tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post942263601323588827..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Paul Krugman, Bernie Sanders, and Medicare for AllUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-25826802381209121722016-02-27T22:03:36.166-05:002016-02-27T22:03:36.166-05:00So many of the comments do not attend to the argum...So many of the comments do not attend to the argument.<br /><br />The fireman analogy makes his point clear; we don't have individual homeowners pay the fireman or no water comes out of the hose, we socialize the costs and pay them upfront, wages, fire truck, and all.<br /><br />In case that wasn't clear enough here is Baker's following sentence: "We should be looking for a system that pays for the research upfront."<br /><br />To which some commenters respond: "refuses to accept the fact that few businesses would "sink" any research costs at all"<br /><br />"We wouldn't be buying this or any other future drug at all, as the pharma companies wouldn't conduct the research needed to create them."<br /><br />"Doctor Baker: in the real world, who,exactly, is gonna pony up 100s of millions of dollars for 10 or more years for development of new drugs without a patent ?<br />huh ?"<br /><br />(ummm, us, if the costs are socialized as are firehouses) Baker is not arguing we dismantle patents for drugs and make no other change.<br /><br />"For instance, Obamacare *barely* passed, even tho there was a dem majority in both houses, *and* the bill was structured so that very very powerful lobbys - the insurance industry - were in favor<br /><br />and yet all the sanders fans just wave their hands and say, poof, single payer...."<br /><br />Perhaps part of the reason Obamacare was such a push is that the overwhelming financial superiority of single payer was not politically in play as it should have been, because the politicians were to constrained in there vision, and the weren't making the sale. The only reason Sanders can now run on single payer is because after the Obamacare fight many more people know what single payer means!<br /><br />Could Sanders as President get single payer through his first term? No, he couldn't. But the broad public would learn how much cheaper it is. How it isn't so much patients who pay for drug development but specifically American patients.<br /><br />You will never get popular demand for anything without pushing it politically.<br /><br />Can't people remember that for many decades a federal anti-lynching law could not pass? Some called that a regrettable reality and did not fight. Others fought hard, and they built a political climate where lynching could be stopped.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07578550135240758140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-36932560605552642322016-02-20T00:24:46.166-05:002016-02-20T00:24:46.166-05:00AARP lobbying against healthcare and insurance fir...AARP lobbying against healthcare and insurance firms? AARP is actually more of a marketing device for insurance and other services; it was founded by an insurance industry manager, and it's "members" don't have actual mechanisms to real power in setting it's agenda.G-fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05103939593418325832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-37616376183063256442016-01-23T12:56:29.772-05:002016-01-23T12:56:29.772-05:00Baker's substitute for the present system of p...Baker's substitute for the present system of patents would not deny companies that "invent" new drugs profit on those drugs. It would instead be a licencing system that would incorporate both competition and the constitutional reason for limited monopoly, which is fairness. A drug company that can't be satisfied with the same margin of profit on a new drug as an auto company has on a new model of automobile deserves to be driven out of business. <br />Big Pharma propaganda is patently ridiculous. Roger Gathmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11257400843748041639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-75840776540511581142016-01-19T19:24:34.350-05:002016-01-19T19:24:34.350-05:00As a liberal, I'm saddened by the knee jerk di...As a liberal, I'm saddened by the knee jerk dismissal of krugmn by sanders fans<br />maybe krugman is right maybe not, but he surely deserves more then a brush off as a liberal shill.<br /><br />For instance, Obamacare *barely* passed, even tho there was a dem majority in both houses, *and* the bill was structured so that very very powerful lobbys - the insurance industry - were in favor<br /><br />and yet all the sanders fans just wave their hands and say, poof, single payer....<br />I'm sorry, I think you people are substituting handwaving for thought: and the ad hominem nature of most of the anti krugman attacks sort of prooves my pointSoccer Dadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10745967553131454562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-86130078435207761342016-01-19T19:22:10.956-05:002016-01-19T19:22:10.956-05:00bake says, quote
