High cost has many diabetics cutting back on insulin

[phattonez]

Would you be happier if they didnt invest their money in curing diseases?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Do you really think we wouldn't be able to cure disease if we didn't enrich billionaires?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Back in the 1970s, those needing dialysis often went without treatment if they had no coverage. The result was death for those patients.

Hearing this, President Nixon asked Congress to pass a law making it a government responsibility to pay for dialysis. Congress passed this law, called the 1972 Medicare kidney amendments (pdf - pg 3 and 19).

"Not the same thing at all." - "That's DIFFERENT!!!" - "OFF topic." - [and several other of the usual responses from those who can't think]

 

[trouble13]

Diabetes is a lifestyle choice? Oh wait, I see this is sarcasm

Many times obesity causes diabetes and many times obesity is caused by lifestyle choices. There are people walking around with diabetes that could of avoided it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

OK, different perspective here.

Here are the complications of diabetes

heart disease

kidney disease (think dialysis)

blindness

vascular disease (think ampuations)

infection (think sepsis,pneuemonia and more amputations)

stroke


Diabetics that control their sugar can dramatically reduce the serious health consequences of their diabetes. Poorly treated diabetes essentially creates large numbers of people who will not die immedialtly, but will need ongoing very expensive long term care that they will likely not be able to afford.


Making sure these people have access to affordable high quality reliable insulin and blood testing products? Seems pretty cheap to me.


I am not sure if the companies are extorting the patients or just recouping development costs. But let me say that the pharmaceutical industry in this country has not done much to win my trust.:lol:

Most of the ACTUAL "development cost" was paid by governments (either directly or through grants to universities).

Most of the cost of obtaining the right to exclusive manufacture was the cost of buying that right from the people who actually did the development.

The cost of buying that right did NOT equal the amount actually spent on developing the Insulin or production method for the Insulin.

What you have is, in effect, a "government subsidized monopoly", or, as Tommy Douglas would have put it "Socialism for the rich".

 

[phattonez]

What you have is, in effect, a "government subsidized monopoly", or, as Tommy Douglas would have put it "Socialism for the rich".

It's a corrupt oligarchy, which is what all of the Western democracies really are.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Knowing facts that contradict a narrative that is fed to someone requires not only integrity to admit being wrong but the intellect to asses it in the first place.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.

Are you saying that the statements in my post are NOT correct?

Or are you saying that it's really pretty useless to expose reality to those who simply won't look at it because they have been told what they are supposed to think reality is (frequently by someone who makes a ton of money out of the fact that dolts believe what they are told)?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Would you be happier if they didnt invest their money in curing diseases?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Did you know that the majority of the money that the drug companies spend on R&D is spent in efforts to find ways to get around other drug companies' patents and NOT on actually "curing disease".

Did you know that, if a researcher at a drug company discovered (as an example) a medication that completely cured the common cold, prevented its recurrence and cost $0.10 per dose to manufacture, the drug company would NOT market that medication?

 

[trouble13]

Did you know that the majority of the money that the drug companies spend on R&D is spent in efforts to find ways to get around other drug companies' patents and NOT on actually "curing disease".

Did you know that, if a researcher at a drug company discovered (as an example) a medication that completely cured the common cold, prevented its recurrence and cost $0.10 per dose to manufacture, the drug company would NOT market that medication?

I dont how much money is spent on what. I do know without medicine our quality of life diminishes. Take the profit out of that industry and the people involved will put their resources into other more profitable enterprises. This will result in diminished production, quality, and innovations. If you know a way around that cold hard fact, I'm all ears.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Do you really think we wouldn't be able to cure disease if we didn't enrich billionaires?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

I think taking profit out of it lowers the motivation to cure diseases. Greed is a more powerful motivator than compassion.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Napoleon]

I dont how much money is spent on what. I do know without medicine our quality of life diminishes. Take the profit out of that industry and the people involved will put their resources into other more profitable enterprises. This will result in diminished production, quality, and innovations. If you know a way around that cold hard fact, I'm all ears.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

There is one way around it. Some time ago, while Congress was giving pharmaceutical executives a good tongue lashing in a series of hearings, one rep asked them point blank why the government shouldn’t just seize their patents and fund NIH to do the R&D and manufacture the drugs. Human health doesn’t have to be a for-profit industry but, if we insist on keeping one, there need to be such adequate measures in place to keep these companies from creating a public health crisis in their pursuit of massive bonuses, executive yacht parties, and $800 cigar holders.

