Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You must have me confused with someone else. I'm no Hillary supporter. And what does that have to do with healthcare anyway?You simply do not want to see what a scam health care has become. Answer the question: did you work in health care?You are a willfully ignorant fool. Do you (did you) work in the health care industry or something?It happens way too often jackass. How far do you think your modest self worth would go toward massive medical bills?
Hospitals do not get judgements against people for unpaid bills, they write them off or they are paid by Medicaid or some charity.
No one goes bankrupt just because of medical bills. It just does not happen.
Biggest Cause of Personal Bankruptcies? Medical Bills
If you took the time to actually look at the data you posted you would see that the title is misleading.
What is actually says is that most bankruptcies have some medical bills included. What it also says is that the bulk of the debt is in credit card debt, car payments, mortgages, etc.
What it also does not say is that most medical debt is either written off or paid by Medicaid, medicare, or some charity.
NO one files bankruptcy solely due to medical bills. Stop lying.
No, did you? and what does that have to do with the topic?
I had top secret and SAP security clearances most of my career. So I know that Hillary violated federal law regarding classified data. I know the rules. If I did what she did, I would be typing this in Leavenworth prison.
You must have me confused with someone else. I'm no Hillary supporter. And what does that have to do with healthcare anyway?You simply do not want to see what a scam health care has become. Answer the question: did you work in health care?You are a willfully ignorant fool. Do you (did you) work in the health care industry or something?Hospitals do not get judgements against people for unpaid bills, they write them off or they are paid by Medicaid or some charity.
No one goes bankrupt just because of medical bills. It just does not happen.
Biggest Cause of Personal Bankruptcies? Medical Bills
If you took the time to actually look at the data you posted you would see that the title is misleading.
What is actually says is that most bankruptcies have some medical bills included. What it also says is that the bulk of the debt is in credit card debt, car payments, mortgages, etc.
What it also does not say is that most medical debt is either written off or paid by Medicaid, medicare, or some charity.
NO one files bankruptcy solely due to medical bills. Stop lying.
No, did you? and what does that have to do with the topic?
I had top secret and SAP security clearances most of my career. So I know that Hillary violated federal law regarding classified data. I know the rules. If I did what she did, I would be typing this in Leavenworth prison.
The reason I want to know whether or not you worked in healthcare is because you carry so much water for them. Maybe you've had government provided healthcare most of your career (and now medicare) and really have no idea how crappy the system has become.
You say this even though you apparently spent your career in a government job? I realize the government isn't perfect either but without an entity whose function is to act as a mediator and limit the effects of corporate greed, that greed will cause unlimited damage.You must have me confused with someone else. I'm no Hillary supporter. And what does that have to do with healthcare anyway?You simply do not want to see what a scam health care has become. Answer the question: did you work in health care?You are a willfully ignorant fool. Do you (did you) work in the health care industry or something?
Biggest Cause of Personal Bankruptcies? Medical Bills
If you took the time to actually look at the data you posted you would see that the title is misleading.
What is actually says is that most bankruptcies have some medical bills included. What it also says is that the bulk of the debt is in credit card debt, car payments, mortgages, etc.
What it also does not say is that most medical debt is either written off or paid by Medicaid, medicare, or some charity.
NO one files bankruptcy solely due to medical bills. Stop lying.
No, did you? and what does that have to do with the topic?
I had top secret and SAP security clearances most of my career. So I know that Hillary violated federal law regarding classified data. I know the rules. If I did what she did, I would be typing this in Leavenworth prison.
The reason I want to know whether or not you worked in healthcare is because you carry so much water for them. Maybe you've had government provided healthcare most of your career (and now medicare) and really have no idea how crappy the system has become.
I never said that the healthcare industry is without problems, fraud, incompetence, and corruption.
My point is that anything run by the government will have more of those things than the same thing run by the free market.
Turning problems over to the government to "fix" always makes them worse. Healthcare is the perfect example.
You say this even though you apparently spent your career in a government job? I realize the government isn't perfect either but without an entity whose function is to act as a mediator and limit the effects of corporate greed, that greed will cause unlimited damage.You must have me confused with someone else. I'm no Hillary supporter. And what does that have to do with healthcare anyway?You simply do not want to see what a scam health care has become. Answer the question: did you work in health care?If you took the time to actually look at the data you posted you would see that the title is misleading.
What is actually says is that most bankruptcies have some medical bills included. What it also says is that the bulk of the debt is in credit card debt, car payments, mortgages, etc.
What it also does not say is that most medical debt is either written off or paid by Medicaid, medicare, or some charity.
NO one files bankruptcy solely due to medical bills. Stop lying.
No, did you? and what does that have to do with the topic?
I had top secret and SAP security clearances most of my career. So I know that Hillary violated federal law regarding classified data. I know the rules. If I did what she did, I would be typing this in Leavenworth prison.
The reason I want to know whether or not you worked in healthcare is because you carry so much water for them. Maybe you've had government provided healthcare most of your career (and now medicare) and really have no idea how crappy the system has become.
I never said that the healthcare industry is without problems, fraud, incompetence, and corruption.
My point is that anything run by the government will have more of those things than the same thing run by the free market.
Turning problems over to the government to "fix" always makes them worse. Healthcare is the perfect example.
Who are you addressing?Ha!
The way business plays out is the bigger the purchasing power, the better the price.
I was a buyer for a chain of men's clothing stores. The bigger we got the more purchasing power we had and the better prices we got from our vendors.
It's not rocket science, Einstein!
Go home, you're out of your league.
Hey I wouldn't criticize your extensive expertise on what the best price to get for a pair of socks. That's your area.
Me... I'm an expert on health care finance to the point that over 7,000 times a day health care providers come to my business to see if they will
get paid on their claims. So I know health care finance.
And since you are an expert in buying socks I won't demean your expertise.
For example I don't think you are aware of it but every state in the union REQUIRES a health insurance company to make a profit which is used to build reserves to pay future claims. If they can't build reserves they can't be registered.
That's one little reality I don't think you ever considered and the ramifications when then you consider the "medical liability ratio" which again not
being an expert as I am compared to your expertise in buying socks, I don't expect you to have any idea what that means!
Suffice to say if you don't have a 80% or better ratio you are in trouble with the government...thanks to Obamacare!
I was never a buyer for socks. I bought upscale men's casual wear.
