This is a Democracy. WE are the “leaders” because the Democratic leadership are looking to the Democratic voters to indicate how to proceed in the matter of healthcare. So we can’t sit here complaining about how our “leaders” aren’t doing what we want - we need to tell them what we want by protests and contacting them. They are obviously not quite sure whether the people want true UHC or just a shored-up Obamacare with a public option.
Threatening Schumer with a primary is very good, and as a New York voter I’d be very open to this.
Pressed by MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on whether he thinks it’s time for Democrats to unify around Medicare for All — which has the backing of 84 percent of Democratic voters — Schumer dodged, saying, “Look, Democrats are for universal access to healthcare, from one end of the party to the other.”
“We want more people covered, everyone covered; we want better healthcare at a lower cost. People have different views as to how to get there. Many are for Medicare for All, some are for Medicare buy-in, some are Medicare over 55, some are Medicaid buy-in, some are public option,” Schumer added. “I’m going to support a plan that can pass, and that can provide the best, cheapest healthcare for all Americans.”
Secretary: [pounding her clipboard] PRIMARY, PRIMARY, PRIMARY!
Cant wait for AOC to put him in a home
Seriously? Would you really rather Democratic leadership tell the party from the top down, “This is the plan,” as opposed to letting the grassroots decide which specific version they want through the 2020 primary?
I'd like to have leadership with a vision and a plan and who doesn't prattle about "access"
The point is that what you really want is leadership with your vision and plan. Which, yeah, who doesn't. But it's really not coherent to be all for the politics the grass-roots is pushing while also wishing leadership was taking a stronger hand here. Schumer's wishy-washy shit just means theirs room for people keep building the momentum for Medicare For All.
In general Schumer is pretty irrelevant for this stuff. Healthcare reform is not getting through the next Congress. His position is basically going to be whatever covers ass for his caucus, some of whom are still from some pretty red states. But ultimately, primary season is starting soon and it's going to be those people, the ones running to unseat Trump, that will define the Democratic position on healthcare for any Congress where such a thing has a possibility of occurring. We're basically just killing time listening to Schumer honestly. He's not that relevant here.
PS - Not that I'm against primarying Schumer btw. Go for it. I don't think it'll work but he's from fucking New York, there's no reason not to climb up his ass every primary season and try and shove him left.
Yeah no shit man. MfA isn't some grass roots niche thing though. I mean really, how many times do we have to pretend these people are actually on our side and just being clever before we get fucked again?
MFA is pretty new. It's only very very recently becoming anything but a grass-roots niche thing and at the moment the only thing that seems to have fallen off it is "niche". It's expected to be a big thing in upcoming primary.
But really, how many times do you have to pretend these people are your enemies instead of just admitting that it's a big tent party.
Pressed by MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on whether he thinks it’s time for Democrats to unify around Medicare for All — which has the backing of 84 percent of Democratic voters — Schumer dodged, saying, “Look, Democrats are for universal access to healthcare, from one end of the party to the other.”
“We want more people covered, everyone covered; we want better healthcare at a lower cost. People have different views as to how to get there. Many are for Medicare for All, some are for Medicare buy-in, some are Medicare over 55, some are Medicaid buy-in, some are public option,” Schumer added. “I’m going to support a plan that can pass, and that can provide the best, cheapest healthcare for all Americans.”
Secretary: [pounding her clipboard] PRIMARY, PRIMARY, PRIMARY!
Cant wait for AOC to put him in a home
Seriously? Would you really rather Democratic leadership tell the party from the top down, “This is the plan,” as opposed to letting the grassroots decide which specific version they want through the 2020 primary?
I'd like to have leadership with a vision and a plan and who doesn't prattle about "access"
The point is that what you really want is leadership with your vision and plan. Which, yeah, who doesn't. But it's really not coherent to be all for the politics the grass-roots is pushing while also wishing leadership was taking a stronger hand here. Schumer's wishy-washy shit just means theirs room for people keep building the momentum for Medicare For All.
In general Schumer is pretty irrelevant for this stuff. Healthcare reform is not getting through the next Congress. His position is basically going to be whatever covers ass for his caucus, some of whom are still from some pretty red states. But ultimately, primary season is starting soon and it's going to be those people, the ones running to unseat Trump, that will define the Democratic position on healthcare for any Congress where such a thing has a possibility of occurring. We're basically just killing time listening to Schumer honestly. He's not that relevant here.
PS - Not that I'm against primarying Schumer btw. Go for it. I don't think it'll work but he's from fucking New York, there's no reason not to climb up his ass every primary season and try and shove him left.
Yeah no shit man. MfA isn't some grass roots niche thing though. I mean really, how many times do we have to pretend these people are actually on our side and just being clever before we get fucked again?
MFA is pretty new. It's only very very recently becoming anything but a grass-roots niche thing and at the moment the only thing that seems to have fallen off it is "niche". It's expected to be a big thing in upcoming primary.
But really, how many times do you have to pretend these people are your enemies instead of just admitting that it's a big tent party.
People have been pushing the idea of single payer since before most of us were born. MfA is the newest marketing method and its been useful, but calling it new is not accurate.
Its not a big tent party though. Its a business friendly centrist party that a lot of people get forced into supporting because the options are all worse and we know this because the only time the party really throws its weight behind something that's actually leftist is when no one loses any money over it.
MFA is interesting because in the past healthcare has only ever been a carrot during election years. To be taken out and waved to get votes, then eventually hidden away because healthcare is really difficult and complicated. People never looked for progress on it because of how easy it was to switch to another more immediately news worthy subject for good mid-session press snippets.
We're finally hitting a point where the general public is so hungry for a solution that it can't just be back burnered every 3 years. The ACA deserves credit for that. It's an imperfect solution but it got people insurance who didn't have any before. Discounting how impressive a feat that was is a little weird.
No one wants to make incremental improvements because things are happening right this second that are ruining lives and they need to be fixed. Unfortunately it's just going to be a slow process with lots of social, economical and educational bottlenecks. Even with infinite funding, it takes 12-14 years to turn an adult into a surgeon.
MFA is interesting because in the past healthcare has only ever been a carrot during election years. To be taken out and waved to get votes, then eventually hidden away because healthcare is really difficult and complicated. People never looked for progress on it because of how easy it was to switch to another more immediately news worthy subject for good mid-session press snippets.
We're finally hitting a point where the general public is so hungry for a solution that it can't just be back burnered every 3 years. The ACA deserves credit for that. It's an imperfect solution but it got people insurance who didn't have any before. Discounting how impressive a feat that was is a little weird.
