House passes bill to cap insulin prices

[TU Curmudgeon]

not entirely but you can only do so much... not sure how you make it so EVERYONE has a say in who is up for election in a country of 300 million people...

anyone who has the moey to sustaina campaign CAN run... maybea kickstarter campaign to run for office? *shrug*

Where I live, I have the option of joining a political party (which involves actually paying a membership fee), "signing on" with a potential candidate and assisting them in trying to convince the other members of that political party that they are the most appropriate candidate for that electoral district (in a campaign where the amounts spent by the potential candidates is strictly limited [and to an amount that an average person earning an average income can afford] and where no "outside campaigning" is allowed) and then attending the actual candidate selection meeting where I get to have an active voice in choosing which of the potential candidates is going to be the candidate for that political party in my own electoral district. I also have the opportunity to query all potential candidates on what their position is on any issue that is of particular interest to me as well as to their training, experience, suitability, and motivation for seeking to become a candidate. Members of other political parties have no say in who gets selected to be the candidate for the party that I have joined in that electoral district.

Where you live you can join a political party by checking a box on your driver's licence application and then wait to be inundated by hugely expensive, professionally mounted, campaigns on behalf of people you have never met and don't have any likelihood of being able to question and then "voting in a primary" where (depending on state laws) the majority of voters might even be members of a different political party whose sole interest is in seeing that your party fields the worst of all possible candidates (even worse than the one that their party is fielding).

Of course, if I am really lucky (in the US) there is no need for me to vote at all because either [1] the party that I support isn't running a candidate at all, or [2] the party that I don't support isn't running a candidate at all (the average number of candidates in each American electoral district in 2020 was 2.3957). Where I live, if I am really lucky, I only have to choose between three candidates in my electoral district (the average number of candidates in each Canadian electoral district in 2021 was 5.9467). With no individual party in Canada managing to capture a majority in the Canadian government, Canada managed to assemble a working government that represented 51.4% of the popular vote. With no individual party in the US managing to majority in the Canadian government (ref. Senators Manachin and "whatsername") the US has not managed to assemble a working government despite the fact that one party captured more than 50% of the popular vote in both the Presidential and House of Representative elections. The vast majority of Canadians agree that the 2021 election was "free, fair, open, and honest" (regardless of whether or not "Their Guy" won and that it was conducted in an organized, professional, and non-partisan manner. A VERY significant minority of Americans believe that the 2020 election was a fraud and a farce that was manipulated to produce a predetermined result.

One system, creaking, klugish, and archaic though it is manages to work and the other (the most modern and democratic in the world [right?]) seems to have a few problems.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Great point. The "analysis" also does not take into account the quality of care, waiting lists and rationing of care.

When you consider the survival rates for colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and cervical cancer, the US averages 71.867 years and Canada averages 72.400 years. That's a difference of 0.736%. That difference (statistically insignificant though it is) is NOT in favour of the US.

When you add in those people in the US who do NOT EVER get the care that they require the US average "wait list time" suddenly doesn't look so hot (after all having to add even one "∞" into an average sort of increases the average "slightly").

And then, of course, there is the fact that there is no "rationing" of care in Canada any more than there is "rationing" of care (because the patient can't afford to pay for it) in the US.

But, then again, some people simply never learn to actually check their "facts" against reality.

 

[Hypothetical]

Where I live, I have the option of joining a political party (which involves actually paying a membership fee), "signing on" with a potential candidate and assisting them in trying to convince the other members of that political party that they are the most appropriate candidate for that electoral district (in a campaign where the amounts spent by the potential candidates is strictly limited [and to an amount that an average person earning an average income can afford] and where no "outside campaigning" is allowed) and then attending the actual candidate selection meeting where I get to have an active voice in choosing which of the potential candidates is going to be the candidate for that political party in my own electoral district. I also have the opportunity to query all potential candidates on what their position is on any issue that is of particular interest to me as well as to their training, experience, suitability, and motivation for seeking to become a candidate. Members of other political parties have no say in who gets selected to be the candidate for the party that I have joined in that electoral district.

Where you live you can join a political party by checking a box on your driver's licence application and then wait to be inundated by hugely expensive, professionally mounted, campaigns on behalf of people you have never met and don't have any likelihood of being able to question and then "voting in a primary" where (depending on state laws) the majority of voters might even be members of a different political party whose sole interest is in seeing that your party fields the worst of all possible candidates (even worse than the one that their party is fielding).