After I got my MBA, I went to work for a healthcare software company and was the director for EDI (claims and remittances), our largest client was world famous clinic based in Ohio (because of confidentiality, I am not allowed to name that client, but I'm sure you know who I am referring to.) And yes, they got the best price available due to their volume. Like all our clients, their cost was based on volume.
I was also aware of laws requiring financial reserves for future claims.
After that I was hired by national healthcare provider, where I oversee strategic planning. I am quite competent in healthcare finances.
I don't have confidentiality with Cleveland clinic!
So being Director for EDI then you are very familiar with what 270/271s, 837/835s, 276/277CAs,997s,etc. are.
If then you are quite competent in health care finances then you are very aware the effort to create a single payer system in a country with 322 million diverse
ethnic, economically population is not achievable. What you should be aware of is the affect of trying to centralize a payment system across 50 states, with
different types of economic and lifestyles will not work.
Being conversant then with finances you of ALL people should be aware of several health care economic drivers...
1) EMTALA
2) Defensive Medicine--- over $500 billion a year in waste
3) The fallacy of "46 million uninsured Americans". Never were!
And if you want more details with LINKS regarding the above, I'm happy to oblige!
All of which has caused this mess we have now!
And with all that above knowledge you make for someone with your knowledge this statement:
"Regarding access, access isn't supposed to count? We are the richest country on Earth and our citizens don't have the access the rest of the world has, who just happen not to have the wealth the US has. Makes a lot of sense and particularly because we are a supposedly Christian country."
And then you insult me?
With your knowledge you shouldn't really demean yourself with that type of statement KNOWING as you know that it is NOT true about access...again EMTALA???
You are all over the place, stick to the topic.
Being as you have absolutely no problem with the cost of healthcare.
I just suggest you read this from the Rand Corporation and get a clue.
The bottom-line of this piece is that soaring healthcare costs is not only a threat to the typical American family, but also a threat to the US consumer driven economy. That's a fact Bucko. You'd be hard pressed to find any economist who would disagree with these facts.
How Does Growth in Health Care Costs Affect the American Family?
How Does Growth in Health Care Costs Affect the American Family? | RAND
You were the one asking how healthcare costs effect quality of care but you can't stop talking about costs.
I'm sure that neither you nor Redfish have ever come up with an idea for a business (or had an independent thought for that matter) that became impractical because of a loss of health care benefits.I find social liberalism can and should be distinguished from the economic loony leftism exhibited by some here. Social liberalism is a matter of (sometimes misguided) conscience. Social Security, for instance (and for all its imperfections) is rooted in the correct belief that many Americans would save little or nothing for retirement and everyone who works - and many who never work - benefit from it...
How a bite from a stray dog shows the sick state of U.S. healthcare
"The first shot at Royal Angkor International Hospital cost $125." (Cambodia)
"Jan received her second Verorab shot at a clinic in northern Thailand. The bill this time: A mere $18.50"
"Things changed dramatically once the Kerns returned to this country. For her third shot, Jan visited Torrance Memorial Medical Center. It was a Sunday, and she had to go to the emergency room, so that added considerably to her cost. The tab for a single injection: $5,254.85."
"“It’s obvious that our system is unlike any other health system,” said Uwe Reinhardt, a healthcare economist at Princeton University. “Other systems were set up to care for patients. Ours was set up by the providers — the hospitals and drug companies — for their own benefit.”"
Most countries in the world have healthcare to treat patients, the US has healthcare to make healthcare providers money.
So much money gets wasted in corruption, it's something like 3% of US GDP at the very least.
Who are you addressing?Hey I wouldn't criticize your extensive expertise on what the best price to get for a pair of socks. That's your area.
Me... I'm an expert on health care finance to the point that over 7,000 times a day health care providers come to my business to see if they will
get paid on their claims. So I know health care finance.
And since you are an expert in buying socks I won't demean your expertise.
For example I don't think you are aware of it but every state in the union REQUIRES a health insurance company to make a profit which is used to build reserves to pay future claims. If they can't build reserves they can't be registered.
That's one little reality I don't think you ever considered and the ramifications when then you consider the "medical liability ratio" which again not
being an expert as I am compared to your expertise in buying socks, I don't expect you to have any idea what that means!
Suffice to say if you don't have a 80% or better ratio you are in trouble with the government...thanks to Obamacare!
I was never a buyer for socks. I bought upscale men's casual wear.
After I got my MBA, I went to work for a healthcare software company and was the director for EDI (claims and remittances), our largest client was world famous clinic based in Ohio (because of confidentiality, I am not allowed to name that client, but I'm sure you know who I am referring to.) And yes, they got the best price available due to their volume. Like all our clients, their cost was based on volume.
I was also aware of laws requiring financial reserves for future claims.
After that I was hired by national healthcare provider, where I oversee strategic planning. I am quite competent in healthcare finances.
I don't have confidentiality with Cleveland clinic!
So being Director for EDI then you are very familiar with what 270/271s, 837/835s, 276/277CAs,997s,etc. are.
If then you are quite competent in health care finances then you are very aware the effort to create a single payer system in a country with 322 million diverse
ethnic, economically population is not achievable. What you should be aware of is the affect of trying to centralize a payment system across 50 states, with
different types of economic and lifestyles will not work.
Being conversant then with finances you of ALL people should be aware of several health care economic drivers...
1) EMTALA
2) Defensive Medicine--- over $500 billion a year in waste
3) The fallacy of "46 million uninsured Americans". Never were!
And if you want more details with LINKS regarding the above, I'm happy to oblige!
All of which has caused this mess we have now!
And with all that above knowledge you make for someone with your knowledge this statement:
"Regarding access, access isn't supposed to count? We are the richest country on Earth and our citizens don't have the access the rest of the world has, who just happen not to have the wealth the US has. Makes a lot of sense and particularly because we are a supposedly Christian country."
And then you insult me?
With your knowledge you shouldn't really demean yourself with that type of statement KNOWING as you know that it is NOT true about access...again EMTALA???
You are all over the place, stick to the topic.
Being as you have absolutely no problem with the cost of healthcare.
I just suggest you read this from the Rand Corporation and get a clue.
The bottom-line of this piece is that soaring healthcare costs is not only a threat to the typical American family, but also a threat to the US consumer driven economy. That's a fact Bucko. You'd be hard pressed to find any economist who would disagree with these facts.
How Does Growth in Health Care Costs Affect the American Family?
How Does Growth in Health Care Costs Affect the American Family? | RAND
You were the one asking how healthcare costs effect quality of care but you can't stop talking about costs.