No one wants to make incremental improvements because things are happening right this second that are ruining lives and they need to be fixed. Unfortunately it's just going to be a slow process with lots of social, economical and educational bottlenecks. Even with infinite funding, it takes 12-14 years to turn an adult into a surgeon.
A generation of people who have only ever known this while also watching their quality of life decline are old enough to really start making changes happen.
MFA is interesting because in the past healthcare has only ever been a carrot during election years. To be taken out and waved to get votes, then eventually hidden away because healthcare is really difficult and complicated. People never looked for progress on it because of how easy it was to switch to another more immediately news worthy subject for good mid-session press snippets.
We're finally hitting a point where the general public is so hungry for a solution that it can't just be back burnered every 3 years. The ACA deserves credit for that. It's an imperfect solution but it got people insurance who didn't have any before. Discounting how impressive a feat that was is a little weird.
No one wants to make incremental improvements because things are happening right this second that are ruining lives and they need to be fixed. Unfortunately it's just going to be a slow process with lots of social, economical and educational bottlenecks. Even with infinite funding, it takes 12-14 years to turn an adult into a surgeon.
I don't think I actually agree with that? Like, while it failed, Hilary Clinton tried healthcare reform in 1993 (with the idea to cover pre-existing conditions, give subsidies to those under a certain income threshhold to afford healthcare, and require everyone to get some type of medical insurance), and it was killed by conservatives and medical industry people fighting tooth and nail for over a year to keep any changes from happening. That did signal for quite awhile that we might not be able to get any health care reform, because the idea of it was unpopular at the time. Then you had a Republican majority congess and/or a Republican president until 2008.
Then the 2008 election happened. But the desire and drive to push through the ACA did not come from just trying to win an election, and if anything, cost many Democrats their seats of power once it was passed (once again thanks to blatant lying and propaganda from conservatives). It was even implemented because of how dire medical coverage was getting in the country (articles about senior citizens not being able to pay for their medicine fully, which was called the donut hole coverage gap, you get some type of condition and try to change insurance companies and suddenly no one would cover you because you had a pre-existing condition, premiums skyrocketing, etc), and many people were elected to try and get health care reform. That was the impetus for the ACA, and they fought for two years to get some version of a bill passed (fun fact, Pelosi managed to get the House to pass a bill with a public option and send it to the Senate, it was Lieberman who killed any chance of that making it into the final bill, and Ted Kennedy's seat being filled by a Republican that made it impossible to pass the House version, which was much more liberal than the final version), and then Obama spent years defending it to keep it alive. And that's why Republicans fought so hard against it, because once they knew it was implemented, people would like it and not want it removed. Hell, even at the time of its passing, it passed with 60-39 majority in the Senate, albeit in the water-downed version.
So I don't actually agree that there is not a desire in Congress or in the population at large to pass Health Care reform. People desperately want health care reform, and have wanted it for a long time. They might not say the words "Single Payer" or "MFA" when they say it, but the majority of the population know healthcare is broken. Studies have shown that when it was still mostly referred to as Obamacare, the majority of people supported the ACA if you referred to it as the ACA and not Obamacare. Depending on how you word the question, people will support Single option/public options for health care, unless you use the buzzwords that have been trashed by conservative think tanks to sound scary and bad. And that's why we also saw a backlash when Republicans tried to take the ACA away, and replace it with their shitty alternative last year. Republican strongholds in terms of electoral strength damn near rioted when they started doing that (leading to many of them cancelling and/or refusing to show up to town halls to face their constituents). People, both within Congress and the population at large have wanted to health care to be fixed for a long time, and have fought hard to get the concessions we've gotten.
That is also why I think starting with MFA or a version similar to that is the best starting point. It will most likely get whittled down when a bill like that actually hits Congress, and Republicans will fight tooth and nail against it, but they are gonna do that anyway because its a health care reform that will have both a (D) next to its name (and therefore the Book of the Beast in their eyes) and focus on socializing and regulating health care in some way and that's "bad for business" (and against their ideology of how a capitalist society should work). So why compromise before even starting the conversation, cause I guarantee that if we start with the compromise bill, they'll needle that anyway and try to water it down, and then not vote for it (like they did with the ACA). If we end up lower than we wanted, but higher than what the compromise bill would have been, I believe it will be easier to sell to the public.
Pressed by MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on whether he thinks it’s time for Democrats to unify around Medicare for All — which has the backing of 84 percent of Democratic voters — Schumer dodged, saying, “Look, Democrats are for universal access to healthcare, from one end of the party to the other.”
“We want more people covered, everyone covered; we want better healthcare at a lower cost. People have different views as to how to get there. Many are for Medicare for All, some are for Medicare buy-in, some are Medicare over 55, some are Medicaid buy-in, some are public option,” Schumer added. “I’m going to support a plan that can pass, and that can provide the best, cheapest healthcare for all Americans.”
Secretary: [pounding her clipboard] PRIMARY, PRIMARY, PRIMARY!
Cant wait for AOC to put him in a home
Seriously? Would you really rather Democratic leadership tell the party from the top down, “This is the plan,” as opposed to letting the grassroots decide which specific version they want through the 2020 primary?
I'd like to have leadership with a vision and a plan and who doesn't prattle about "access"
The point is that what you really want is leadership with your vision and plan. Which, yeah, who doesn't. But it's really not coherent to be all for the politics the grass-roots is pushing while also wishing leadership was taking a stronger hand here. Schumer's wishy-washy shit just means theirs room for people keep building the momentum for Medicare For All.
In general Schumer is pretty irrelevant for this stuff. Healthcare reform is not getting through the next Congress. His position is basically going to be whatever covers ass for his caucus, some of whom are still from some pretty red states. But ultimately, primary season is starting soon and it's going to be those people, the ones running to unseat Trump, that will define the Democratic position on healthcare for any Congress where such a thing has a possibility of occurring. We're basically just killing time listening to Schumer honestly. He's not that relevant here.
PS - Not that I'm against primarying Schumer btw. Go for it. I don't think it'll work but he's from fucking New York, there's no reason not to climb up his ass every primary season and try and shove him left.
Yeah no shit man. MfA isn't some grass roots niche thing though. I mean really, how many times do we have to pretend these people are actually on our side and just being clever before we get fucked again?
MFA is pretty new. It's only very very recently becoming anything but a grass-roots niche thing and at the moment the only thing that seems to have fallen off it is "niche". It's expected to be a big thing in upcoming primary.
But really, how many times do you have to pretend these people are your enemies instead of just admitting that it's a big tent party.
People have been pushing the idea of single payer since before most of us were born. MfA is the newest marketing method and its been useful, but calling it new is not accurate.
Its not a big tent party though. Its a business friendly centrist party that a lot of people get forced into supporting because the options are all worse and we know this because the only time the party really throws its weight behind something that's actually leftist is when no one loses any money over it.
