication and . treatments do get most of the attention, and its understandable when the media does a story on a drug treatment that gets a company extended protection when all they did was look at its use for a new age group, it can feel like the company is gaming a system. Generally the FDA process for getting a drug approved is long and expensive, and yet a company can submit an application for approval based on work already done and accepted making it appear that the high cost of the drug is unjustified. The cost of the basic science at some point even prior to a new drug has to be born by someone, the cost of production and manufacturing will simple mean that companies that engage in this type of R&D just wont do it. That means the pace of new antibiotics stops, new therapies slows to a crawl. The apparatus grinds to a halt and then in a few years the practice of medicine looks like its 40 years old. Thats the time line for development when R&D becomes relegated to the province of universities. Thats what that high cost R&D machine does when a Uni produces something new in the basic science and then someones got to develop it into a therapy thats FDA approved.

The internet has made most of the channel and media issues with drug advertising moot. A company cant put their drug on television or radio but a viewer can access it through many forms vie the internet.
Psychometrika
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:08 pm

Re: Insurance Over the Summer in US

Post by Psychometrika »

The profit motive is great for selling widgets, but not so great for medical research. The Colon cancer dna test you mention was developed at the Mayo Clinic which is a nonprofit. The COVID vaccines are largely government funded and being provided for free.

The fMRI was invented at Bell Labs. Bell Labs had a tremendous amount of money to plow into basic, long-term, no-immediate-payoff research due to being funded by AT&T’s monopoly profits in telecom. If Bell Labs was expected to be a profit center its achievements would be limited to short term research with strong expected payoffs. Basic research is not sexy nor particularly profitable, but over the long term is responsible for a great deal of advancement in medicine and other fields.
PsyGuy
Posts: 10789
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Reply

Post by PsyGuy »

@Psychometrika

being a non-profit doesnt mean very much. It means there arent owners or share holders who get dividends, just as in IE it means nothing in terms of salaries and compensation including bonuses, etc. Some of the best paying jobs in allied health are found in non-profits. Those doctors and nurses and other allied health professionals make very good coin in salaries.

Being provided for free to the public doesnt mitigate the cost. The government is writing the big check in this case, not the patient, its still a very nice size check.

All true, one massive profit machine subsidized another industry, it changes the ledger not the cost. Those basic researchers still command high levels of compensation, that Bell funded it with resources from one pot instead of another doesnt change the dynamic.

Id argue basic research while agreeing its not sexy is responsible for all the modern medical advancements. Its rare that someone stumbles over discovery haphazardly in meaningful modern medical research. It still doesnt change the cost dynamic nor the cost of taking the findings of basic research and bringing something to market.
Psychometrika
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:08 pm

Re: Insurance Over the Summer in US

Post by Psychometrika »

No one’s arguing that medical research is not expensive. However, in all three examples you provided profit was not the primary motivator. The same goes true for a large amount of medical advancements from universities and other nonprofit research centers.
PsyGuy
Posts: 10789
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Discussion

Post by PsyGuy »

@Psychometrika

Profit was absolutely a primary motivator for some .. Im sure the stockholders at Bell labs were happy that MRI technology wasnt a profit loss. Im sure the directors at the Mayo clinic were happy the colon cancer technology realized financial benefits and the same goes for the big check the US government wrote for the COVID vaccine. Im sure your going to come back and state that those were non-profits so profit wasnt a factor. Which will amount to us disagreeing.
Psychometrika
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:08 pm

Re: Insurance Over the Summer in US

Post by Psychometrika »

AT&T was heavily regulated post-1956. In fact, they could not derive any royalties from their Bell Lab patents and could not enter any industry outside of telecom. Thus, any of their non-telecom research, like fMRI, was pure loss for them in financial terms. However, they continued as they perceived this type of research as a public good to be provided as a national service.

As for Covid, governments underwrote everything so the companies could not lose. Without government intervention, companies on their own would not have reacted nearly as quickly as the profitability would be questionable. The public would riot if they tried to charge for the vaccines so the public good route was the only viable option as relying on the profit motive alone would have been a disaster. I suspect there was fair amount of arm twisting by the federal government as well to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. However, as a whole, the rapid development and deployment of the vaccine was a triumph of public health.

As for the Mayo Clinic, well, like any organization they need to keep the lights on too even if profit is not a primary motivator. I’m not going to continue this conversation with you as I think you are just being contrary, but I find it amusing the 3 best examples you could come up with actually highlight the exact opposite of what you intended.
PsyGuy
Posts: 10789
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Reply

Post by PsyGuy »

@Psychometrika

AT&T invested in a number of subsidiary companies that were not related to telcom that were outside that regulation. Im sure they spun what they did as a contribution to the greater good of humanity.

Being underwritten by a government that can print currency and dictate the market of that and other currencies is a really big boon. Its very nice and comforting for the bottom line in the ledger when your revenue and profits are guaranteed by a government.
While your crystal ball may well be superior to mine your claims that the citizenry would riot or that the public good route is the only viable route or that a profit centered approach would have been a disaster are nothing more than fanciful guesses on your part aligned with your particular position.
You suspect a fair amount of arm twisting but again youre crystal ball is no more reliable or accurate than any other guess. You dont have a time machine nor the power to test your alternative hypothesis.

They are not best examples merely random examples and they support my position not the adverse.
It does appear that we each have firmly entrenched positions and have settled with a particular tribe in this instance. Neither of us is going to convince the other, and neither of us is really going to expend the time or resources to mount a persuasive argument with the intent of really changing the others position. Youve provided your position Ive provided mine and the best outcome is likely moving on.
Post Reply