I'm deeply entrenched in the corporate culture. And I've seen the difference in the management styles of the founder of the company (who took it from small startup to international corporation) and the weasels who've taken over since he departed. Corporations can become very successful without the mercenary levels of greed that you seem to think make them tick. That leads me to believe that you are one of the weasels. Enjoy your retirement. I'm sure you've fostered high levels of hate directed against you.You say this even though you apparently spent your career in a government job? I realize the government isn't perfect either but without an entity whose function is to act as a mediator and limit the effects of corporate greed, that greed will cause unlimited damage.You must have me confused with someone else. I'm no Hillary supporter. And what does that have to do with healthcare anyway?You simply do not want to see what a scam health care has become. Answer the question: did you work in health care?
No, did you? and what does that have to do with the topic?
I had top secret and SAP security clearances most of my career. So I know that Hillary violated federal law regarding classified data. I know the rules. If I did what she did, I would be typing this in Leavenworth prison.
The reason I want to know whether or not you worked in healthcare is because you carry so much water for them. Maybe you've had government provided healthcare most of your career (and now medicare) and really have no idea how crappy the system has become.
I never said that the healthcare industry is without problems, fraud, incompetence, and corruption.
My point is that anything run by the government will have more of those things than the same thing run by the free market.
Turning problems over to the government to "fix" always makes them worse. Healthcare is the perfect example.
I did not spend my career in a government job. I worked in private industry and as an independent consultant. I worked under government contracts some of the time, but never as a government employee.
once you use a term like "corporate greed" you discredit yourself as a competent person to discuss this, or any other, topic. Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders, greed will make that impossible and they will go out of business.
I am sorry that you are a loser and consider yourself a victim of those who have been successful. But I get it.
The US healthcare system is the best in the entire world. It is only government regulation that drives the prices up. For instance, the FDA increases the cost of drugs and research by a great deal. Foreign countries do not have to deal with that.
Do you have anything to back your claim up that the US has the best healthcare in the world other than some talking point?
I have seen studies that don't back up your claim.
Forbes Welcome
These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US
That is a WHO ranking system that weighs access very heavily.
That study is worthless if you are talking about the technical capability of our health care system.
I listed two studies, not just one, but also Forbes. How does The Commonwealth Fund for work for you?
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally
View attachment 88616
View attachment 88617
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally
Regarding access, access isn't supposed to count? We are the richest country on Earth and our citizens don't have the access the rest of the world has, who just happen not to have the wealth the US has.
Makes a lot of sense and particularly because we are a supposedly Christian country.
YUP! And you are comparing
The US healthcare system is the best in the entire world. It is only government regulation that drives the prices up. For instance, the FDA increases the cost of drugs and research by a great deal. Foreign countries do not have to deal with that.
Do you have anything to back your claim up that the US has the best healthcare in the world other than some talking point?
I have seen studies that don't back up your claim.
Forbes Welcome
These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US
That is a WHO ranking system that weighs access very heavily.
That study is worthless if you are talking about the technical capability of our health care system.
I listed two studies, not just one, but also Forbes. How does The Commonwealth Fund for work for you?
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally
View attachment 88616
View attachment 88617
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally
Regarding access, access isn't supposed to count? We are the richest country on Earth and our citizens don't have the access the rest of the world has, who just happen not to have the wealth the US has.
Makes a lot of sense and particularly because we are a supposedly Christian country.
Right and idiots like you can't seem to understand that the above countries combined HAVE 30 million fewer people then the USA!
Those 10 countries have 291.2 million vs USA 322 million! Geez and you expect we should have the same costs???
I love it when people like you take and don't look just a little deeper!
Ha!
The way business plays out is the bigger the purchasing power, the better the price.
I was a buyer for a chain of men's clothing stores. The bigger we got the more purchasing power we had and the better prices we got from our vendors.
It's not rocket science, Einstein!
Go home, you're out of your league.
How a bite from a stray dog shows the sick state of U.S. healthcare
"The first shot at Royal Angkor International Hospital cost $125." (Cambodia)
"Jan received her second Verorab shot at a clinic in northern Thailand. The bill this time: A mere $18.50"
"Things changed dramatically once the Kerns returned to this country. For her third shot, Jan visited Torrance Memorial Medical Center. It was a Sunday, and she had to go to the emergency room, so that added considerably to her cost. The tab for a single injection: $5,254.85."
"“It’s obvious that our system is unlike any other health system,” said Uwe Reinhardt, a healthcare economist at Princeton University. “Other systems were set up to care for patients. Ours was set up by the providers — the hospitals and drug companies — for their own benefit.”"
Most countries in the world have healthcare to treat patients, the US has healthcare to make healthcare providers money.
So much money gets wasted in corruption, it's something like 3% of US GDP at the very least.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The sky is falling. I get it. Now maybe you should know that the patient pays only a small co-pay, if anything, and the insurer gets a deep discount ... perhaps as deep as 90% off. Pretty much nobody pays full price which may be why it is so outrageously high.
Why is it our whiny, sniveling, low-info, Chicken Little Loony Lefties either fail to tell the whole story or just don't know it?
Oh, yeah, I know these discounts.
"Hey, I'll sell you this item that you can buy for 10 bucks for only 25,000 bucks."
"No thanks"
"Okay, HUGE discount of 90%, now it's only 10,000 bucks"
"But, 90% of 25,000 isn't 10,000"
"Okay then, 9,000, special price just for you"
"Deal".
Discounts and the drug is still $5,000 compared to like $20 elsewhere. Who needs discounts like that?
OK, your analogy sucks but I'll play anyway: Because the cost of making that drug $20 to the patient is massive gov't intervention that stifles R&D (why do you suppose so many drugs and cures are developed in the US?), drags the economy as taxes must be collected and filtered through gov't fingers, diminishes quality control and purity to cut costs, and creates long waits for patient services.
There's a good reason many foreigners come to the US - many from socialized med countries - for med care and training (and pay handsomely for it). Put on your thinking cap and try to figure why.
OK, your analogy sucks but I'll play anyway: Because the cost of making that drug $20 to the patient is massive gov't intervention that stifles R&D (why do you suppose so many drugs and cures are developed in the US?), drags the economy as taxes must be collected and filtered through gov't fingers, diminishes quality control and purity to cut costs, and creates long waits for patient services.
There's a good reason many foreigners come to the US - many from socialized med countries - for med care and training (and pay handsomely for it). Put on your thinking cap and try to figure why.
