6 ms·

1100-1500/month is pretty brutal. It’s a bit of a middle finger pointed at lower income people

JamesBarney 4y ago
Unfortunately it's really expensive to research and produce drugs and somebody's gotta pay for it. The rest of world isn't willing to so it looks like rich people's insurance is the one that will foot the bill which means lower income people have to wait. It sucks and it's a inefficient way to fund research but it's better than the alternative where no one funds this research and we (both rich and poor) never get the drug.
- asdff 4y ago
  Another alternative is the government funding this research and/or buying the drug directly. This is what was done for the government ordering 30 billion dollars worth of covid vaccines from moderna, pfizer, and j&j.
  - refurb 4y ago
    What the difference between consumers paying for drugs directly or paying taxes that pay for the drugs?
    - asdff 4y ago
      Many. For one the government can now collectively bargain for better prices. They can also subsidize the drug such that its available for everyone who needs it, not just those who have great insurance or who can afford to pay entirely out of pocket. Keeping your working population healthy has massive second order effects on the economy, it would be an investment paying for medical care. Where does this money come from? The people in this country who make way too much money to notice any decrease in quality of life from this potential tax hit. This country is full of such whales who could front a lot of money for collective good if we thought about things in a more redistributive manner instead of the "screw you I got mine" manner that somehow got perverted into the American way.
      - refurb 4y ago
        If the government is making the drugs how do they bargain for a price? And if the inefficiency of the government in terms of defense spending is any indication, I’m sure we’d be getting way less for our money than we currently do.
        skyyler 4y ago
        If the USPS ran like the DoD, the country would fall apart. Government is capable of efficiency.
        asdff 4y ago
        Most analysis of single payer versus the status quo suggest we'd all be saving money hand over fist. Sure the government is not the most efficient, but private companies are often even more inefficient unless you are a shareholder and your metrics for efficiency are profit versus the wellbeing of your customers.
        refurb 4y ago
        "Most analyses"? United Healthcare, the largest US insurer, has more members than the entire population of Canada. Why don't they get better drug prices than Canada? And in terms of efficiency, please list all the new, innovative drugs the government has brought to market.
        JamesBarney 4y ago
        Single payer systems are not more efficient at producing drugs, they just pay less for drugs by virtue of being a monopsony buyer. If we had a single payer system we would pay less for drugs, but we'd also have less drugs. This is probably a good tradeoff in the short term, and a bad one in the long run. If you get a disease today that has a significantly better prognosis than 20 years ago, what's the most likely reason? Better drugs. What is only 10% of our healthcare expenses, drugs. I don't think we should be so quick to cut funding to a sliver of healthcare expenses that is driving 90% of the progress.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Governments already fund much of the basic science research needed to find new drugs. That isn't the issue. The real funding issue is with stage 3 clinical trials, which now often cost on the order of $1B each. In theory we could nationalize the whole industry and have the government run all clinical trials. So the decisions on which drugs to develop would then be based on lobbying and campaign contributions. Would that produce better outcomes than what we're getting now? The government has a poor track record on picking winners.
- hoseja 4y ago
  Pharma profits so far could pay for research thousand years into the future.
  - JamesBarney 4y ago
    Pharma companies have profits that are around 13% mostly comparable to other companies of the same size doing lots of r&d.
  - ryan93 4y ago
    Pfizer could fund research for two thousand years at only 10 million a year?
runnerup 4y ago
You can get these wholesale from China from "reputable" gray-market wholesalers who get the chemicals made at contract manufacturing facilities. Independent purity tests via HPLC are available for <$100 if you don't fully trust your supply chain. Semaglutide is very, very cheap in the gray market. It's somewhat less effective than Tirzepatide and has slightly more side effects if you ramp up the dosage too quickly. If an annual amount is purchased on the gray market, this brings the monthly cost down to: - Tirzepatide: $60/month - Semaglutide: $10/month - Liraglutide: $87/month Note that in the USA, it is legal to import certain amounts of FDA-approved drugs if you have a prescription for them. However, just because something is the exact same chemical as an FDA-approved drug does not make it an FDA-approved drug. It must be manufactured in an FDA certified facility and be the same brand/manufacturer/packaging/labeling/etc as the approved drug. e.g. importing generic Sildenafil/Viagra is legal if you can find the Teva(tm) brand generic sildenafil in, say, Mexico or Canada for a better price. But it must be the pills manufactured by Teva in the appropriate facility with NDC #0093-5342-56[0]. If you import generic sildenafil "Cenforce" from the (very legitimate but not FDA-approved) Indian pharmaceutical manufacturer "Centurion Laboratories"... ...that would still be potentially criminal smuggling. Even if the pills you import show via laboratory test that they precisely match your medical prescription, they are not "FDA approved" and therefore not legal to import. A lot of people do though! 0: https://ndclist.com/ndc/0093-5342/package/0093-5342-56 https://ndclist.com/ndc/0093-5342/package/0093-5342-56
- andrewstuart 4y ago
  >> You can get these wholesale from China from "reputable" gray-market wholesalers Hard pass.
anonuser123456 4y ago
Lower income people of 2036 and beyond will have a magical medicine for probably 30 bucks a month.
- asdff 4y ago
  It will be too little too late for many by then
  - anonuser123456 4y ago
    So we should stop designing new drugs because only future generations will benefit?
    - asdff 4y ago
      We should instead publicly subsidize the drugs that people need to be healthy just like we did for the covid vaccines that we offered to everyone at no cost.
refurb 4y ago
It's covered by insurance and the manufacturer has a $25/month program.
Eumenes 4y ago
Running shoes cost about $50-$100 for a decent pair and last for many months
- ilikecakeandpie 4y ago
  1) Decent running shoes cost more than that and it's a prohibitive spend for lower income people. 2) This is an extreme oversimplification of the problem and feels to be made in bad faith.
  - Eumenes 4y ago
    I'd never consider exercise gear, esp running shoes to be 'prohibitive spend for lower income people', taking care of your health is probably some of the best money you can spend ... and you can most certainly buy quality running shoes for around $100. Here are some high quality trail runners for around 100, some under: https://www.saucony.com/en/saucony-peregrine/ https://www.saucony.com/en/saucony-peregrine/