Of course, if I am really lucky (in the US) there is no need for me to vote at all because either [1] the party that I support isn't running a candidate at all, or [2] the party that I don't support isn't running a candidate at all (the average number of candidates in each American electoral district in 2020 was 2.3957). Where I live, if I am really lucky, I only have to choose between three candidates in my electoral district (the average number of candidates in each Canadian electoral district in 2021 was 5.9467). With no individual party in Canada managing to capture a majority in the Canadian government, Canada managed to assemble a working government that represented 51.4% of the popular vote. With no individual party in the US managing to majority in the Canadian government (ref. Senators Manachin and "whatsername") the US has not managed to assemble a working government despite the fact that one party captured more than 50% of the popular vote in both the Presidential and House of Representative elections. The vast majority of Canadians agree that the 2021 election was "free, fair, open, and honest" (regardless of whether or not "Their Guy" won and that it was conducted in an organized, professional, and non-partisan manner. A VERY significant minority of Americans believe that the 2020 election was a fraud and a farce that was manipulated to produce a predetermined result.

One system, creaking, klugish, and archaic though it is manages to work and the other (the most modern and democratic in the world [right?]) seems to have a few problems.

I don't disagree with you that we in the US need to get money out of politics or correct quite a few issues.

you are mistaking my opinion for it being something I want.. I think... the problem I am addressing with my outsider theme is that we have to have people who are willing to GET the money out of politics for campaign purposes, before we can actually DO so.

this outsider theme and its possibilities are PRECISELY why I originally voted for Trump and even though I am sure you believe that had negatives all o its own, I hope you can recognize the somewhat manic expenditure of energy the entrenched political minions attem0pted to go to to bring him down from their own disgust at having to do some things our way, for once.

 

[Scrabaholic]

This is a great bill.

It's a shame that the Republicans want diabetics to pay too much for insulin.

And most of them claim to be "pro life"...

 

[The Work Outing]

Yup.
Nothing raises prices faster and/or lowers availability quicker than the government setting price 'maximum's'.

 

[HangLow]

When you consider the survival rates for colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and cervical cancer, the US averages 71.867 years and Canada averages 72.400 years. That's a difference of 0.736%. That difference (statistically insignificant though it is) is NOT in favour of the US.

When you add in those people in the US who do NOT EVER get the care that they require the US average "wait list time" suddenly doesn't look so hot (after all having to add even one "∞" into an average sort of increases the average "slightly").

And then, of course, there is the fact that there is no "rationing" of care in Canada any more than there is "rationing" of care (because the patient can't afford to pay for it) in the US.

But, then again, some people simply never learn to actually check their "facts" against reality.

​

 

[SuperDS77]

The House of Representatives voted Thursday to approve legislation that would limit cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and Medicare. The vote was 232-193, with 12 Republican members joining their Democratic colleagues to pass the measure.

The Affordable Insulin Now Act would cap insulin prices at either $35 a month or 25% of an insurance plan's negotiated price — whichever is lower. The legislation aims to take effect in 2023 but its fate in the Senate remains unclear.
"This is a kitchen table issue, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said to reporters ahead of the bill's passage on Thursday.

"One in four Americans is forced to skip or ration doses of insulin and that's life-threatening," she said, noting the legislation "paves the way" for further action on negotiating lower drug prices beyond insulin.

Link

Every vote against this was cast by a Republican.

If legislative action is all that is needed to lower the price of something, why not do it for gas? How about milk? Maybe cap the price of an automobile?

Whaddya think?

 

[SuperDS77]

When you consider the survival rates for colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and cervical cancer, the US averages 71.867 years and Canada averages 72.400 years. That's a difference of 0.736%. That difference (statistically insignificant though it is) is NOT in favour of the US.

Many from Canada come to the US for cutting edge treatments and because the system has the capacity to handle them. There would really be no other reason for people to make that choice.

When you add in those people in the US who do NOT EVER get the care that they require the US average "wait list time" suddenly doesn't look so hot (after all having to add even one "∞" into an average sort of increases the average "slightly").

I see the point, but not convinced the impact would result in rates close to countries with these types of systems.

And then, of course, there is the fact that there is no "rationing" of care in Canada any more than there is "rationing" of care (because the patient can't afford to pay for it) in the US.

Of course each system has rationing. The main difference is how much "supply" of potential care exists and who makes those decisions.

Having an environment where the best and most plentiful care can exist is the best solution.

But, then again, some people simply never learn to actually check their "facts" against reality.

Really? Why go there? LOL!

 

[poweRob]

View attachment 67395709​

I heard about this. I hope this works as well as they say. It'd be rather amazing.

 

[poweRob]

Running theme here...

 

[SuperDS77]

Running theme here...

View attachment 67395733

Yes, as if the title of each bill in congress is always an accurate assessment of what is actually in that legislation!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don't disagree with you that we in the US need to get money out of politics or correct quite a few issues.

you are mistaking my opinion for it being something I want.. I think... the problem I am addressing with my outsider theme is that we have to have people who are willing to GET the money out of politics for campaign purposes, before we can actually DO so.

this outsider theme and its possibilities are PRECISELY why I originally voted for Trump and even though I am sure you believe that had negatives all o its own, I hope you can recognize the somewhat manic expenditure of energy the entrenched political minions attem0pted to go to to bring him down from their own disgust at having to do some things our way, for once.