Do you know where the risky business of developing drugs takes place? It's not in the big pharma companies at all...
OK, your analogy sucks but I'll play anyway: Because the cost of making that drug $20 to the patient is massive gov't intervention that stifles R&D (why do you suppose so many drugs and cures are developed in the US?), drags the economy as taxes must be collected and filtered through gov't fingers, diminishes quality control and purity to cut costs, and creates long waits for patient services.
There's a good reason many foreigners come to the US - many from socialized med countries - for med care and training (and pay handsomely for it). Put on your thinking cap and try to figure why.
Do you know where the risky business of developing drugs takes place? It's not in the big pharma companies at all...
Really? Don't you feel at least a little bit silly posting on an adult subject? Big Pharma R&D costs are about equal to their profit margin. You need to quit your class war, workers-of-the-world-unite routine. It's old, tired, whiny and silly. In fact, if you spent half the time you spend whining about the misery that is your life on improving your life, you'd have nothing to whine about.
How a bite from a stray dog shows the sick state of U.S. healthcare
"The first shot at Royal Angkor International Hospital cost $125." (Cambodia)
"Jan received her second Verorab shot at a clinic in northern Thailand. The bill this time: A mere $18.50"
"Things changed dramatically once the Kerns returned to this country. For her third shot, Jan visited Torrance Memorial Medical Center. It was a Sunday, and she had to go to the emergency room, so that added considerably to her cost. The tab for a single injection: $5,254.85."
"“It’s obvious that our system is unlike any other health system,” said Uwe Reinhardt, a healthcare economist at Princeton University. “Other systems were set up to care for patients. Ours was set up by the providers — the hospitals and drug companies — for their own benefit.”"
Most countries in the world have healthcare to treat patients, the US has healthcare to make healthcare providers money.
So much money gets wasted in corruption, it's something like 3% of US GDP at the very least.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The sky is falling. I get it. Now maybe you should know that the patient pays only a small co-pay, if anything, and the insurer gets a deep discount ... perhaps as deep as 90% off. Pretty much nobody pays full price which may be why it is so outrageously high.
Why is it our whiny, sniveling, low-info, Chicken Little Loony Lefties either fail to tell the whole story or just don't know it?
Oh, yeah, I know these discounts.
"Hey, I'll sell you this item that you can buy for 10 bucks for only 25,000 bucks."
"No thanks"
"Okay, HUGE discount of 90%, now it's only 10,000 bucks"
"But, 90% of 25,000 isn't 10,000"
"Okay then, 9,000, special price just for you"
"Deal".
Discounts and the drug is still $5,000 compared to like $20 elsewhere. Who needs discounts like that?
OK, your analogy sucks but I'll play anyway: Because the cost of making that drug $20 to the patient is massive gov't intervention that stifles R&D (why do you suppose so many drugs and cures are developed in the US?), drags the economy as taxes must be collected and filtered through gov't fingers, diminishes quality control and purity to cut costs, and creates long waits for patient services.
There's a good reason many foreigners come to the US - many from socialized med countries - for med care and training (and pay handsomely for it). Put on your thinking cap and try to figure why.
Do you know where the risky business of developing drugs takes place? It's not in the big pharma companies at all. It's from money given by the US govt in grants and the like. Once something has been shown to be successful the big Pharma companies pick it up and then work on it a little and then sell it for massive profits.
These companies are making massive profits. So them selling drugs cheaper isn't stifling R&D as you said, it'd be stifling their profits.
Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits - BBC News
Yep, they have massive profit margins. Not putting it into R&D at all.
"With some drugs costing upwards of $100,000 for a full course, and with the cost of manufacturing just a tiny fraction of this, it's not hard to see why."
Johnson & Johnson made a profit of $13.8 BILLION in this particular year (probably 2013), a profit margin of 19%. It spend $17.2 BILLION on marketing, and $8.2 billion of R%D. Yeah, it spends DOUBLE on marketing than on R&D. It's R&D is less than its profits, R&D is only 1/9th of their total revenue.
Pfizer, another US company, has profit margins of 43%. $6.6 billion on R&D and profits of $22 billion. Though they spend a higher percentage of their total revenue on R&D, it's still not that much.
"Until recently, paying bribes to doctors to prescribe their drugs was commonplace at big pharmas,"
"The rules on gifts, educational grants and sponsoring lectures, for example, are less clear cut, and these practices remain commonplace in the US."
"Indeed a recent study found that doctors in the US receiving payments from pharma companies were twice as likely to prescribe their drugs."
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-drugr-d.pdf
"
The federal government spent more than $25 billion on health-related R&D in 2005. Only some of that spending is explicitly related to the development of new pharmaceuticals. However, much of it is devoted to basic research on the mechanisms of disease, which underpins the pharmaceutical industry’s search for new drugs."
So the US spends about the same amount as the top three Pharma companies in the world on R&D and doesn't make a profit from it.
"federal grants help to train many of the researchers who are hired by drug companies."
"In general, the government tends to focus on basic research, whereas private firms focus much more on applied research and development"
So basically the Pharma companies are making it rich. Their profits are high, they could reduce drug prices, they could do a lot, but because of the nature of the US's for profit healthcare system they don't need to. A system which is not for profit would be far more beneficial as it would cost a lot less, and force the drug companies to not massively overcharge for drugs, as it can't do in other countries.
How a bite from a stray dog shows the sick state of U.S. healthcare
"The first shot at Royal Angkor International Hospital cost $125." (Cambodia)
"Jan received her second Verorab shot at a clinic in northern Thailand. The bill this time: A mere $18.50"
"Things changed dramatically once the Kerns returned to this country. For her third shot, Jan visited Torrance Memorial Medical Center. It was a Sunday, and she had to go to the emergency room, so that added considerably to her cost. The tab for a single injection: $5,254.85."
"“It’s obvious that our system is unlike any other health system,” said Uwe Reinhardt, a healthcare economist at Princeton University. “Other systems were set up to care for patients. Ours was set up by the providers — the hospitals and drug companies — for their own benefit.”"
Most countries in the world have healthcare to treat patients, the US has healthcare to make healthcare providers money.
So much money gets wasted in corruption, it's something like 3% of US GDP at the very least.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The sky is falling. I get it. Now maybe you should know that the patient pays only a small co-pay, if anything, and the insurer gets a deep discount ... perhaps as deep as 90% off. Pretty much nobody pays full price which may be why it is so outrageously high.