Unfortunately it's really expensive to research and produce drugs and somebody's gotta pay for it. The rest of world isn't willing to so it looks like rich people's insurance is the one that will foot the bill which means lower income people have to wait. It sucks and it's a inefficient way to fund research but it's better than the alternative where no one funds this research and we (both rich and poor) never get the drug.

asdff 4y ago
Another alternative is the government funding this research and/or buying the drug directly. This is what was done for the government ordering 30 billion dollars worth of covid vaccines from moderna, pfizer, and j&j.
- refurb 4y ago
  What the difference between consumers paying for drugs directly or paying taxes that pay for the drugs?
  - asdff 4y ago
    Many. For one the government can now collectively bargain for better prices. They can also subsidize the drug such that its available for everyone who needs it, not just those who have great insurance or who can afford to pay entirely out of pocket. Keeping your working population healthy has massive second order effects on the economy, it would be an investment paying for medical care. Where does this money come from? The people in this country who make way too much money to notice any decrease in quality of life from this potential tax hit. This country is full of such whales who could front a lot of money for collective good if we thought about things in a more redistributive manner instead of the "screw you I got mine" manner that somehow got perverted into the American way.
    - refurb 4y ago
      If the government is making the drugs how do they bargain for a price? And if the inefficiency of the government in terms of defense spending is any indication, I’m sure we’d be getting way less for our money than we currently do.
      - skyyler 4y ago
        If the USPS ran like the DoD, the country would fall apart. Government is capable of efficiency.
      - asdff 4y ago
        Most analysis of single payer versus the status quo suggest we'd all be saving money hand over fist. Sure the government is not the most efficient, but private companies are often even more inefficient unless you are a shareholder and your metrics for efficiency are profit versus the wellbeing of your customers.
        refurb 4y ago
        "Most analyses"? United Healthcare, the largest US insurer, has more members than the entire population of Canada. Why don't they get better drug prices than Canada? And in terms of efficiency, please list all the new, innovative drugs the government has brought to market.
        JamesBarney 4y ago
        Single payer systems are not more efficient at producing drugs, they just pay less for drugs by virtue of being a monopsony buyer. If we had a single payer system we would pay less for drugs, but we'd also have less drugs. This is probably a good tradeoff in the short term, and a bad one in the long run. If you get a disease today that has a significantly better prognosis than 20 years ago, what's the most likely reason? Better drugs. What is only 10% of our healthcare expenses, drugs. I don't think we should be so quick to cut funding to a sliver of healthcare expenses that is driving 90% of the progress.
- nradov 4y ago
  Governments already fund much of the basic science research needed to find new drugs. That isn't the issue. The real funding issue is with stage 3 clinical trials, which now often cost on the order of $1B each. In theory we could nationalize the whole industry and have the government run all clinical trials. So the decisions on which drugs to develop would then be based on lobbying and campaign contributions. Would that produce better outcomes than what we're getting now? The government has a poor track record on picking winners.
hoseja 4y ago
Pharma profits so far could pay for research thousand years into the future.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  Pharma companies have profits that are around 13% mostly comparable to other companies of the same size doing lots of r&d.
- ryan93 4y ago
  Pfizer could fund research for two thousand years at only 10 million a year?