 

[phattonez]

I think taking profit out of it lowers the motivation to cure diseases. Greed is a more powerful motivator than compassion.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Tylenol also makes a profit. It doesn't require extortion of sick people.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I dont how much money is spent on what.

No dispute on that point.

I do know without medicine our quality of life diminishes.

No dispute on that point.

Take the profit out of that industry and the people involved will put their resources into other more profitable enterprises.

Quite right. That's why not a single medical discovery has ever come about because "The Gummint" actually paid the costs of the research that someone whose interest was in solving a medical question had to do in order to produce a new medication.

This will result in diminished production, quality, and innovations.

Quite right. Why if the pharmaceutical companies weren't doing massive research to find either another drug that would do the same job as an existing one or a way to produce an existing drug without falling afoul of processes which another company had protected and retained the exclusive right to use, we wouldn't have more than one company selling a drug that did the same thing as another drug (or the same drug produced by a different company).

If you know a way around that cold hard fact, I'm all ears.

I will refrain from commenting on what would have to be "between" those ears in order for someone to consider the things you wrote as "facts".

 

[prometeus]

Or are you saying that it's really pretty useless to expose reality to those who simply won't look at it because they have been told what they are supposed to think reality is (frequently by someone who makes a ton of money out of the fact that dolts believe what they are told)?

That.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Maybe someone else should dig a well ...

Your example is more of a monopoly than a free market.

As I wrote originally, 'free marketers' don't want competition. That is why they spend money to influence politicians who can make it difficult, if not impossible, for others to enter the market. Big pharma is notorious for this.

The point is, there are very few legal sources for life-saving insulin. The makers like it that way. The pharmaceutical companies know this. They intend to maximize their profits, and if a few thousand poor people die because of it, that's just too fn bad!

And those here who support the idea that private properties (patents) must always in all circumstances trump desperate people's lives are vile, IMO.

I personally am currently facing a dilemma: My choice is to either die young or buy a drug that will extend my life while impoverishing me. I'm leaning toward the former.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That.

Thought so. My sentiments entirely (even though I still try).

 

[Anthony60]

As I wrote originally, 'free marketers' don't want competition. That is why they spend money to influence politicians who can make it difficult, if not impossible, for others to enter the market. Big pharma is notorious for this.

You mean sellers in a free market don't want competition, not "free marketers". Consumers in a free market want plenty of competition.

The point is, there are very few legal sources for life-saving insulin. The makers like it that way. The pharmaceutical companies know this. They intend to maximize their profits, and if a few thousand poor people die because of it, that's just too fn bad!

Of course the makers like it that way. That's normal. I want to be the only person my employer can find to do my job. Doesn't mean it is going to happen.

And those here who support the idea that private properties (patents) must always in all circumstances trump desperate people's lives are vile, IMO.

Probably very few people feel that way. Besides, companies will give it away for free to people that can't afford it. That way, there won't be an outcry that people that can't afford insulin can't get it.

I personally am currently facing a dilemma: My choice is to either die young or buy a drug that will extend my life while impoverishing me. I'm leaning toward the former.

I'm not quite sure what that means.

 

[distraff]

Why? Okay lets just stop production. You need insulin? Produce it yourself.
People are not and should never be entitled to the product and services of another.

LOL, those sick people feeling so entitled for their medicine. They can just die if they don't like selling their houses to afford to live!

 

[Threegoofs]

I’ll just note that insulin, while being more expensive than in the past, is still fairly cheap if you’re sticking with the older generic types like Novolin and Humulin.

.1-.2 dollars per unit- the average requirement for a T1DM is about 30 units/day- or $3. Not bad for a human recombinant protein.

Wanna go cheaper? Beef and pork insulin stilll exists at a fraction of the cost.

https://www.goodrx.com/blog/how-much-does-insulin-cost-compare-brands/

 

[Individual]

I’ll just note that insulin, while being more expensive than in the past, is still fairly cheap if you’re sticking with the older generic types like Novolin and Humulin.