Big tent parties are parties which have factions ranging from conservative (right), middle (centrist and/ or moderate) and on the left (Far Left/Leftists etc). Which fits the Dems like glove. Which faction is in leadership is irrrlevant to the term.
Big tent parties require leadership to balance both extemes for the most votes - any bill that fails is DOA. Which the ACA would have been with Single Payer or Public Option. The left being in leadership would not change this fact in passing a healthcare bill.
Leftists are new to the game, don’t have a lot of seats and need to build relationships and alliances to influence passing bills and they are at a huge disadvantage due to the other factions being decades ahead in every category. Once they do catch up they’ll get more influence and able to get more leadership positions. This is vital in shaping bills, but they may always be at a disadvantage over those who do have money - that’s just how it is since they’re not going to mutually disarm for the left’s benefit. This is on the left to figure it out how to do themselves, nobody else is going to do it for them.
If it is possible for the left to pass something like M4A or whatever they’ll find it eventually, but until then they’ll have to work within the status quo to get as much as they can like everybody else.
This month’s Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds six in ten (59 percent) favor a national health plan, or Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan – including a majority of both Democrats and independents and about one-third of Republicans. Support for such a proposal increases among the overall public (75 percent) and among partisans (87 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of independents, and 64 percent of Republicans) when framed as an option for anyone who wants it, but people who currently have other forms of coverage can keep the coverage they already have. It is unclear how support would fare if these proposals became part of the larger public debate as previous KFF polling has found the public’s attitudes can be quite malleable.
Democrats are divided on what they want Democrats in Congress to focus on: improving the Affordable Care Act (46 percent) or trying to pass a national health plan (48 percent).
And this is before any opposition arguments. Opposition rises to 66% if you include taxes would go up
The same thing happened to ACA. Support was overwhelming and then the details came out and support really dropped. It wasn't until 6 years later or so that it really started being a political benefit.
Single payer at the state level has been very unpopular in blue states because the cost is ruinous and even richer states can't handle it. The numbers don't work.
Its a bad plan just in terms of cost shifting from corporations to the public. But yes it's less popular than the public option and assuredly would be wildly unpopular if you tried to implement it. Pretending it's a political homerun is wishful thinking
I think no one backing it may be why it polls that way. I suspect that if it were being pushed the polling would shift slightly along partisan lines, but those supporting it would be much more vigorous. Especially if it's sold as a boon to people who already have care that's inadequate.
Red States have shown a shocking amount of prejudice against anything by a liberal but really really liked having insurance. (Obamacare is socialism, but keep your hands off my ACA!)
It's a very winnable issue. I'm hopeful that we can keep the health insurance marketplace for real competitive and not just pretend competitive. Driving down cost of service and forcing profit to be put back in to the system will lead to efficiencies when the day does finally come that there's a single payer option.
This month’s Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds six in ten (59 percent) favor a national health plan, or Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan – including a majority of both Democrats and independents and about one-third of Republicans. Support for such a proposal increases among the overall public (75 percent) and among partisans (87 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of independents, and 64 percent of Republicans) when framed as an option for anyone who wants it, but people who currently have other forms of coverage can keep the coverage they already have. It is unclear how support would fare if these proposals became part of the larger public debate as previous KFF polling has found the public’s attitudes can be quite malleable.
Democrats are divided on what they want Democrats in Congress to focus on: improving the Affordable Care Act (46 percent) or trying to pass a national health plan (48 percent).
And this is before any opposition arguments. Opposition rises to 66% if you include taxes would go up
The same thing happened to ACA. Support was overwhelming and then the details came out and support really dropped. It wasn't until 6 years later or so that it really started being a political benefit.
Single payer at the state level has been very unpopular in blue states because the cost is ruinous and even richer states can't handle it. The numbers don't work.
Its a bad plan just in terms of cost shifting from corporations to the public. But yes it's less popular than the public option and assuredly would be wildly unpopular if you tried to implement it. Pretending it's a political homerun is wishful thinking
That figure 8 you show Pants, was that from a separate article than the one you linked? I believe its real, but didn't see it in the article you posted, but did see some different figures:
Which seems to contradict the figure you posted, so I'm trying to square the circle from the conflicting information from Kaiser.
That is true, though my question was I didn’t actually see the figure in the link he had, so I was wondering if it was a different report. Considering they are different dates, that is most likely true then. I hadn’t noticed that the first time, thanks for pointing it out.
Looking at the information then, if the figures I posted are from the more recent reports (his was from September 2017, mine are from March 2018), doesn’t that show support increasing for Medicare for All and/or public options for health care? Like a public option that does not get rid of privatized healthcare has a 75% support rate up there.
Yes, that is why people should vote for representatives who would vote for it.
I am trying to understand your point but I come up with: "The positions and behaviour of current elected representatives are not like this, so they won't do the thing"
And that is true and also dumb. The whole point is to get representatives into power who will do the thing. The "make into law what the people want" bit of democracy. The transmitting of what people want into congressional votes, done by voting in those doing the votes. The point is to change the status quo by voting.
Agreed.
Yes.
It being dumb doesn't override the fact that it is true. Yes, but history has shown is getting healthcare like M4A passed needs a bit more than simply voting. Getting the right politicians elected is the first step, and the main avenue to push as citizens (there's things like activism, as well) but this is the first step, it's not the last. Your duty is over, not the politicians, their jobs are just starting and it can be a messy process to get there, assuming we ever do.
What you're missing is that there are huge parts of the country doing the exact same thing, and their politicians will be working against it, and to date they outnumber us. To get around that has required compromise, which I get, sucks, but it's what we're left with. That is why the votes are super important able all else, get those vote you get M4A or whatever. WE almost had the Public Option (it passed the House) the senate, however, fucked that up. If this is ever going to work requires a hell of lot more planning then simply "primaries," because to do this safely requires 1) getting every single Dem elected in large enough qualities to pass a medicare bill pass a veto or VP (under a GOP POTUS) and 2) getting every single member on board with a bill M4A simultaneously. Both are massive feats to accomplish, it may be easier to get 1 (and that's an understatement) but 2, that's going to take a miracle on both House and Senate.
Medical bill legislation is difficult with lots of political bullshit, that's why it's important to be engaged to what the politicians do after they've been voted in. Now you can pay attention to which ones have good strategies, which ones sell out and which ones can't be trusted, all will have an effect on the legislation. That's the end game.
The point is to change the status quo by voting.
Indeed it is, except you're framing it like that's a simple job. It isn't. We just went through this recently, and I can tell you right now there are certain people within the ranks who are itching to be the new Liebermann's. Because assholes who want to kill and water down healthcare bills are harder to get rid of than cockroaches.