If you think that Mr. Trump does NOT belong to the same socioeconomic class as the backroom movers and shakers that control the actions of the Republican and Democratic parties, you are mistaken.

As far as campaign spending is concerned, the six main political parties in Canada were allowed to spend a TOTAL of $147,460,000 for the whole election campaign. In contrast, the 2020 US election saw something like $14,400,000,000 in spending. On a per capita basis the Canadian election campaign finance cost was approximately $3.84 (close on US$2.88) while the US election campaign finance cost was approximately $43.02.

In the 2020 South Carolina race between Lindsey Graham [R] and Jaime Harrison [D] the two of them raised a total of over $180,000,000 (which works out to around $34.73 per person in the state of South Carolina [or around $72.58 per vote cast]).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Many from Canada come to the US for cutting edge treatments and because the system has the capacity to handle them. There would really be no other reason for people to make that choice.

Indeed, and when I was living in Hamilton, American insurance companies were sending people to Canada for treatment. The Canadian hospitals were quite happy with the arrangement because the insurance companies paid immediately and in full and the insurance companies were quite happy with the arrangement because they calculated their rates on how much the procedures would have cost if done in the United States of America.

I see the point, but not convinced the impact would result in rates close to countries with these types of systems.

The last four times that I had to see a doctor my total wait time added up to less than 2 hours - and that was WITHOUT an appointment.

Of course each system has rationing.

Yes, depending on how you define "rationing". It appears that in the US the "ability to pay for what you need" style of "rationing" is, in your opinion an excellent thing that sets the US healthcare system well above that of the rest of the world while you believe the "We will get around to ALL OF YOU shortly and you won't have to pay for it" style of "rationing" indicates an abysmal failure of the healthcare system.

The main difference is how much "supply" of potential care exists and who makes those decisions.

True, Canada has only a mere 3.7 hospital beds per 1,000 people while the US has well over 1,104,600 hospital beds so you can see that there is a MUCH greater supply in the US than in Canada - right?

The vast majority of hospitals in Canada operate as private, non-profit entities. They are run by community boards or voluntary organizations which make decisions regarding the day-to-day allocation of financial and human resources. The vast majority of hospital in the US operate as private, for-profit, entities. They are run by faceless boards of directors who make decisions regarding how best to maximize the profit that the hospital returns to its shareholders.

Having an environment where the best and most plentiful care can exist is the best solution.

Having an environment where the patient can actually access that "best and most plentiful care" doesn't hurt either.

Really? Why go there? LOL!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes, as if the title of each bill in congress is always an accurate assessment of what is actually in that legislation!

It is a little known fact that no legislation (of any substance) may be introduced into either the US Senate or the US House of Representatives until AFTER "TUSSBJCCDLNTRTNA" ("The US Select Bi-partisan Joint Congressional Committee for the Development of Legislative Names That Result in Really Neat Acronyms") has approved the title of the bill to be introduced.

 

[mrjurrs]

The House of Representatives voted Thursday to approve legislation that would limit cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and Medicare. The vote was 232-193, with 12 Republican members joining their Democratic colleagues to pass the measure.

The Affordable Insulin Now Act would cap insulin prices at either $35 a month or 25% of an insurance plan's negotiated price — whichever is lower. The legislation aims to take effect in 2023 but its fate in the Senate remains unclear.
"This is a kitchen table issue, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said to reporters ahead of the bill's passage on Thursday.

"One in four Americans is forced to skip or ration doses of insulin and that's life-threatening," she said, noting the legislation "paves the way" for further action on negotiating lower drug prices beyond insulin.

Link

Every vote against this was cast by a Republican.

Will the Senate R's kill this as well? 'Can't give President Biden a win even if it hurts my constituents.'

 

[yankintx]

What are they going to do about the cost
of gas and food?

American politics is like living in an abusive relationship. Every 2 years we go back to the previous partner who beat the crap out of us. The GOP does not have a plan to deal with inflation. Unless Biden Bad is sn economic theory now.

 

[SuperDS77]

It is a little known fact that no legislation (of any substance) may be introduced into either the US Senate or the US House of Representatives until AFTER "TUSSBJCCDLNTRTNA" ("The US Select Bi-partisan Joint Congressional Committee for the Development of Legislative Names That Result in Really Neat Acronyms") has approved the title of the bill to be introduced.

Good one!

 

[The Work Outing]

If legislative action is all that is needed to lower the price of something, why not do it for gas? How about milk? Maybe cap the price of an automobile?

Whaddya think?

Why not?
It's never been tried before...has it?

Ohhhh right...communism.
Nevermind.

 

[RAMOSS]

View attachment 67395709​

The details is that it targeted a limited number of people that had a specific mutation that is linked with cancer. About 4% of all cancers is linked to this mutation. Also , the sample was small.

HOWEVER, that being said, it is a remarkable result. I would not be surprised if this result continues on when applied to be bigger population, and it would not be surprising if similar results are found in other types of cancer that are linked to this mutation.