.1-.2 dollars per unit- the average requirement for a T1DM is about 30 units/day- or $3. Not bad for a human recombinant protein.

Wanna go cheaper? Beef and pork insulin stilll exists at a fraction of the cost.

https://www.goodrx.com/blog/how-much-does-insulin-cost-compare-brands/

At my age, I'd love to have a nice Mercedes, Bentley, or Rolls Royce, but I'll stick with my Honda PCX150 motorcycle.
Government exists so we don't have to live within our means, I've been told.

 

[Excon]

So, Americans should just be allowed to die when the richest nation in the world had the power and resources to do something about it?

Seems to be an argument from envy?
Regardless, even if it is not, it is not a valid argument to anything I argued and is not justification for using force on it's citizens.

Your reply raises a number of questions:
-- what would Jesus have done?
-- why do conservatives say that they love America but seem to hate Americans?

Only to those having ridiculous thoughts, but I will humor you.

Your last question is dismissed as being a non sequitur as well as false.

As for Jesus? Besides Jesus having not a damn thing to do with this and thus being irrelevant ...
Have you sold all your possessions and given all away to help others? If not ...; Well you should get the point ... you have none.

From this Jews understanding of Christianity, Jesus advocated for individuals taking personal action regarding themselves, not for the Government using force.
So get out there and help others through your personal actions regarding your self and stop trying to force others to do what you want.

No, Nixon did the right thing for a change.

No he clearly didn't. Forcing the citizens to pay for another's care is wrong.

 

[Excon]

Absolutely!!!!

If you don't like the way that the American Free Enterprise Capitalist marketplace works, find another.

Right?

PS - You do realize that Insulin was discovered through research paid for by the government of Canada, don't you? You do realize that the method of synthesizing Insulin was discovered through research paid for by the governments of the United States of America and Germany, don't you? You do realize that "recombinant Insulin" was developed by an American non-profit organization and (at roughly the same time) by an American venture capitalist founded company, don't you? Obviously, since the American "for profit" company was solely responsible for the discovery, manufacture, and improvement of Insulin, that means that other "for profit" companies have the sole right to produce Insulin and those people who don't want to pay what those "for profit" companies charge are fully at liberty to find another source of supply,

Right?

Nothing you said is relevant to what I have argued.

from those who can't think

You really shouldn't speak about your self like that, let alone others. It isn't healthy.

Did you know that Canada (as just one example) provides the same quality of health care as the US does at 48.05% of the per capita cost in the US?

Did you know that [Canadian Taxes] + [Canadian Personal Cost of obtaining Health Care Insurance] < [American Taxes] + [American Personal Cost of obtaining Health Care Insurance]?

Did you know that the percentage of Canadians who have health care insurance (that's 100%) is higher than the percentage of Americans who have health care insurance (that's around 87.8%).

Did you know that if you compare the "average wait time" of the Canadians who obtain medical care to that of the Americans who obtain medical care, the "average wait time" for the Canadians is longer, BUT if you compare the "average wait time" for ALL Canadians to the "average wait time" for ALL Americans the "wait time" for Americans is longer?

Did you know that your biased bs has no relevancy to anything I argued?

Did you know that it is against the law to produce anything that someone owns the exclusive right to produce without getting their permission first?

Did you know that the usual way of getting someone's permission to produce something that someone owns the exclusive right to produce is to pay them for the right to produce that thing?

Did you know that the pharmaceutical companies will gladly give you permission to produce 100% of the Insulin they currently produce, and to do so as a "not for profit" company, while completely ceasing any production which might compete with the Insulin that you produce PROVIDED that you pay them (at least) 100% of the profit that they could potentially make from producing and selling Insulin themselves?

Did you know that, since your "not for profit" would have to calculate the amounts that it pays to the pharmaceutical companies for the right to produce Insulin into its "production cost", your "not for profit" would end up having to actually charge MORE than the pharmaceutical companies now charge?

iLOL Did you know that again you provided nothing of relevance to what I argued?
Huh? Did you know that?
You would have if you had paid attention to what was said in the thread.

