Tag: healthcare

Foreign Countries Freeload on U.S. Drug Research and Drive Up Costs for American Consumers

Foreign Countries Freeload on U.S. Drug Research and Drive Up Costs for American Consumers

Because foreign countries can import new U.S. drugs and price them however they see fit, many have largely checked out of the innovation business themselves. The U.S. produced 57% of the world’s new medicines between 2001 and 2010, up from less than a third in the 1970s, the Milken Institute reported in 2011.

The bottom line is that foreign countries freeload off American medical innovation, enjoying the fruits of U.S. ingenuity while forcing American consumers to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of funding research – effectively causing the American consumer to subsidize the pharmaceutical needs of foreign consumers.

President Trump says American companies have been getting “systematically ripped off” by foreign governments and firms. He’s right. Yet he has backed a proposal that would make the problem even worse—permitting Americans to buy prescription drugs from overseas retailers, a practice known as importation. This policy wouldn’t help American consumers much, but it would gut American pharmaceutical companies.

Importation would threaten the research-and-development efforts that yield new lifesaving drugs. Our strong intellectual-property laws, coupled with a comparatively free-market pricing system, encourage firms to research new treatments. Companies wouldn’t take on the enormous cost of developing a new drug without a solid chance of recouping their investment. On average, a new medicine takes 10 years and costs $2.6 billion to develop, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development.

The problem is that rather than promote innovation, many other countries impose price controls on prescription drugs—including new medicines invented in the United States—to make them artificially cheaper for consumers. If American companies refuse to sell their medicines at these steeply discounted dictated prices, foreign countries threaten to break their patents and produce knockoff versions of the medicines.

For decades, federal officials have largely ignored these threats and left American research companies to fend for themselves. U.S. companies gave in to the bullying—quite understandably. Since they already spent the money to develop the drug, they figured it’s better to make some extra sales abroad, even if those sales are at a discount and they can rely on the American consumer for the majority of their per dose profit.

Foreign price controls succeed because they are carried on the back of the American consumer. The American consumer subsidizes the cost of foreign pharmaceutical costs making US healthcare costs higher while lowering the healthcare costs of foreign consumers.

The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 requires the federal government to negotiate trade deals that “achieve the elimination of government measures such as price controls and reference pricing which deny full market access for United States products.” Mr. Trump might actually have the negotiating skills to turn that goal into reality.

If Mr. Trump wants to “bend the cost curve of healthcare” as Mr. Obama promised (and failed) then ending the subsidy of foreign consumers should be high on his list.

Source: How Other Countries Freeload on U.S. Drug Research – WSJ

ObamaCare Beyond the Handouts

ObamaCare Beyond the Handouts

We’ve always said that ObamaCare, for all its flaws, could become the instrument by which responsible reformers renew their push for health care that delivers value for money. In the meantime, however, no worthwhile thoughts about ObamaCare, pro or con, are to be heard from people who count a program as a success just because Americans enjoy receiving benefits at the expense of other Americans.

Source: ObamaCare Beyond the Handouts – WSJ

The Obamacare Escalator

The Obamacare Escalator

I originally wrote this on my Facebook page. I am embedding that post below, but also putting the text here (including fixing some grammatical mistakes from the original post).

In 2009 White House economists tried to sell ObamaCare as a health cost-control bill, and some liberals still claim the recent spending deceleration is a result of the law even though it is really due to a bad economy.

On Wednesday, the actuaries at Health and Human Services released their new annual projected measurement of national health expenditures for last year and through 2023. Spending in 2013 grew at a relatively low rate of 3.6% which still outpaced real economic growth. They expect the rate to climb to 5.6% in 2014 and continue rising by 6% a year, on average, through the decade.

Health spending as a share of the economy rose to 17.2% in 2013 from 16.2% in 2007 and will hit 19.3% in 2023, assuming that GDP grows as much as the auditors project. In other words, healthcare will soak up nearly one of every five U.S. dollars instead of one of six. Taxpayers will finance 48% of that spending a decade out, up from 41% in 2007.

I have argued for years that the reason for healthcare expense growth is not the need for a single payer. Rather it is a combination of

  • The obstructionist policies of our trading partners (the US finances most medical research but foreign nations restrict the pricing of those same medicines).
  • The severe obesity of our people compared to the rest of the world.
  • The cost of medical malpractice coverage (unheard of in most of the world).
  • The high cost of treating trauma injuries due to gun shot wounds.

So we know that Obamacare didn’t end the lack of insurance coverage in the US. We also know that it is not going to bend the cost curve. What good does it do?

Here is the WSJ article that gave me the information for this post.

First thoughts on the day after election

First thoughts on the day after election

The massive mid-term election of 2010 is now over. My phone won’t ring 25 times today with some computer imploring me to vote for one candidate over another. The signs that are all along the streets in my town can come down (hopefully the candidates come out and clean up their mess). Life can now go back to some sort of normal.

The Republicans evidently picked up approximately 60 seats in the House of Representatives. They also made major increases in the Senate and that house appears to be split nearly 50/50 (the exact count probably won’t be known for a couple days as Alaska will probably take a while to count due to the write-in candidate).

What does this election mean? Does it mean that the 2-year era of liberalism is over? Does it mean that conservatism is the rule of the day? Does it mean that Barack Hussein Obama will lose in 2 years? Does it mean that the Republicans have a mandate to go ultra-conservative? Does it mean that the poor and down-trodden will need to look for their medicine in the trash cans of the homes of the wealthy? Does it mean that I have to give up drinking coffee and now drink tea?