Ordinarily economists treat it as...bake says, quote<br />Ordinarily economists treat it as an absolute article of faith that we want all goods and services to sell at their marginal cost without interference from the government, like a trade tariff or quota.<br />unquote<br />translating from opaque jargon to ordinary english, he wants drug to sell roughly for what it cost to manufacture a bottle and put it on the shelf, which is much much lower then the list price<br /><br />Doctor Baker: in the real world, who,exactly, is gonna pony up 100s of millions of dollars for 10 or more years for development of new drugs without a patent ?<br />huh ?<br />I think you are adding 2+2 and getting -3Soccer Dadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10745967553131454562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-14912916800862264112016-01-19T12:59:23.984-05:002016-01-19T12:59:23.984-05:00If Krugman is, as advertised, a "liberal"...If Krugman is, as advertised, a "liberal", why do we even bother with conservatives?<br /><br />The Krugman blogpost from Jan 18, Health Reform is Hard, makes clear, if his column seemed more nuanced, that Krugman is no friend to progressive hope. Of course, he starts out insisting that he, personally, favors single-payer. But, in a Scott Lemieux-like pirouette, he knows it is not politically feasible, so bringing it up is just a distraction.<br /><br />Then, he labels Bernie Sanders as dishonest, and explains that Sanders' plan would require the dread "rationing" to meet its budget targets. He allows that lower administrative costs might account for some economies. (No word on whether eliminating price-gouging profiteering or parasitic for-profit insurance companies might be helpful.) But, the really important thing, according to Paul, is "saying no" to patients. Open-heart surgery as a desirable consumer good driven by insatiable demand, I guess, is the vision here.<br /><br />And, although I like Econospeak, it is not reassuring that Dean Baker has to rely on this blogpost in the night to get the word out. Talk about hopeless. Bruce Wilderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09631065564839959376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-12212366847432005732016-01-18T18:27:50.129-05:002016-01-18T18:27:50.129-05:00The horse we rode in on doesn't have to be the...The horse we rode in on doesn't have to be the horse we ride out on. Continual change seems to work well for the tech industry, auto industry, food production and many other Industries. What is so special about health care and pharma that exempts them from this paradigm?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10790574845701761554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-1003441628534798302016-01-18T18:27:14.865-05:002016-01-18T18:27:14.865-05:00The horse we rode in on doesn't have to be the...The horse we rode in on doesn't have to be the horse we ride out on. Continual change seems to work well for the tech industry, auto industry, food production and many other Industries. What is so special about health care and pharma that exempts them from this paradigm?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10790574845701761554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-25782306580317414232016-01-18T16:35:17.631-05:002016-01-18T16:35:17.631-05:00@stickler Your critique of Dean is preempted by hi...@stickler Your critique of Dean is preempted by his public plan to fund new drug research. He linked it here.Julio Huatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12363862134527817782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-32737799998684250132016-01-18T15:16:03.414-05:002016-01-18T15:16:03.414-05:00"However, if there was no patent monopoly, we..."However, if there was no patent monopoly, we would be looking at buying this drug at its cost of production. ..."<br /><br />We wouldn't be buying this or any other future drug at all, as the pharma companies wouldn't conduct the research needed to create them. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10007477141488298220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-86534389022022078892016-01-18T14:40:29.767-05:002016-01-18T14:40:29.767-05:00Then do the research via the government (where a l...Then do the research via the government (where a lot of it is being done anyway) and get a decent royalty payment from manufacturers instead of giving them sweetheart deals. The same could be said for things as varied as hybrid corn and mining and grazing leases. Charge market rates and get market royalties for government property and research, and have the money flow to the government.<br /><br />BTW, "dismantling the patent system" is a strawman. Don't do that.JDMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16385434976791599640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-31194899024522483552016-01-18T14:37:34.270-05:002016-01-18T14:37:34.270-05:00First, 75% of pharmaceutical innovation comes from...First, 75% of pharmaceutical innovation comes from government-sponsored research. The bulk of for-profit, private pharmaceutical research is devoted to extending the life of existing patents (think "time released viagra").<br /><br />And, according to Marcia Angell, former New England Journal of Medicine editor who writes for nybooks.com, big Pharma devotes 55% of its gross profit to marketing, only 15% to R&D. <br /><br />My sympathy for these people is let's just say limited. As for the patent system: oligarchs like big Pharma game it regularly. <br />Your humble bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747079541264598456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-27738522577673136522016-01-18T14:06:50.935-05:002016-01-18T14:06:50.935-05:00Dean has beaten the "patents" hobbyhorse...Dean has beaten the "patents" hobbyhorse many times in the past, and refuses to accept the fact that few businesses would "sink" any research costs at all, if they were not confident of recovering them over the life of the product.<br /><br />These costs are very high in the approval process for pharmaceuticals. In the absence of any patent protection, any competent pharmaceutical manufacturer can copy an approved drug and manufacture and sell it far below the price of the originator who is still trying to recoup his "sunk" costs.<br /><br />Is there gouging for some drugs? No doubt, but dismantling the patent system is not the way to remedy that situation.sticklerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11468746880489986775noreply@blogger.com