Socialism is more popular than Project 2025

[Monoculturalist]

Generics. Those aren't the drugs people want to reimport from Canada.

While contractual obligations with other governments can be a hindrance to us buying drugs from places like Canada, said contracts would be difficult to enforce if our own government didn't also get in the way. Also, the difference in price for them vs. the market here would decrease if insurance bureaucracy wasn't as much a factor here.

It takes many years and hundreds of millions of dollars to get a new drug approved..

Depends on the drug, where the research is done, and what fees the associated regulatory agencies require. The FDA is notorious for charging a lot more than most other government's equivalents. That's a significant portion of the cost from the start. Lower the fees, and the cost comes down a lot.

Cheaper and much less likely to occur.
As you can see by the much lower number of new drugs produced in other countries.

I have to ask. Why do you believe that other countries wouldn't pick up the slack in a market absent of our government's involvement? This very much contradicts how market dynamics work in pretty much any other industry.

If we subsidize research, that makes it cheaper. You seem confused.

Cheaper for the company, yes. Cheaper for the consumer, no. Tax money used for the resources in research incur costs on taxpayers.

They also have to pay for the failed drugs that don't get released.

When looking at the margins they make, that's more than compensated for and would continue to be covered in a market reset.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While contractual obligations with other governments can be a hindrance to us buying drugs from places like Canada, said contracts would be difficult to enforce if our own government didn't also get in the way. Also, the difference in price for them vs. the market here would decrease if insurance bureaucracy wasn't as much a factor here.



Depends on the drug, where the research is done, and what fees the associated regulatory agencies require. The FDA is notorious for charging a lot more than most other government's equivalents. That's a significant portion of the cost from the start. Lower the fees, and the cost comes down a lot.



I have to ask. Why do you believe that other countries wouldn't pick up the slack in a market absent of our government's involvement? This very much contradicts how market dynamics work in pretty much any other industry.



Cheaper for the company, yes. Cheaper for the consumer, no. Tax money used for the resources in research incur costs on taxpayers.



When looking at the margins they make, that's more than compensated for and would continue to be covered in a market reset.

While contractual obligations with other governments can be a hindrance to us buying drugs from places like Canada, said contracts would be difficult to enforce if our own government didn't also get in the way.

Should our government allow people to illegally import drugs?
Should our government allow foreign countries to break contracts with US companies?

I have to ask. Why do you believe that other countries wouldn't pick up the slack in a market absent of our government's involvement?

Other countries can spend billions on drug research, right now, and sell drugs really super cheap. They don't need our government's help. Why don't they? Why don't they create more breakthrough drugs than the US?

When looking at the margins they make, that's more than compensated for and would continue to be covered in a market reset.

How will they continue to be compensated if they were forced to sell at Canadian prices?

 

[Monoculturalist]

Should our government allow people to illegally import drugs?
Should our government allow foreign countries to break contracts with US companies?

They currently already do, but I get what you mean. My argument is that these arrangements, while legal, are unnecessary restrictions on the market. Because I favor a free market over governmental restrictions (in most cases anyway), I tend to side with noncompliance on this one.

Law is not my foremost concern. The principle behind a law is. If I disagree with the principle, I do not support the law.

Other countries can spend billions on drug research, right now, and sell drugs really super cheap. They don't need our government's help. Why don't they? Why don't they create more breakthrough drugs than the US?

Well, for starters, there is a lot of research currently outside of the US. We still have a huge portion of it, but the changes to the market I've mentioned would likely create a situation where more university-based research would occur overseas. The influence of biotech companies seems to play a big part as to why a lot of the research is centered here (outside of the arrangements pharma companies have with universities). Biotech companies would likely start to have more of a presence in other countries as well under new market conditions.

Loading…

www.science.org

The data in that article is a bit dated, but the trend in the industry today remains the same.

[

How will they continue to be compensated if they were forced to sell at Canadian prices?

That would only be applicable to Canada. A lot of the global market doesn't do bulk negotiation of pricing on drugs, and I'm not necessarily suggesting we do that. At the least, we need to get the insurance middleman out of the equation for many things, and we need to lower the costs imposed by the FDA on industries. Even if we did go the route of bulk negotiation on pricing, that would put upward pressure on negotiations that other countries do, since we are the largest market. Canada would likely have to accept higher prices in their negotiations shortly after our entrance into that arrangement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They currently already do, but I get what you mean. My argument is that these arrangements, while legal, are unnecessary restrictions on the market. Because I favor a free market over governmental restrictions (in most cases anyway), I tend to side with noncompliance on this one.

Law is not my foremost concern. The principle behind a law is. If I disagree with the principle, I do not support the law.