Literally no one thinks this will be easy or simple
But there are Republicans who are eager to block things, and Joe Lieberman, and all kinds of obstacles that make health care reform complicated and hard to do. It won’t be easy or simple.
Why don’t you get that, Sammich?
Why doesn’t anybody get that?
+3
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Warren introduced legislation Tuesday with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., that would create an Office of Drug Manufacturing within the Department of Health and Human Services. That office would have the authority to manufacture generic versions of any drug for which the U.S. government has licensed a patent, whenever there is little or no competition, critical shortages, or exorbitant prices that restrict patient access.
Last month, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., released their own bill to tackle high drug prices, which would require the government to identify any excessively priced drugs (relative to an international index of list prices) and grant a license to private companies to provide competition with a generic version.
+22
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited December 2018
Pants, it continues to be bad practice to link a poll showing crossover from support for MfA to opposition in the face of opposing arguments without also linking the poll showing crossover from opposition to MfA to support in the face of supporting arguments
Showing one but not the other is posting a push poll and acting like it's just a survey
Warren introduced legislation Tuesday with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., that would create an Office of Drug Manufacturing within the Department of Health and Human Services. That office would have the authority to manufacture generic versions of any drug for which the U.S. government has licensed a patent, whenever there is little or no competition, critical shortages, or exorbitant prices that restrict patient access.
Last month, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., released their own bill to tackle high drug prices, which would require the government to identify any excessively priced drugs (relative to an international index of list prices) and grant a license to private companies to provide competition with a generic version.
That is fucking genius.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Warren introduced legislation Tuesday with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., that would create an Office of Drug Manufacturing within the Department of Health and Human Services. That office would have the authority to manufacture generic versions of any drug for which the U.S. government has licensed a patent, whenever there is little or no competition, critical shortages, or exorbitant prices that restrict patient access.
Last month, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., released their own bill to tackle high drug prices, which would require the government to identify any excessively priced drugs (relative to an international index of list prices) and grant a license to private companies to provide competition with a generic version.
That is fucking genius.
And it's going to make for some fantastic fodder for the conspiracy theory thread.
Warren introduced legislation Tuesday with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., that would create an Office of Drug Manufacturing within the Department of Health and Human Services. That office would have the authority to manufacture generic versions of any drug for which the U.S. government has licensed a patent, whenever there is little or no competition, critical shortages, or exorbitant prices that restrict patient access.
Last month, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., released their own bill to tackle high drug prices, which would require the government to identify any excessively priced drugs (relative to an international index of list prices) and grant a license to private companies to provide competition with a generic version.
That is fucking genius.
So like, the people are going to develop the means of production of generic drugs, because capitalism is failing to meet demand in an equitable manner.
Warren introduced legislation Tuesday with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., that would create an Office of Drug Manufacturing within the Department of Health and Human Services. That office would have the authority to manufacture generic versions of any drug for which the U.S. government has licensed a patent, whenever there is little or no competition, critical shortages, or exorbitant prices that restrict patient access.
Last month, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., released their own bill to tackle high drug prices, which would require the government to identify any excessively priced drugs (relative to an international index of list prices) and grant a license to private companies to provide competition with a generic version.
That is fucking genius.
So like, the people are going to develop the means of production of generic drugs, because capitalism is failing to meet demand in an equitable manner.
i like it
maybe it will catch on
If nothing else it's a good opening position when approaching the bargaining table.
"I don't need you, you need me"
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
One Idea I've had for this, that I don't see mentioned anywhere, is why not just steadily decrease the medicare eligibility age until everyone is covered? Drop it 3 years every year, and you'll cover every adult in about 15 years. You can accelerate it a bit near the end, like 3,3,5,5,5,7,7,10 or something similar. To get it done in under a decade or so.
I just feel like this will provide a lot of boost in support for the proposal, because there are scads of boomers that while crying about communism right now, are also eagerly awaiting that government teat for themselves. And their old sick asses moving off of private insurance should(with a more aggressive 90% rule) push down premiums until the youngest groups get eligibility.
One Idea I've had for this, that I don't see mentioned anywhere, is why not just steadily decrease the medicare eligibility age until everyone is covered? Drop it 3 years every year, and you'll cover every adult in about 15 years. You can accelerate it a bit near the end, like 3,3,5,5,5,7,7,10 or something similar. To get it done in under a decade or so.
I just feel like this will provide a lot of boost in support for the proposal, because there are scads of boomers that while crying about communism right now, are also eagerly awaiting that government teat for themselves. And their old sick asses moving off of private insurance should(with a more aggressive 90% rule) push down premiums until the youngest groups get eligibility.
I did say that if they had included dropping Medicare eligibility by ten years the ACA would have been bulletproof on passage.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
One Idea I've had for this, that I don't see mentioned anywhere, is why not just steadily decrease the medicare eligibility age until everyone is covered? Drop it 3 years every year, and you'll cover every adult in about 15 years. You can accelerate it a bit near the end, like 3,3,5,5,5,7,7,10 or something similar. To get it done in under a decade or so.
I just feel like this will provide a lot of boost in support for the proposal, because there are scads of boomers that while crying about communism right now, are also eagerly awaiting that government teat for themselves. And their old sick asses moving off of private insurance should(with a more aggressive 90% rule) push down premiums until the youngest groups get eligibility.
The general thinking among leftists is that if you knew you had control for 10 years and faced no opposition it would probably be a viable approach but that in reality you're dragging even just the initial political fight out for a long time. The political strength of welfare programs is their universality and the faster you can get to that the better.
One Idea I've had for this, that I don't see mentioned anywhere, is why not just steadily decrease the medicare eligibility age until everyone is covered? Drop it 3 years every year, and you'll cover every adult in about 15 years. You can accelerate it a bit near the end, like 3,3,5,5,5,7,7,10 or something similar. To get it done in under a decade or so.
I just feel like this will provide a lot of boost in support for the proposal, because there are scads of boomers that while crying about communism right now, are also eagerly awaiting that government teat for themselves. And their old sick asses moving off of private insurance should(with a more aggressive 90% rule) push down premiums until the youngest groups get eligibility.
I've seen that proposed a bunch of places.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Warren introduced legislation Tuesday with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., that would create an Office of Drug Manufacturing within the Department of Health and Human Services. That office would have the authority to manufacture generic versions of any drug for which the U.S. government has licensed a patent, whenever there is little or no competition, critical shortages, or exorbitant prices that restrict patient access.
Last month, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., released their own bill to tackle high drug prices, which would require the government to identify any excessively priced drugs (relative to an international index of list prices) and grant a license to private companies to provide competition with a generic version.