Again.

"the first patent on a long-acting synthetic insulin expired in June 2014,"​

 

[Excon]

You're welcome.

iLOL For what exactly?
Were you the reason the Government offered healthcare for an individual's service?
If not, you have no point.

---

Picky? No. Alive? Yes. I am a Type 1 diabetic. I can survive without long acting insulin, but I cannot survive without short acting.

It's not a matter of 'more effective', its a matter of addressing food consumption. Or perhaps we should give that up also? Or just bow to Big Pharma because we are dependent......

No. Picky was correct. Type one diabetes can be managed on long term insulin. It just takes more effort. But since using only one type of insulin wasn't what was being discussed, kind of pointless to even go down this road.
The point was about creating a non-profit for purposes of manufacturing insulin and treating diabetics. To that end I pointed out that a long term insulin patent had expired.
No one said that diabetics only had to rely on that source if it came into being. So you would have the low cost of such an organization's insulin which you could then supplement with those that are fast acting.

---

Your denial will not change the facts. You posted something utterly moronic and now that you were called on it you are in denial.

Your denial does not change the facts here.

"People are not and should never be entitled to the product and services of another."​

That statement is not moronic. Calling it moronic is what is truly moronic.

All you have done is show folks you can make assertions without backing them up. That is also pretty moronic.

Again; Try making valid arguments.
I am more than willing to engage you, but really, you have to make valid arguments or you will just continue to be dismissed.

---

LOL, those sick people feeling so entitled for their medicine. They can just die if they don't like selling their houses to afford to live!

I know, right? /s

FFS. :slapsforehead&rollseyes:
Do you not understand that nothing I said prevents anyone from helping themselves?

Do you not understand that nothing I said prevents others from helping those in need?

Do you not understand that nothing I said would prevent the Gov from offering low or no-cost loans/guarantees?

But forcing others to pay for someones else's care is wrong.
People are not and should never be entitled to the product and services of another.

 

[Deuce]

So, Americans should just be allowed to die when the richest nation in the world had the power and resources to do something about it?

Your reply raises a number of questions:
-- what would Jesus have done?
-- why do conservatives say that they love America but seem to hate Americans?

No, Nixon did the right thing for a change.

Yes. Literally yes, that's his stance.

It's really hard for people like us, who possess the capacity for empathy, to wrap our heads around this. But there's a sizeable portion of the right wing that literally does think people should just be left to die.

 

[GottaGo]

No. Picky was correct. Type one diabetes can be managed on long term insulin. It just takes more effort. But since using only one type of insulin wasn't what was being discussed, kind of pointless to even go down this road.
The point was about creating a non-profit for purposes of manufacturing insulin and treating diabetics. To that end I pointed out that a long term insulin patent had expired.
No one said that diabetics only had to rely on that source if it came into being. So you would have the low cost of such an organization's insulin which you could then supplement with those that are fast acting.

Aren't you an astonishing font of misguided information. And, out of curiosity, why would my personal purchase of insulin be restricted based on YOUR opinion? No one else is paying for it, I am.

While a Type 1 might (questionable at best) be 'treated' with a long acting insulin, I was not able to find anything to validate this presumption, and under no circumstances could it be considered a best treatment option, and would likely lead to uncontrolled A1c levels and the inherent complications. Long acting does not address necessary carb consumption or variables such as exercise or illness. Personally, I think your assumption is BS.

Regardless of your assumptions, why should patents be held for extended periods of time of best course treatments of life-dependent medications? Done solely at this point for profit gain.

 

[Deuce]

Do you not understand that nothing I said prevents anyone from helping themselves?

Do you not understand that nothing I said prevents others from helping those in need?

If these were sufficient to solve the problem we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. If private charity solved poverty, social safety nets wouldn't have been set up in the first place.

Do you not understand that nothing I said would prevent the Gov from offering low or no-cost loans/guarantees?

But forcing others to pay for someones else's care is wrong.

Wait. You can't force others to pay for someone's care but you can force someone to subsidize a below-market loan to pay for care?

Maybe you need to expand on exactly what your criteria is for "good government act" and "bad government act" because the goalposts seem to change every day.