Why is it our whiny, sniveling, low-info, Chicken Little Loony Lefties either fail to tell the whole story or just don't know it?
Oh, yeah, I know these discounts.
"Hey, I'll sell you this item that you can buy for 10 bucks for only 25,000 bucks."
"No thanks"
"Okay, HUGE discount of 90%, now it's only 10,000 bucks"
"But, 90% of 25,000 isn't 10,000"
"Okay then, 9,000, special price just for you"
"Deal".
Discounts and the drug is still $5,000 compared to like $20 elsewhere. Who needs discounts like that?
OK, your analogy sucks but I'll play anyway: Because the cost of making that drug $20 to the patient is massive gov't intervention that stifles R&D (why do you suppose so many drugs and cures are developed in the US?), drags the economy as taxes must be collected and filtered through gov't fingers, diminishes quality control and purity to cut costs, and creates long waits for patient services.
There's a good reason many foreigners come to the US - many from socialized med countries - for med care and training (and pay handsomely for it). Put on your thinking cap and try to figure why.
Do you know where the risky business of developing drugs takes place? It's not in the big pharma companies at all. It's from money given by the US govt in grants and the like. Once something has been shown to be successful the big Pharma companies pick it up and then work on it a little and then sell it for massive profits.
These companies are making massive profits. So them selling drugs cheaper isn't stifling R&D as you said, it'd be stifling their profits.
Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits - BBC News
Yep, they have massive profit margins. Not putting it into R&D at all.
"With some drugs costing upwards of $100,000 for a full course, and with the cost of manufacturing just a tiny fraction of this, it's not hard to see why."
Johnson & Johnson made a profit of $13.8 BILLION in this particular year (probably 2013), a profit margin of 19%. It spend $17.2 BILLION on marketing, and $8.2 billion of R%D. Yeah, it spends DOUBLE on marketing than on R&D. It's R&D is less than its profits, R&D is only 1/9th of their total revenue.
Pfizer, another US company, has profit margins of 43%. $6.6 billion on R&D and profits of $22 billion. Though they spend a higher percentage of their total revenue on R&D, it's still not that much.
"Until recently, paying bribes to doctors to prescribe their drugs was commonplace at big pharmas,"
"The rules on gifts, educational grants and sponsoring lectures, for example, are less clear cut, and these practices remain commonplace in the US."
"Indeed a recent study found that doctors in the US receiving payments from pharma companies were twice as likely to prescribe their drugs."
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-drugr-d.pdf
"
The federal government spent more than $25 billion on health-related R&D in 2005. Only some of that spending is explicitly related to the development of new pharmaceuticals. However, much of it is devoted to basic research on the mechanisms of disease, which underpins the pharmaceutical industry’s search for new drugs."
So the US spends about the same amount as the top three Pharma companies in the world on R&D and doesn't make a profit from it.
"federal grants help to train many of the researchers who are hired by drug companies."
"In general, the government tends to focus on basic research, whereas private firms focus much more on applied research and development"
So basically the Pharma companies are making it rich. Their profits are high, they could reduce drug prices, they could do a lot, but because of the nature of the US's for profit healthcare system they don't need to. A system which is not for profit would be far more beneficial as it would cost a lot less, and force the drug companies to not massively overcharge for drugs, as it can't do in other countries.
As it is with very uninformed people such as yourself YOU never looked at the components of Johnson & Johnson's Financials.
I did and surprise surprise.... You completely ignored the following from their 2013 Financial report!
NOTE: Consumer/Devices made up 60% of their revenue.... NOT pharmaceuticals AS YOU IMPLIED!
NOTE: R&D is most costly for the pharmaceutical component and as such cost 29.1% of the pharmaceutical revenues!
NOTE: YOU completely forget that little thing known as TAXES! Which they paid $1.6 billion.
NOTE: YOU probably didn't go deep enough to find the reserves that have to be set aside for potential legal issues from their products!
NOTE: Their selling costs INCLUDED Consumer/Devices which you again seem unaware or just simple wanted to BIAS the material!
NOTE: you Also seem to forget the approximately 128,000 employees for which Johnson & Johnson pays PAYROLL TAXES!
These payroll taxes at average salary of the minimum of $44,000 or nearly $430 million in Payroll taxes
You didn't get into the weeds and find the FACTS and as people of your ilk are wont to do...jump to wrong conclusions!
Please try to be more informed and even more disciplined.
View attachment 88788
How a bite from a stray dog shows the sick state of U.S. healthcare
"The first shot at Royal Angkor International Hospital cost $125." (Cambodia)
"Jan received her second Verorab shot at a clinic in northern Thailand. The bill this time: A mere $18.50"
"Things changed dramatically once the Kerns returned to this country. For her third shot, Jan visited Torrance Memorial Medical Center. It was a Sunday, and she had to go to the emergency room, so that added considerably to her cost. The tab for a single injection: $5,254.85."
"“It’s obvious that our system is unlike any other health system,” said Uwe Reinhardt, a healthcare economist at Princeton University. “Other systems were set up to care for patients. Ours was set up by the providers — the hospitals and drug companies — for their own benefit.”"
Most countries in the world have healthcare to treat patients, the US has healthcare to make healthcare providers money.
So much money gets wasted in corruption, it's something like 3% of US GDP at the very least.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The sky is falling. I get it. Now maybe you should know that the patient pays only a small co-pay, if anything, and the insurer gets a deep discount ... perhaps as deep as 90% off. Pretty much nobody pays full price which may be why it is so outrageously high.
Why is it our whiny, sniveling, low-info, Chicken Little Loony Lefties either fail to tell the whole story or just don't know it?
Oh, yeah, I know these discounts.
"Hey, I'll sell you this item that you can buy for 10 bucks for only 25,000 bucks."
"No thanks"
"Okay, HUGE discount of 90%, now it's only 10,000 bucks"
"But, 90% of 25,000 isn't 10,000"
"Okay then, 9,000, special price just for you"
"Deal".
Discounts and the drug is still $5,000 compared to like $20 elsewhere. Who needs discounts like that?
OK, your analogy sucks but I'll play anyway: Because the cost of making that drug $20 to the patient is massive gov't intervention that stifles R&D (why do you suppose so many drugs and cures are developed in the US?), drags the economy as taxes must be collected and filtered through gov't fingers, diminishes quality control and purity to cut costs, and creates long waits for patient services.
There's a good reason many foreigners come to the US - many from socialized med countries - for med care and training (and pay handsomely for it). Put on your thinking cap and try to figure why.