I am very curious how this is going to work--specifically with how they decide what an "exorbitant" price is. Is it a price that isn't justified by the QALY return under cost effectiveness analysis? Or is it a price that's higher than manufacturing cost, and that the state/insurers/patients can't afford? The Hep C cure would be an example of the latter but not the former: no one can afford shelling out the $100,000 per person price tag to cover everyone with Hep C, although $100,000 is legitimately a bargain relative to other treatments with respect to the health effects. Perhaps the new agency could just requisition it, manufacture at cost, and meet an enormous, crucial health need. But... there is real force to the "killing the golden goose" point. That would be a giant shot across the bow scaring pharma out of developing anything similar ever again.
Fixing the generic market and protecting the population from vulture IP speculators is great, to be clear. But I think it's an enormous open question how to properly work with pharma and incentivize the development of genuinely expensive, genuinely effective products. The system now is broken but it's not clear how to fix it.
I was at a talk by the head of Warren's health team, and she was good people (and crazy smart), so I anticipate they are thinking about this. Warren has a reputation for having built a relatively academic team. *cheerleads*
Your Hep C comments seem to be ignoring the generic qualifier. The article isn't super clear but this bill appears to be aimed at generics whose patents have expired. The Sofosbuvir should have over a decade of patent protection left.
I think the Sander's bill might address stuff like Sofosbuvir. Warren seems like it'd miss it.
I suspect that the costs will be difficult to match on items that are generic. American manufacturing can't compete with Chinese. If they're talking about suspending patent laws? So many more troubles. It's an interesting solution though, I'm very curious.
Warren introduced legislation Tuesday with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., that would create an Office of Drug Manufacturing within the Department of Health and Human Services. That office would have the authority to manufacture generic versions of any drug for which the U.S. government has licensed a patent, whenever there is little or no competition, critical shortages, or exorbitant prices that restrict patient access.
Last month, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., released their own bill to tackle high drug prices, which would require the government to identify any excessively priced drugs (relative to an international index of list prices) and grant a license to private companies to provide competition with a generic version.
I am very curious how this is going to work--specifically with how they decide what an "exorbitant" price is. Is it a price that isn't justified by the QALY return under cost effectiveness analysis? Or is it a price that's higher than manufacturing cost, and that the state/insurers/patients can't afford? The Hep C cure would be an example of the latter but not the former: no one can afford shelling out the $100,000 per person price tag to cover everyone with Hep C, although $100,000 is legitimately a bargain relative to other treatments with respect to the health effects. Perhaps the new agency could just requisition it, manufacture at cost, and meet an enormous, crucial health need. But... there is real force to the "killing the golden goose" point. That would be a giant shot across the bow scaring pharma out of developing anything similar ever again.
Fixing the generic market and protecting the population from vulture IP speculators is great, to be clear. But I think it's an enormous open question how to properly work with pharma and incentivize the development of genuinely expensive, genuinely effective products. The system now is broken but it's not clear how to fix it.
I was at a talk by the head of Warren's health team, and she was good people (and crazy smart), so I anticipate they are thinking about this. Warren has a reputation for having built a relatively academic team. *cheerleads*
I would worry if this is not formula based its not really workable and if it is it basically codifies that they will keep the price exactly short of that, probably for a broader array of meds than would currently be considered exorbitant
(Warren will also definitely have very smart people working on her policy team for her run.)
Your Hep C comments seem to be ignoring the generic qualifier. The article isn't super clear but this bill appears to be aimed at generics whose patents have expired. The Sofosbuvir should have over a decade of patent protection left.
I think the Sander's bill might address stuff like Sofosbuvir. Warren seems like it'd miss it.
I think you're reading it backwards. It proposes the US manufacture a generic for
any drug for which the U.S. government has licensed a patent, whenever there is little or no competition, critical shortages, or exorbitant prices that restrict patient access.
It doesn't indicate an existing generic (and implies the opposite if anything as generics mean there's competition)
It seems like they are focused on more of some of the obvious low hanging fruit right now, like Insulin prices and Epi-pens. From the article:
Even with multiple generic options, the effect on prices can be illusory. Last month, Teva Pharmaceuticals, a powerful generic drug company, released a generic version of the EpiPen, the price spirals of which have angered patients. But the Teva-made generic costs the exact same amount as a generic EpiPen released by Mylan, maker of the brand-name drug.
Warren’s bill, the Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act, attempts to address that market failure by having the government pick up the slack. The Office of Drug Manufacturing would acquire rights to manufacture generic drugs or contract them to be manufactured by an outside entity. The legislation explicitly states that those generic drugs must be offered at a “fair price” that covers manufacturing and administrative costs while ensuring patient access. The office could strip a contractor of its ability to make and sell the drug if the price point is too high. Proceeds for these sales would go back to covering agency costs, making it a self-sustaining entity.
The government would also be authorized to manufacture active ingredients for medications. This has become a problem, as major drug companies routinely deny rivals samples of their products, which are used in testing to determine whether the generic is an equivalent treatment.
One drug is listed specifically: Generic insulin treatments would have to be produced within the first year of the legislation’s passage. Prices for insulin have skyrocketed in recent years and shortages are common.
“In market after market, competition is dying as a handful of giant companies spend millions to rig the rules,” Warren said in a statement. “The solution here is not to replace markets, but to fix them.”
Except the means to fix those markets is a government-directed option that puts the Department of Health and Human Services into the pharmaceutical manufacturing business. That’s the primary action in the legislation that allows competition to take root and prices to fall. In this sense, competition policy can work hand in hand with targeted nationalizations or public options.
So the idea would be, in situations like the above for example, you would get the rights to make those generics and sell them pretty much at cost (covering the manufacturing costs and costs to pay people to make the medicine) to push down the prices of medication for people.
It seems like they are focused on more of some of the obvious low hanging fruit right now, like Insulin prices and Epi-pens. From the article:
Even with multiple generic options, the effect on prices can be illusory. Last month, Teva Pharmaceuticals, a powerful generic drug company, released a generic version of the EpiPen, the price spirals of which have angered patients. But the Teva-made generic costs the exact same amount as a generic EpiPen released by Mylan, maker of the brand-name drug.
Warren’s bill, the Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act, attempts to address that market failure by having the government pick up the slack. The Office of Drug Manufacturing would acquire rights to manufacture generic drugs or contract them to be manufactured by an outside entity. The legislation explicitly states that those generic drugs must be offered at a “fair price” that covers manufacturing and administrative costs while ensuring patient access. The office could strip a contractor of its ability to make and sell the drug if the price point is too high. Proceeds for these sales would go back to covering agency costs, making it a self-sustaining entity.
