What is "affordable" healthcare?

[soylentgreen]

Please define "affordable". Thanks.

[soylentgreen]

For all the insistance that we need "affordable" care, no one seems to be eager to define exactly what that means. Interesting...

[hadit]

For all the insistance that we need "affordable" care, no one seems to be eager to define exactly what that means. Interesting...

You might as well ask a high tax advocate just what is a "fair share" for the rich to pay. If you get an answer at all, it's always "more".

[Pho King]

"affordable" in the context used by liberals means "whatever is desired".

[soylentgreen]

"affordable" in the context used by liberals means "whatever is desired".

No. I think it means "free"...in other words some nameless, faceless, evil rich person should pay.

[soylentgreen]

Wow. For all the mutherfuckers who have vehemently insisted that we MUST have "affordable" healthcare...there sure don't seem to be a lot willing to say exactly what that means.

Thanks for proving my point, you douches.

[kellyb]

Affordable is every other developed nation on earth. AKA, about half of our cost.

[hadit]

Affordable is every other developed nation on earth. AKA, about half of our cost.

Who then will bear the cost of innovation and new development?

[Chachma v'Oz]

Capitalists, as always, with government subsidies, as always.

[hadit]

Capitalists, as always, with government subsidies, as always.

That doesn't do anything to lower the costs of innovation. Whoever innovates will have higher costs to pay. The standard, as set by kellyb, is "Affordable is every other developed nation on earth. AKA, about half of our cost". We can't do that and continue being the innovative leader of the world.

[Chachma v'Oz]

That doesn't do anything to lower the costs of innovation. Whoever innovates will have higher costs to pay. The standard, as set by kellyb, is "Affordable is every other developed nation on earth. AKA, about half of our cost". We can't do that and continue being the innovative leader of the world.

I see your mind is made up.

[hadit]

I see your mind is made up.

You haven't shown me how we can continue innovating, with the high costs associated with doing so, and reach the goal as set by kellyb.

[Chachma v'Oz]

You haven't shown me how we can continue innovating, with the high costs associated with doing so, and reach the goal as set by kellyb.

I already did, but it doesn't fit what you've decided is the way things are and you want me to go over it again and again in your "Why, daddy, why" manner. I got tired of that nonsense years ago and am not going to entertain you now.

[kellyb]

http://www.aaanything.net/wp-content...ickle_down.jpg

Who then will bear the cost of innovation and new development?

Pharmaceutical companies, like they already do.

Really, Americans don't HAVE to be price-gouged (leaving many US citizens without any health care whatsoever) for science to progress. That's a big joke of a lie along the lines of:

[Freedom&Liberty]

Pharma revenues would drop as government evolves the system into single payer. What incentive would there be to spend millions developing a new drug, if there was no profit in it?

[kellyb]

Pharma revenues would drop as government evolves the system into single payer. What incentive would there be to spend millions developing a new drug, if there was no profit in it?

"No profit" is your own imaginary boogeyman.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Are you saying you want government run pharma?

[kellyb]

Are you saying you want government run pharma?

My access to the antiepileptics I need now is zero. So, sure. If nationalizing pharma means even the little people get medicine they need, fine.

[Lulu]

Pharma revenues would drop as government evolves the system into single payer. What incentive would there be to spend millions developing a new drug, if there was no profit in it?

Guess who doesn't want to scrap ACA? That's right... pharma. I'll let you figure out why (hint: they make a crapload of money on Medicare and clearly ACA was negotiated to maintain these profits).

Big Pharma doesn’t appear to be looking forward to having to go back to the drawing board on health-care reform if the landmark legislation is somehow struck down by an upcoming Supreme Court decision.

“The decision affects the timing but it really doesn’t affect the debate of a lot of the issues…like how do we deal with Medicare, how do we deal with the states over Medicaid expansion, and so on,” PhRMA President John Castellani told MarketWatch at the pharmaceutical industry trade group’s annual meeting on Thursday.

Even if the legislation was allowed to stand as is, he said, several aspects of the bill would still need further clarification, such as the oversight and scope of the independent advisory boards.

“All those issues have to be addressed. The Supreme Court decision is very important but if you look over a long period of time… the fiscal condition of the country is going to force Congress to look at a whole set of the issues that are encompassed in the Affordable Care Act,” said Castellani.

And what would be most disruptive to the industry if the current act is struck down?

Topping the list, said Castellani, would be the loss of a regulatory pathway for the approval of generic biologics, or biosimilars, which was finally established, after years of debate, under the Affordable Care Act. If the act is scrapped, the industry may have to wait some time for the provision to be reintroduced in Congress.

Also at issue is how scrapping of the act would impact certain prescription drug benefits included under Medicare Part D.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell...thcare-reform/

Pharma companies aren't spending the huge amounts on R&D now anyway... they are buying up biotechs and/or focusing on niche markets like oncology. There's only so many times you can repackage essentially the same drug, call it a different name, claim it's better/safer/more effective and have a blockbuster.

[9ball8]

Universities (public and private) have connections to Pharma, which is yet another R&D subsidy. I'm not objecting much, as I realize that the Pharms also contribute resources to those labs and professorships. Just adding to Lulu's clarification that private sector, Big Pharma in the US is not the sole supplier of cutting edge medicine.

There is every reason that the wealthiest 5% around the world should be able to supplement any socialized insurance they might have, and have access to the finest, cutting edge drugs to treat their ailments. Someone has to be a guinea pig before those drugs hit the open market, after all.