Do you know where the risky business of developing drugs takes place? It's not in the big pharma companies at all. It's from money given by the US govt in grants and the like. Once something has been shown to be successful the big Pharma companies pick it up and then work on it a little and then sell it for massive profits.
These companies are making massive profits. So them selling drugs cheaper isn't stifling R&D as you said, it'd be stifling their profits.
Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits - BBC News
Yep, they have massive profit margins. Not putting it into R&D at all.
"With some drugs costing upwards of $100,000 for a full course, and with the cost of manufacturing just a tiny fraction of this, it's not hard to see why."
Johnson & Johnson made a profit of $13.8 BILLION in this particular year (probably 2013), a profit margin of 19%. It spend $17.2 BILLION on marketing, and $8.2 billion of R%D. Yeah, it spends DOUBLE on marketing than on R&D. It's R&D is less than its profits, R&D is only 1/9th of their total revenue.
Pfizer, another US company, has profit margins of 43%. $6.6 billion on R&D and profits of $22 billion. Though they spend a higher percentage of their total revenue on R&D, it's still not that much.
"Until recently, paying bribes to doctors to prescribe their drugs was commonplace at big pharmas,"
"The rules on gifts, educational grants and sponsoring lectures, for example, are less clear cut, and these practices remain commonplace in the US."
"Indeed a recent study found that doctors in the US receiving payments from pharma companies were twice as likely to prescribe their drugs."
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-drugr-d.pdf
"
The federal government spent more than $25 billion on health-related R&D in 2005. Only some of that spending is explicitly related to the development of new pharmaceuticals. However, much of it is devoted to basic research on the mechanisms of disease, which underpins the pharmaceutical industry’s search for new drugs."
So the US spends about the same amount as the top three Pharma companies in the world on R&D and doesn't make a profit from it.
"federal grants help to train many of the researchers who are hired by drug companies."
"In general, the government tends to focus on basic research, whereas private firms focus much more on applied research and development"
So basically the Pharma companies are making it rich. Their profits are high, they could reduce drug prices, they could do a lot, but because of the nature of the US's for profit healthcare system they don't need to. A system which is not for profit would be far more beneficial as it would cost a lot less, and force the drug companies to not massively overcharge for drugs, as it can't do in other countries.
As it is with very uninformed people such as yourself YOU never looked at the components of Johnson & Johnson's Financials.
I did and surprise surprise.... You completely ignored the following from their 2013 Financial report!
NOTE: Consumer/Devices made up 60% of their revenue.... NOT pharmaceuticals AS YOU IMPLIED!
NOTE: R&D is most costly for the pharmaceutical component and as such cost 29.1% of the pharmaceutical revenues!
NOTE: YOU completely forget that little thing known as TAXES! Which they paid $1.6 billion.
NOTE: YOU probably didn't go deep enough to find the reserves that have to be set aside for potential legal issues from their products!
NOTE: Their selling costs INCLUDED Consumer/Devices which you again seem unaware or just simple wanted to BIAS the material!
NOTE: you Also seem to forget the approximately 128,000 employees for which Johnson & Johnson pays PAYROLL TAXES!
These payroll taxes at average salary of the minimum of $44,000 or nearly $430 million in Payroll taxes
You didn't get into the weeds and find the FACTS and as people of your ilk are wont to do...jump to wrong conclusions!
Please try to be more informed and even more disciplined.
View attachment 88788
How a bite from a stray dog shows the sick state of U.S. healthcare
"The first shot at Royal Angkor International Hospital cost $125." (Cambodia)
"Jan received her second Verorab shot at a clinic in northern Thailand. The bill this time: A mere $18.50"
"Things changed dramatically once the Kerns returned to this country. For her third shot, Jan visited Torrance Memorial Medical Center. It was a Sunday, and she had to go to the emergency room, so that added considerably to her cost. The tab for a single injection: $5,254.85."
"“It’s obvious that our system is unlike any other health system,” said Uwe Reinhardt, a healthcare economist at Princeton University. “Other systems were set up to care for patients. Ours was set up by the providers — the hospitals and drug companies — for their own benefit.”"
Most countries in the world have healthcare to treat patients, the US has healthcare to make healthcare providers money.
So much money gets wasted in corruption, it's something like 3% of US GDP at the very least.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The sky is falling. I get it. Now maybe you should know that the patient pays only a small co-pay, if anything, and the insurer gets a deep discount ... perhaps as deep as 90% off. Pretty much nobody pays full price which may be why it is so outrageously high.
Why is it our whiny, sniveling, low-info, Chicken Little Loony Lefties either fail to tell the whole story or just don't know it?
Oh, yeah, I know these discounts.
"Hey, I'll sell you this item that you can buy for 10 bucks for only 25,000 bucks."
"No thanks"
"Okay, HUGE discount of 90%, now it's only 10,000 bucks"
"But, 90% of 25,000 isn't 10,000"
"Okay then, 9,000, special price just for you"
"Deal".
Discounts and the drug is still $5,000 compared to like $20 elsewhere. Who needs discounts like that?
OK, your analogy sucks but I'll play anyway: Because the cost of making that drug $20 to the patient is massive gov't intervention that stifles R&D (why do you suppose so many drugs and cures are developed in the US?), drags the economy as taxes must be collected and filtered through gov't fingers, diminishes quality control and purity to cut costs, and creates long waits for patient services.
There's a good reason many foreigners come to the US - many from socialized med countries - for med care and training (and pay handsomely for it). Put on your thinking cap and try to figure why.
Do you know where the risky business of developing drugs takes place? It's not in the big pharma companies at all. It's from money given by the US govt in grants and the like. Once something has been shown to be successful the big Pharma companies pick it up and then work on it a little and then sell it for massive profits.
These companies are making massive profits. So them selling drugs cheaper isn't stifling R&D as you said, it'd be stifling their profits.
Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits - BBC News
Yep, they have massive profit margins. Not putting it into R&D at all.
"With some drugs costing upwards of $100,000 for a full course, and with the cost of manufacturing just a tiny fraction of this, it's not hard to see why."
Johnson & Johnson made a profit of $13.8 BILLION in this particular year (probably 2013), a profit margin of 19%. It spend $17.2 BILLION on marketing, and $8.2 billion of R%D. Yeah, it spends DOUBLE on marketing than on R&D. It's R&D is less than its profits, R&D is only 1/9th of their total revenue.