The government would also be authorized to manufacture active ingredients for medications. This has become a problem, as major drug companies routinely deny rivals samples of their products, which are used in testing to determine whether the generic is an equivalent treatment.
One drug is listed specifically: Generic insulin treatments would have to be produced within the first year of the legislation’s passage. Prices for insulin have skyrocketed in recent years and shortages are common.
“In market after market, competition is dying as a handful of giant companies spend millions to rig the rules,” Warren said in a statement. “The solution here is not to replace markets, but to fix them.”
Except the means to fix those markets is a government-directed option that puts the Department of Health and Human Services into the pharmaceutical manufacturing business. That’s the primary action in the legislation that allows competition to take root and prices to fall. In this sense, competition policy can work hand in hand with targeted nationalizations or public options.
So the idea would be, in situations like the above for example, you would get the rights to make those generics and sell them pretty much at cost (covering the manufacturing costs and costs to pay people to make the medicine) to push down the prices of medication for people.
I feel like this is something regulations and medicare contracts should already be nudging in the right direction. It's fucking tragic that in order to make "cheap" generic drugs affordable the government will have to manufacture them in house. It's an interesting solution and I welcome all the solutions we can get... but seriously what the fuck people?
Warren introduced legislation Tuesday with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., that would create an Office of Drug Manufacturing within the Department of Health and Human Services. That office would have the authority to manufacture generic versions of any drug for which the U.S. government has licensed a patent, whenever there is little or no competition, critical shortages, or exorbitant prices that restrict patient access.
Last month, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., released their own bill to tackle high drug prices, which would require the government to identify any excessively priced drugs (relative to an international index of list prices) and grant a license to private companies to provide competition with a generic version.
I am very curious how this is going to work--specifically with how they decide what an "exorbitant" price is. Is it a price that isn't justified by the QALY return under cost effectiveness analysis? Or is it a price that's higher than manufacturing cost, and that the state/insurers/patients can't afford? The Hep C cure would be an example of the latter but not the former: no one can afford shelling out the $100,000 per person price tag to cover everyone with Hep C, although $100,000 is legitimately a bargain relative to other treatments with respect to the health effects. Perhaps the new agency could just requisition it, manufacture at cost, and meet an enormous, crucial health need. But... there is real force to the "killing the golden goose" point. That would be a giant shot across the bow scaring pharma out of developing anything similar ever again.
Fixing the generic market and protecting the population from vulture IP speculators is great, to be clear. But I think it's an enormous open question how to properly work with pharma and incentivize the development of genuinely expensive, genuinely effective products. The system now is broken but it's not clear how to fix it.
I was at a talk by the head of Warren's health team, and she was good people (and crazy smart), so I anticipate they are thinking about this. Warren has a reputation for having built a relatively academic team. *cheerleads*
I would worry if this is not formula based its not really workable and if it is it basically codifies that they will keep the price exactly short of that, probably for a broader array of meds than would currently be considered exorbitant
(Warren will also definitely have very smart people working on her policy team for her run.)
Your Hep C comments seem to be ignoring the generic qualifier. The article isn't super clear but this bill appears to be aimed at generics whose patents have expired. The Sofosbuvir should have over a decade of patent protection left.
I think the Sander's bill might address stuff like Sofosbuvir. Warren seems like it'd miss it.
I think you're reading it backwards. It proposes the US manufacture a generic for
any drug for which the U.S. government has licensed a patent, whenever there is little or no competition, critical shortages, or exorbitant prices that restrict patient access.
It doesn't indicate an existing generic (and implies the opposite if anything as generics mean there's competition)
I don't know how that actually gets done though
Yeah, that quote implies that if the agency doesn't like the pricing, they can just ignore the patent and authorize a generic regardless of patent status. I'm not sure that's a good idea.
But it could just as easily be the article using a confusing wording.
Warren introduced legislation Tuesday with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., that would create an Office of Drug Manufacturing within the Department of Health and Human Services. That office would have the authority to manufacture generic versions of any drug for which the U.S. government has licensed a patent, whenever there is little or no competition, critical shortages, or exorbitant prices that restrict patient access.
Last month, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., released their own bill to tackle high drug prices, which would require the government to identify any excessively priced drugs (relative to an international index of list prices) and grant a license to private companies to provide competition with a generic version.
I am very curious how this is going to work--specifically with how they decide what an "exorbitant" price is. Is it a price that isn't justified by the QALY return under cost effectiveness analysis? Or is it a price that's higher than manufacturing cost, and that the state/insurers/patients can't afford? The Hep C cure would be an example of the latter but not the former: no one can afford shelling out the $100,000 per person price tag to cover everyone with Hep C, although $100,000 is legitimately a bargain relative to other treatments with respect to the health effects. Perhaps the new agency could just requisition it, manufacture at cost, and meet an enormous, crucial health need. But... there is real force to the "killing the golden goose" point. That would be a giant shot across the bow scaring pharma out of developing anything similar ever again.
Fixing the generic market and protecting the population from vulture IP speculators is great, to be clear. But I think it's an enormous open question how to properly work with pharma and incentivize the development of genuinely expensive, genuinely effective products. The system now is broken but it's not clear how to fix it.
I was at a talk by the head of Warren's health team, and she was good people (and crazy smart), so I anticipate they are thinking about this. Warren has a reputation for having built a relatively academic team. *cheerleads*
I would worry if this is not formula based its not really workable and if it is it basically codifies that they will keep the price exactly short of that, probably for a broader array of meds than would currently be considered exorbitant
(Warren will also definitely have very smart people working on her policy team for her run.)
Your Hep C comments seem to be ignoring the generic qualifier. The article isn't super clear but this bill appears to be aimed at generics whose patents have expired. The Sofosbuvir should have over a decade of patent protection left.
I think the Sander's bill might address stuff like Sofosbuvir. Warren seems like it'd miss it.
I think you're reading it backwards. It proposes the US manufacture a generic for
any drug for which the U.S. government has licensed a patent, whenever there is little or no competition, critical shortages, or exorbitant prices that restrict patient access.
It doesn't indicate an existing generic (and implies the opposite if anything as generics mean there's competition)
I don't know how that actually gets done though
Yeah, that quote implies that if the agency doesn't like the pricing, they can just ignore the patent and authorize a generic regardless of patent status. I'm not sure that's a good idea.
But it could just as easily be the article using a confusing wording.
Given the pharama industry's ethics, a "Price it fairly or we will undercut you until you do" provision is totally reasonable. Also if a medicine isn't in production and available in a reasonable time that should invalidate the patent.
Most of the scandals about jacked up drug prices I recall were more about there simply being one manufacturer for the US regardless of patents.