runnerup 4y ago

You can get these wholesale from China from "reputable" gray-market wholesalers who get the chemicals made at contract manufacturing facilities. Independent purity tests via HPLC are available for <$100 if you don't fully trust your supply chain. Semaglutide is very, very cheap in the gray market. It's somewhat less effective than Tirzepatide and has slightly more side effects if you ramp up the dosage too quickly. If an annual amount is purchased on the gray market, this brings the monthly cost down to: - Tirzepatide: $60/month - Semaglutide: $10/month - Liraglutide: $87/month Note that in the USA, it is legal to import certain amounts of FDA-approved drugs if you have a prescription for them. However, just because something is the exact same chemical as an FDA-approved drug does not make it an FDA-approved drug. It must be manufactured in an FDA certified facility and be the same brand/manufacturer/packaging/labeling/etc as the approved drug. e.g. importing generic Sildenafil/Viagra is legal if you can find the Teva(tm) brand generic sildenafil in, say, Mexico or Canada for a better price. But it must be the pills manufactured by Teva in the appropriate facility with NDC #0093-5342-56[0]. If you import generic sildenafil "Cenforce" from the (very legitimate but not FDA-approved) Indian pharmaceutical manufacturer "Centurion Laboratories"... ...that would still be potentially criminal smuggling. Even if the pills you import show via laboratory test that they precisely match your medical prescription, they are not "FDA approved" and therefore not legal to import. A lot of people do though! 0: https://ndclist.com/ndc/0093-5342/package/0093-5342-56 https://ndclist.com/ndc/0093-5342/package/0093-5342-56

andrewstuart 4y ago
>> You can get these wholesale from China from "reputable" gray-market wholesalers Hard pass.

anonuser123456 4y ago

Lower income people of 2036 and beyond will have a magical medicine for probably 30 bucks a month.

asdff 4y ago
It will be too little too late for many by then
- anonuser123456 4y ago
  So we should stop designing new drugs because only future generations will benefit?
  - asdff 4y ago
    We should instead publicly subsidize the drugs that people need to be healthy just like we did for the covid vaccines that we offered to everyone at no cost.

refurb 4y ago

It's covered by insurance and the manufacturer has a $25/month program.

Eumenes 4y ago

Running shoes cost about $50-$100 for a decent pair and last for many months

ilikecakeandpie 4y ago
1) Decent running shoes cost more than that and it's a prohibitive spend for lower income people. 2) This is an extreme oversimplification of the problem and feels to be made in bad faith.
- Eumenes 4y ago
  I'd never consider exercise gear, esp running shoes to be 'prohibitive spend for lower income people', taking care of your health is probably some of the best money you can spend ... and you can most certainly buy quality running shoes for around $100. Here are some high quality trail runners for around 100, some under: https://www.saucony.com/en/saucony-peregrine/ https://www.saucony.com/en/saucony-peregrine/