Pfizer, another US company, has profit margins of 43%. $6.6 billion on R&D and profits of $22 billion. Though they spend a higher percentage of their total revenue on R&D, it's still not that much.
"Until recently, paying bribes to doctors to prescribe their drugs was commonplace at big pharmas,"
"The rules on gifts, educational grants and sponsoring lectures, for example, are less clear cut, and these practices remain commonplace in the US."
"Indeed a recent study found that doctors in the US receiving payments from pharma companies were twice as likely to prescribe their drugs."
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-drugr-d.pdf
"
The federal government spent more than $25 billion on health-related R&D in 2005. Only some of that spending is explicitly related to the development of new pharmaceuticals. However, much of it is devoted to basic research on the mechanisms of disease, which underpins the pharmaceutical industry’s search for new drugs."
So the US spends about the same amount as the top three Pharma companies in the world on R&D and doesn't make a profit from it.
"federal grants help to train many of the researchers who are hired by drug companies."
"In general, the government tends to focus on basic research, whereas private firms focus much more on applied research and development"
So basically the Pharma companies are making it rich. Their profits are high, they could reduce drug prices, they could do a lot, but because of the nature of the US's for profit healthcare system they don't need to. A system which is not for profit would be far more beneficial as it would cost a lot less, and force the drug companies to not massively overcharge for drugs, as it can't do in other countries.
As it is with very uninformed people such as yourself YOU never looked at the components of Johnson & Johnson's Financials.
I did and surprise surprise.... You completely ignored the following from their 2013 Financial report!
NOTE: Consumer/Devices made up 60% of their revenue.... NOT pharmaceuticals AS YOU IMPLIED!
NOTE: R&D is most costly for the pharmaceutical component and as such cost 29.1% of the pharmaceutical revenues!
NOTE: YOU completely forget that little thing known as TAXES! Which they paid $1.6 billion.
NOTE: YOU probably didn't go deep enough to find the reserves that have to be set aside for potential legal issues from their products!
NOTE: Their selling costs INCLUDED Consumer/Devices which you again seem unaware or just simple wanted to BIAS the material!
NOTE: you Also seem to forget the approximately 128,000 employees for which Johnson & Johnson pays PAYROLL TAXES!
These payroll taxes at average salary of the minimum of $44,000 or nearly $430 million in Payroll taxes
You didn't get into the weeds and find the FACTS and as people of your ilk are wont to do...jump to wrong conclusions!
Please try to be more informed and even more disciplined.
View attachment 88788
How a bite from a stray dog shows the sick state of U.S. healthcare
"The first shot at Royal Angkor International Hospital cost $125." (Cambodia)
"Jan received her second Verorab shot at a clinic in northern Thailand. The bill this time: A mere $18.50"
"Things changed dramatically once the Kerns returned to this country. For her third shot, Jan visited Torrance Memorial Medical Center. It was a Sunday, and she had to go to the emergency room, so that added considerably to her cost. The tab for a single injection: $5,254.85."
"“It’s obvious that our system is unlike any other health system,” said Uwe Reinhardt, a healthcare economist at Princeton University. “Other systems were set up to care for patients. Ours was set up by the providers — the hospitals and drug companies — for their own benefit.”"
Most countries in the world have healthcare to treat patients, the US has healthcare to make healthcare providers money.
So much money gets wasted in corruption, it's something like 3% of US GDP at the very least.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The sky is falling. I get it. Now maybe you should know that the patient pays only a small co-pay, if anything, and the insurer gets a deep discount ... perhaps as deep as 90% off. Pretty much nobody pays full price which may be why it is so outrageously high.
Why is it our whiny, sniveling, low-info, Chicken Little Loony Lefties either fail to tell the whole story or just don't know it?
Oh, yeah, I know these discounts.
"Hey, I'll sell you this item that you can buy for 10 bucks for only 25,000 bucks."
"No thanks"
"Okay, HUGE discount of 90%, now it's only 10,000 bucks"
"But, 90% of 25,000 isn't 10,000"
"Okay then, 9,000, special price just for you"
"Deal".
Discounts and the drug is still $5,000 compared to like $20 elsewhere. Who needs discounts like that?
OK, your analogy sucks but I'll play anyway: Because the cost of making that drug $20 to the patient is massive gov't intervention that stifles R&D (why do you suppose so many drugs and cures are developed in the US?), drags the economy as taxes must be collected and filtered through gov't fingers, diminishes quality control and purity to cut costs, and creates long waits for patient services.
There's a good reason many foreigners come to the US - many from socialized med countries - for med care and training (and pay handsomely for it). Put on your thinking cap and try to figure why.
Do you know where the risky business of developing drugs takes place? It's not in the big pharma companies at all. It's from money given by the US govt in grants and the like. Once something has been shown to be successful the big Pharma companies pick it up and then work on it a little and then sell it for massive profits.
These companies are making massive profits. So them selling drugs cheaper isn't stifling R&D as you said, it'd be stifling their profits.
Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits - BBC News
Yep, they have massive profit margins. Not putting it into R&D at all.
"With some drugs costing upwards of $100,000 for a full course, and with the cost of manufacturing just a tiny fraction of this, it's not hard to see why."
Johnson & Johnson made a profit of $13.8 BILLION in this particular year (probably 2013), a profit margin of 19%. It spend $17.2 BILLION on marketing, and $8.2 billion of R%D. Yeah, it spends DOUBLE on marketing than on R&D. It's R&D is less than its profits, R&D is only 1/9th of their total revenue.
Pfizer, another US company, has profit margins of 43%. $6.6 billion on R&D and profits of $22 billion. Though they spend a higher percentage of their total revenue on R&D, it's still not that much.
"Until recently, paying bribes to doctors to prescribe their drugs was commonplace at big pharmas,"
"The rules on gifts, educational grants and sponsoring lectures, for example, are less clear cut, and these practices remain commonplace in the US."
"Indeed a recent study found that doctors in the US receiving payments from pharma companies were twice as likely to prescribe their drugs."
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-drugr-d.pdf
"
The federal government spent more than $25 billion on health-related R&D in 2005. Only some of that spending is explicitly related to the development of new pharmaceuticals. However, much of it is devoted to basic research on the mechanisms of disease, which underpins the pharmaceutical industry’s search for new drugs."
So the US spends about the same amount as the top three Pharma companies in the world on R&D and doesn't make a profit from it.
"federal grants help to train many of the researchers who are hired by drug companies."