Turing Pharmaceuticals' acquired the US marketing rights rather than a patent for Daraprim tablets and then increased the price by a ridiculous percent without a generic version having been created yet. The USA could fund generics in that case,l without infringing on the patent and would also potentially be useful outside of the USA.
Government manufacturing important generic drugs will have the side benefit of being a jobs program that can be located in the rust belt very easily. Canny.
Posts
Threatening Schumer with a primary is very good, and as a New York voter I’d be very open to this.
MFA is pretty new. It's only very very recently becoming anything but a grass-roots niche thing and at the moment the only thing that seems to have fallen off it is "niche". It's expected to be a big thing in upcoming primary.
But really, how many times do you have to pretend these people are your enemies instead of just admitting that it's a big tent party.
People have been pushing the idea of single payer since before most of us were born. MfA is the newest marketing method and its been useful, but calling it new is not accurate.
Its not a big tent party though. Its a business friendly centrist party that a lot of people get forced into supporting because the options are all worse and we know this because the only time the party really throws its weight behind something that's actually leftist is when no one loses any money over it.
We're finally hitting a point where the general public is so hungry for a solution that it can't just be back burnered every 3 years. The ACA deserves credit for that. It's an imperfect solution but it got people insurance who didn't have any before. Discounting how impressive a feat that was is a little weird.
No one wants to make incremental improvements because things are happening right this second that are ruining lives and they need to be fixed. Unfortunately it's just going to be a slow process with lots of social, economical and educational bottlenecks. Even with infinite funding, it takes 12-14 years to turn an adult into a surgeon.
A generation of people who have only ever known this while also watching their quality of life decline are old enough to really start making changes happen.
I don't think I actually agree with that? Like, while it failed, Hilary Clinton tried healthcare reform in 1993 (with the idea to cover pre-existing conditions, give subsidies to those under a certain income threshhold to afford healthcare, and require everyone to get some type of medical insurance), and it was killed by conservatives and medical industry people fighting tooth and nail for over a year to keep any changes from happening. That did signal for quite awhile that we might not be able to get any health care reform, because the idea of it was unpopular at the time. Then you had a Republican majority congess and/or a Republican president until 2008.
Then the 2008 election happened. But the desire and drive to push through the ACA did not come from just trying to win an election, and if anything, cost many Democrats their seats of power once it was passed (once again thanks to blatant lying and propaganda from conservatives). It was even implemented because of how dire medical coverage was getting in the country (articles about senior citizens not being able to pay for their medicine fully, which was called the donut hole coverage gap, you get some type of condition and try to change insurance companies and suddenly no one would cover you because you had a pre-existing condition, premiums skyrocketing, etc), and many people were elected to try and get health care reform. That was the impetus for the ACA, and they fought for two years to get some version of a bill passed (fun fact, Pelosi managed to get the House to pass a bill with a public option and send it to the Senate, it was Lieberman who killed any chance of that making it into the final bill, and Ted Kennedy's seat being filled by a Republican that made it impossible to pass the House version, which was much more liberal than the final version), and then Obama spent years defending it to keep it alive. And that's why Republicans fought so hard against it, because once they knew it was implemented, people would like it and not want it removed. Hell, even at the time of its passing, it passed with 60-39 majority in the Senate, albeit in the water-downed version.
So I don't actually agree that there is not a desire in Congress or in the population at large to pass Health Care reform. People desperately want health care reform, and have wanted it for a long time. They might not say the words "Single Payer" or "MFA" when they say it, but the majority of the population know healthcare is broken. Studies have shown that when it was still mostly referred to as Obamacare, the majority of people supported the ACA if you referred to it as the ACA and not Obamacare. Depending on how you word the question, people will support Single option/public options for health care, unless you use the buzzwords that have been trashed by conservative think tanks to sound scary and bad. And that's why we also saw a backlash when Republicans tried to take the ACA away, and replace it with their shitty alternative last year. Republican strongholds in terms of electoral strength damn near rioted when they started doing that (leading to many of them cancelling and/or refusing to show up to town halls to face their constituents). People, both within Congress and the population at large have wanted to health care to be fixed for a long time, and have fought hard to get the concessions we've gotten.
That is also why I think starting with MFA or a version similar to that is the best starting point. It will most likely get whittled down when a bill like that actually hits Congress, and Republicans will fight tooth and nail against it, but they are gonna do that anyway because its a health care reform that will have both a (D) next to its name (and therefore the Book of the Beast in their eyes) and focus on socializing and regulating health care in some way and that's "bad for business" (and against their ideology of how a capitalist society should work). So why compromise before even starting the conversation, cause I guarantee that if we start with the compromise bill, they'll needle that anyway and try to water it down, and then not vote for it (like they did with the ACA). If we end up lower than we wanted, but higher than what the compromise bill would have been, I believe it will be easier to sell to the public.
Big tent parties are parties which have factions ranging from conservative (right), middle (centrist and/ or moderate) and on the left (Far Left/Leftists etc). Which fits the Dems like glove. Which faction is in leadership is irrrlevant to the term.
Big tent parties require leadership to balance both extemes for the most votes - any bill that fails is DOA. Which the ACA would have been with Single Payer or Public Option. The left being in leadership would not change this fact in passing a healthcare bill.
Leftists are new to the game, don’t have a lot of seats and need to build relationships and alliances to influence passing bills and they are at a huge disadvantage due to the other factions being decades ahead in every category. Once they do catch up they’ll get more influence and able to get more leadership positions. This is vital in shaping bills, but they may always be at a disadvantage over those who do have money - that’s just how it is since they’re not going to mutually disarm for the left’s benefit. This is on the left to figure it out how to do themselves, nobody else is going to do it for them.
If it is possible for the left to pass something like M4A or whatever they’ll find it eventually, but until then they’ll have to work within the status quo to get as much as they can like everybody else.
It's a big job which someone has to do to achieve programs like M4A, and none what I said was incorrect.
. https://www.axios.com/medicare-for-all-poll-midterm-elections-e7b93daf-b261-42f7-85ca-8d1bcb2eb1f0.html
Or
https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-march-2018-prescription-drug-pricing-medicare-for-all-proposals/
And this is before any opposition arguments. Opposition rises to 66% if you include taxes would go up
The same thing happened to ACA. Support was overwhelming and then the details came out and support really dropped. It wasn't until 6 years later or so that it really started being a political benefit.
Single payer at the state level has been very unpopular in blue states because the cost is ruinous and even richer states can't handle it. The numbers don't work.
Its a bad plan just in terms of cost shifting from corporations to the public. But yes it's less popular than the public option and assuredly would be wildly unpopular if you tried to implement it. Pretending it's a political homerun is wishful thinking
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Red States have shown a shocking amount of prejudice against anything by a liberal but really really liked having insurance. (Obamacare is socialism, but keep your hands off my ACA!)