What I am 100% confident in is that it doesn’t mean any of the above! It doesn’t mean that BHO is done. It doesn’t mean that all of healthcare should just go to the wealthiest. It doesn’t mean that we should now savage the environment.

I don’t think that the newly elected Republicans have a mandate at all except for the mandate to do a good job and figure out the best way to solve each individual problem regardless of party direction.

I think it means that Americans want a government that works. We want it to work rather slowly and deliberately. We want politicians that don’t act like politicians but rather act like leaders. We want compromise to be the rule of the day. We want our leaders to read, understand, and thoughtfully debate the bills that are before them. We don’t want to find out about what is in the bill after it is turned into law – we want our leaders to know what is in the bill before they make it a law.

We don’t want stagnation. If Boehner drives the government to a stall the way that Gingrich did, that would be a mistake.

Most of all, I think Americans don’t want to deal with the federal government. We don’t want our lives to be tied up with governing. Life is hard enough with births, jobs, bills, lousy bosses, teenagers, sickness, and death – we don’t want to worry about the feds as well. I think most Americans would be perfectly happy if government would just get out of our lives with the exception of keeping us safe, making sure the infrastructure works, and helping out with the truly disadvantaged. We will pay a reasonable tax for that as long as we think it is well managed.

I raise my coffee cup in a salute to the Tea Party activists for energizing America in making their point. That point, I believe, is that we want our legislators to pay attention to us, don’t tax us to death, and spend what you need but make sure what you buy is needed. 2 years ago, pundits were saying that the Republican party was dead, now the pundits need to say, “Listen to your constituents if you want to keep your job.” 

There is no such thing as a mandate to do radical things. Extremism is a bad position no matter which side of the scale you are on.

If the grown men and women in the federal government can’t get along better than a bunch of nursery school kids, then we will take away their ball and send a new bunch of children to Washington in 2 years.

President Obama pitches Chicago for the Olympics

President Obama pitches Chicago for the Olympics

Currently, President Barack Hussein Obama is planning on going to Copenhagen to be a celebrity pitchman for the city of Chicago (and America in general) for the home of the 2016 Olympics. While there is plenty of controversy over this decision since there are probably hundreds of movie stars and celebrities that could be tasked with helping the cause, the concern that BHO is too busy to go is probably not relevant.

Currently, every head of state for a city that is in the finals is visiting the IOC.  BHO’s lack of attendance would be telling if he did not go.  If BHO stayed home and spent more time socializing our economy, he would be vastly criticized if Chicago lost their bid. It is the sad state of Olympics politics that the head of state needs to be involved in order to win since Blair did that 4 years ago to secure London’s hosting spot.

There is little danger in BHO going. He has already started the process of vastly increasing our taxes with a cap and trade initiative as well as screwing up the healthcare reform effort. Having him travel around Europe (where they love him) is probably a good thing.  Maybe while he is on that side of the pond, Iran can give him a quick tour of their nuclear facilities and missile program. Then he can come back and give a Chamberlain style speech!

There is no questioning BHO’s star appeal.  In fact, this was an issue during his campaign for the Presidency (and led to this hilarious video). Let him use this star power to bring the Olympics to Chicago – for no other reason than we will be able to see the events in primetime rather than tape delayed!!

Healthcare for illegals

Healthcare for illegals

First, let me be clear, I think that Rep. Wilson of South Carolina should be censured for his outburst while President Barack Hussein Obama was speaking in a joint session of Congress. He reminds of irresponsible brats such as Kanye West. Public outbursts while the President is speaking are simply unacceptable in any format and definitely not allowed in a joint session of Congress.

I do think that it is interesting that the rude outburst occurred due to a statement from BHO regarding healthcare for illegal aliens. There is a reasonable argument that BHO, while perhaps not lying, was not telling the complete truth. Check out this interesting video below and then read the rest of my comments.

 

Now I see that the Democrats in the Senate would like to toughen up the loopholes to prevent illegal aliens from getting taxpayer supplied insurance. I don’t get it, BHO says that this can’t happen but now a few days later there is an amendment that prevents this thing that can’t happen.  Makes me think that BHO was bending the truth a bit and probably knew it.

Of course the solution that the Senate is currently thinking about is to use Social Security numbers.  Seems reasonable.  SS numbers have become the defacto national identity card that we need. I have ranted on this before, if we would just have national identity cards then we would control much of the illegal problem that we have.

Below are a few clips from a recent article in the Wall Street Journal:

A key Democratic senator said Friday that lawmakers planned to toughen provisions in a health bill to prevent illegal immigrants from enjoying benefits, in a Democratic response to concerns by some Republicans.

Members of the Senate Finance Committee met Friday, and Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) said they wanted to use Social Security numbers to ensure that illegal immigrants weren’t eligible for subsidies envisioned as part of a plan to expand health coverage.

President Obama’s health-reform proposal has sparked heated debate over whether the plan benefits illegal immigrants, as demonstrated by Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst. WSJ’s Elizabeth Williamson breaks down the details of the proposed new government-run insurance plan.

Still up in the air is whether illegal immigrants would be banned from participating in federally regulated insurance “exchanges” under Democrats’ health bills, even if the immigrants were willing to use their own money to buy policies. On Friday, a coalition of three dozen faith-based groups wrote to Congress to express anger at the proposed ban.