"In general, the government tends to focus on basic research, whereas private firms focus much more on applied research and development"
So basically the Pharma companies are making it rich. Their profits are high, they could reduce drug prices, they could do a lot, but because of the nature of the US's for profit healthcare system they don't need to. A system which is not for profit would be far more beneficial as it would cost a lot less, and force the drug companies to not massively overcharge for drugs, as it can't do in other countries.
As it is with very uninformed people such as yourself YOU never looked at the components of Johnson & Johnson's Financials.
I did and surprise surprise.... You completely ignored the following from their 2013 Financial report!
NOTE: Consumer/Devices made up 60% of their revenue.... NOT pharmaceuticals AS YOU IMPLIED!
NOTE: R&D is most costly for the pharmaceutical component and as such cost 29.1% of the pharmaceutical revenues!
NOTE: YOU completely forget that little thing known as TAXES! Which they paid $1.6 billion.
NOTE: YOU probably didn't go deep enough to find the reserves that have to be set aside for potential legal issues from their products!
NOTE: Their selling costs INCLUDED Consumer/Devices which you again seem unaware or just simple wanted to BIAS the material!
NOTE: you Also seem to forget the approximately 128,000 employees for which Johnson & Johnson pays PAYROLL TAXES!
These payroll taxes at average salary of the minimum of $44,000 or nearly $430 million in Payroll taxes
You didn't get into the weeds and find the FACTS and as people of your ilk are wont to do...jump to wrong conclusions!
Please try to be more informed and even more disciplined.
View attachment 88788
Thanks for your herculean effort. Our loony leftists are so embittered by their failure to convince Americans to hate capitalists and capitalism as they do that they are blinded by rage. Most are unaware (or just don't care) that they are cutting and pasting socialist, class war propaganda and truly believe the crap they are shoveling.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The sky is falling. I get it. Now maybe you should know that the patient pays only a small co-pay, if anything, and the insurer gets a deep discount ... perhaps as deep as 90% off. Pretty much nobody pays full price which may be why it is so outrageously high.
Why is it our whiny, sniveling, low-info, Chicken Little Loony Lefties either fail to tell the whole story or just don't know it?
Oh, yeah, I know these discounts.
"Hey, I'll sell you this item that you can buy for 10 bucks for only 25,000 bucks."
"No thanks"
"Okay, HUGE discount of 90%, now it's only 10,000 bucks"
"But, 90% of 25,000 isn't 10,000"
"Okay then, 9,000, special price just for you"
"Deal".
Discounts and the drug is still $5,000 compared to like $20 elsewhere. Who needs discounts like that?
OK, your analogy sucks but I'll play anyway: Because the cost of making that drug $20 to the patient is massive gov't intervention that stifles R&D (why do you suppose so many drugs and cures are developed in the US?), drags the economy as taxes must be collected and filtered through gov't fingers, diminishes quality control and purity to cut costs, and creates long waits for patient services.
There's a good reason many foreigners come to the US - many from socialized med countries - for med care and training (and pay handsomely for it). Put on your thinking cap and try to figure why.
Do you know where the risky business of developing drugs takes place? It's not in the big pharma companies at all. It's from money given by the US govt in grants and the like. Once something has been shown to be successful the big Pharma companies pick it up and then work on it a little and then sell it for massive profits.
These companies are making massive profits. So them selling drugs cheaper isn't stifling R&D as you said, it'd be stifling their profits.
Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits - BBC News
Yep, they have massive profit margins. Not putting it into R&D at all.
"With some drugs costing upwards of $100,000 for a full course, and with the cost of manufacturing just a tiny fraction of this, it's not hard to see why."
Johnson & Johnson made a profit of $13.8 BILLION in this particular year (probably 2013), a profit margin of 19%. It spend $17.2 BILLION on marketing, and $8.2 billion of R%D. Yeah, it spends DOUBLE on marketing than on R&D. It's R&D is less than its profits, R&D is only 1/9th of their total revenue.
Pfizer, another US company, has profit margins of 43%. $6.6 billion on R&D and profits of $22 billion. Though they spend a higher percentage of their total revenue on R&D, it's still not that much.
"Until recently, paying bribes to doctors to prescribe their drugs was commonplace at big pharmas,"
"The rules on gifts, educational grants and sponsoring lectures, for example, are less clear cut, and these practices remain commonplace in the US."
"Indeed a recent study found that doctors in the US receiving payments from pharma companies were twice as likely to prescribe their drugs."
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-drugr-d.pdf
"
The federal government spent more than $25 billion on health-related R&D in 2005. Only some of that spending is explicitly related to the development of new pharmaceuticals. However, much of it is devoted to basic research on the mechanisms of disease, which underpins the pharmaceutical industry’s search for new drugs."
So the US spends about the same amount as the top three Pharma companies in the world on R&D and doesn't make a profit from it.
"federal grants help to train many of the researchers who are hired by drug companies."
"In general, the government tends to focus on basic research, whereas private firms focus much more on applied research and development"
So basically the Pharma companies are making it rich. Their profits are high, they could reduce drug prices, they could do a lot, but because of the nature of the US's for profit healthcare system they don't need to. A system which is not for profit would be far more beneficial as it would cost a lot less, and force the drug companies to not massively overcharge for drugs, as it can't do in other countries.
As it is with very uninformed people such as yourself YOU never looked at the components of Johnson & Johnson's Financials.
I did and surprise surprise.... You completely ignored the following from their 2013 Financial report!
NOTE: Consumer/Devices made up 60% of their revenue.... NOT pharmaceuticals AS YOU IMPLIED!
NOTE: R&D is most costly for the pharmaceutical component and as such cost 29.1% of the pharmaceutical revenues!
NOTE: YOU completely forget that little thing known as TAXES! Which they paid $1.6 billion.
NOTE: YOU probably didn't go deep enough to find the reserves that have to be set aside for potential legal issues from their products!
NOTE: Their selling costs INCLUDED Consumer/Devices which you again seem unaware or just simple wanted to BIAS the material!
NOTE: you Also seem to forget the approximately 128,000 employees for which Johnson & Johnson pays PAYROLL TAXES!
These payroll taxes at average salary of the minimum of $44,000 or nearly $430 million in Payroll taxes
You didn't get into the weeds and find the FACTS and as people of your ilk are wont to do...jump to wrong conclusions!
Please try to be more informed and even more disciplined.
View attachment 88788
They only paid 1.6 on 13 billion dollars ? Seems a bit low to me.