It's a very winnable issue. I'm hopeful that we can keep the health insurance marketplace for real competitive and not just pretend competitive. Driving down cost of service and forcing profit to be put back in to the system will lead to efficiencies when the day does finally come that there's a single payer option.
That figure 8 you show Pants, was that from a separate article than the one you linked? I believe its real, but didn't see it in the article you posted, but did see some different figures:
Which seems to contradict the figure you posted, so I'm trying to square the circle from the conflicting information from Kaiser.
That is true, though my question was I didn’t actually see the figure in the link he had, so I was wondering if it was a different report. Considering they are different dates, that is most likely true then. I hadn’t noticed that the first time, thanks for pointing it out.
Looking at the information then, if the figures I posted are from the more recent reports (his was from September 2017, mine are from March 2018), doesn’t that show support increasing for Medicare for All and/or public options for health care? Like a public option that does not get rid of privatized healthcare has a 75% support rate up there.
Agreed.
Yes.
It being dumb doesn't override the fact that it is true. Yes, but history has shown is getting healthcare like M4A passed needs a bit more than simply voting. Getting the right politicians elected is the first step, and the main avenue to push as citizens (there's things like activism, as well) but this is the first step, it's not the last. Your duty is over, not the politicians, their jobs are just starting and it can be a messy process to get there, assuming we ever do.
What you're missing is that there are huge parts of the country doing the exact same thing, and their politicians will be working against it, and to date they outnumber us. To get around that has required compromise, which I get, sucks, but it's what we're left with. That is why the votes are super important able all else, get those vote you get M4A or whatever. WE almost had the Public Option (it passed the House) the senate, however, fucked that up. If this is ever going to work requires a hell of lot more planning then simply "primaries," because to do this safely requires 1) getting every single Dem elected in large enough qualities to pass a medicare bill pass a veto or VP (under a GOP POTUS) and 2) getting every single member on board with a bill M4A simultaneously. Both are massive feats to accomplish, it may be easier to get 1 (and that's an understatement) but 2, that's going to take a miracle on both House and Senate.
Medical bill legislation is difficult with lots of political bullshit, that's why it's important to be engaged to what the politicians do after they've been voted in. Now you can pay attention to which ones have good strategies, which ones sell out and which ones can't be trusted, all will have an effect on the legislation. That's the end game.
Indeed it is, except you're framing it like that's a simple job. It isn't. We just went through this recently, and I can tell you right now there are certain people within the ranks who are itching to be the new Liebermann's. Because assholes who want to kill and water down healthcare bills are harder to get rid of than cockroaches.
I can think of literally one person.
But there are Republicans who are eager to block things, and Joe Lieberman, and all kinds of obstacles that make health care reform complicated and hard to do. It won’t be easy or simple.
Why don’t you get that, Sammich?
Why doesn’t anybody get that?
Showing one but not the other is posting a push poll and acting like it's just a survey
That is fucking genius.
And it's going to make for some fantastic fodder for the conspiracy theory thread.
So like, the people are going to develop the means of production of generic drugs, because capitalism is failing to meet demand in an equitable manner.
i like it
maybe it will catch on
If nothing else it's a good opening position when approaching the bargaining table.
"I don't need you, you need me"
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I just feel like this will provide a lot of boost in support for the proposal, because there are scads of boomers that while crying about communism right now, are also eagerly awaiting that government teat for themselves. And their old sick asses moving off of private insurance should(with a more aggressive 90% rule) push down premiums until the youngest groups get eligibility.
I did say that if they had included dropping Medicare eligibility by ten years the ACA would have been bulletproof on passage.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
The general thinking among leftists is that if you knew you had control for 10 years and faced no opposition it would probably be a viable approach but that in reality you're dragging even just the initial political fight out for a long time. The political strength of welfare programs is their universality and the faster you can get to that the better.
I've seen that proposed a bunch of places.
I am very curious how this is going to work--specifically with how they decide what an "exorbitant" price is. Is it a price that isn't justified by the QALY return under cost effectiveness analysis? Or is it a price that's higher than manufacturing cost, and that the state/insurers/patients can't afford? The Hep C cure would be an example of the latter but not the former: no one can afford shelling out the $100,000 per person price tag to cover everyone with Hep C, although $100,000 is legitimately a bargain relative to other treatments with respect to the health effects. Perhaps the new agency could just requisition it, manufacture at cost, and meet an enormous, crucial health need. But... there is real force to the "killing the golden goose" point. That would be a giant shot across the bow scaring pharma out of developing anything similar ever again.
Fixing the generic market and protecting the population from vulture IP speculators is great, to be clear. But I think it's an enormous open question how to properly work with pharma and incentivize the development of genuinely expensive, genuinely effective products. The system now is broken but it's not clear how to fix it.
I was at a talk by the head of Warren's health team, and she was good people (and crazy smart), so I anticipate they are thinking about this. Warren has a reputation for having built a relatively academic team. *cheerleads*
I think the Sander's bill might address stuff like Sofosbuvir. Warren seems like it'd miss it.
I would worry if this is not formula based its not really workable and if it is it basically codifies that they will keep the price exactly short of that, probably for a broader array of meds than would currently be considered exorbitant
(Warren will also definitely have very smart people working on her policy team for her run.)
I think you're reading it backwards. It proposes the US manufacture a generic for It doesn't indicate an existing generic (and implies the opposite if anything as generics mean there's competition)
I don't know how that actually gets done though
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
So the idea would be, in situations like the above for example, you would get the rights to make those generics and sell them pretty much at cost (covering the manufacturing costs and costs to pay people to make the medicine) to push down the prices of medication for people.
I feel like this is something regulations and medicare contracts should already be nudging in the right direction. It's fucking tragic that in order to make "cheap" generic drugs affordable the government will have to manufacture them in house. It's an interesting solution and I welcome all the solutions we can get... but seriously what the fuck people?
Yeah, that quote implies that if the agency doesn't like the pricing, they can just ignore the patent and authorize a generic regardless of patent status. I'm not sure that's a good idea.
But it could just as easily be the article using a confusing wording.
Given the pharama industry's ethics, a "Price it fairly or we will undercut you until you do" provision is totally reasonable. Also if a medicine isn't in production and available in a reasonable time that should invalidate the patent.
Turing Pharmaceuticals' acquired the US marketing rights rather than a patent for Daraprim tablets and then increased the price by a ridiculous percent without a generic version having been created yet. The USA could fund generics in that case,l without infringing on the patent and would also potentially be useful outside of the USA.