Well, for starters, there is a lot of research currently outside of the US. We still have a huge portion of it, but the changes to the market I've mentioned would likely create a situation where more university-based research would occur overseas. The influence of biotech companies seems to play a big part as to why a lot of the research is centered here (outside of the arrangements pharma companies have with universities). Biotech companies would likely start to have more of a presence in other countries as well under new market conditions.

Loading…

www.science.org

The data in that article is a bit dated, but the trend in the industry today remains the same.

[

That would only be applicable to Canada. A lot of the global market doesn't do bulk negotiation of pricing on drugs, and I'm not necessarily suggesting we do that. At the least, we need to get the insurance middleman out of the equation for many things, and we need to lower the costs imposed by the FDA on industries. Even if we did go the route of bulk negotiation on pricing, that would put upward pressure on negotiations that other countries do, since we are the largest market. Canada would likely have to accept higher prices in their negotiations shortly after our entrance into that arrangement.

Because I favor a free market over governmental restrictions (in most cases anyway), I tend to side with noncompliance on this one.

The Canadian government forcing them to sell cheap drugs to Canada is
government interfering with the free market.

Well, for starters, there is a lot of research currently outside of the US.

Strangely, most of the new drugs come from the US. Why is that?

The data in that article is a bit dated, but the trend in the industry today remains the same.

It sure does.

Looking at it that way, almost all the major drug-discovering countries in the world were tilted towards less innovative medicines. The only exceptions are Switzerland, Canada and Australia, and (very much so) the US. The UK comes close, running nearly 50/50. Germany and Japan, though, especially stand out as the kings of follow-ons and me-toos, and the combined rest-of-Europe category is nearly as unbalanced.

We could take your advice for cheaper drugs, but we'd lose innovation.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Monoculturalist]

The Canadian government forcing them to sell cheap drugs to Canada is
government interfering with the free market.

I absolutely agree. This is why I don't want the government to enforce the contractual side of this here. If an American goes to Canada and gets a prescription from a doctor there, he should be able to buy that drug there. Hell, he should be able to do it with a prescription from an American doctor. Instead, the American risks getting prosecuted by our government. To be fair, I don't know how often this is enforced, and from what I hear, the main obstacle is getting things past customs.

Strangely, most of the new drugs come from the US. Why is that?

It sure does.

Looking at it that way, almost all the major drug-discovering countries in the world were tilted towards less innovative medicines. The only exceptions are Switzerland, Canada and Australia, and (very much so) the US. The UK comes close, running nearly 50/50. Germany and Japan, though, especially stand out as the kings of follow-ons and me-toos, and the combined rest-of-Europe category is nearly as unbalanced.

We could take your advice for cheaper drugs, but we'd lose innovation.

Be careful what you wish for.

It would result in more innovation with any industry to have government subsidize the research. Why not have the government use a similar model with all industry?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I absolutely agree. This is why I don't want the government to enforce the contractual side of this here. If an American goes to Canada and gets a prescription from a doctor there, he should be able to buy that drug there. Hell, he should be able to do it with a prescription from an American doctor. Instead, the American risks getting prosecuted by our government. To be fair, I don't know how often this is enforced, and from what I hear, the main obstacle is getting things past customs.



It would result in more innovation with any industry to have government subsidize the research. Why not have the government use a similar model with all industry?

This is why I don't want the government to enforce the contractual side of this here.

You only want the government force that harms the drug company. Got it.

You have no evidence that foreign countries will innovate more than they do now.

 

[Monoculturalist]

This is why I don't want the government to enforce the contractual side of this here.

You only want the government force that harms the drug company. Got it.

You have no evidence that foreign countries will innovate more than they do now.

You didn't answer my question. If you're saying that the current arrangement is optimal regarding innovation and consumer needs, then couldn't similar tactics be used with other industries and have the same preferred results?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You didn't answer my question. If you're saying that the current arrangement is optimal regarding innovation and consumer needs, then couldn't similar tactics be used with other industries and have the same preferred results?

I'm saying that the innovation in drugs comes more from US private industry than from foreign private industry or foreign government research. I didn't say it was optimal, just that's what happens.

The cost of the US research is higher US prices for these drugs.

If you insist on killing one, you'll probably kill the other.

couldn't similar tactics be used with other industries and have the same preferred results?

We do use similar "tactics".
Private investment by private industry in the US produces innovation, not just in pharmaceuticals.

 

[Monoculturalist]

I'm saying that the innovation in drugs comes more from US private industry than from foreign private industry or foreign government research. I didn't say it was optimal, just that's what happens.

The cost of the US research is higher US prices for these drugs.

If you insist on killing one, you'll probably kill the other.

couldn't similar tactics be used with other industries and have the same preferred results?

We do use similar "tactics".
Private investment by private industry in the US produces innovation, not just in pharmaceuticals.

There are a few industries where we do this besides medicine, but not that many compared to the economy overall.

Where I think we differ is that, on principle, I want the market to be as free of any intervention by government as possible, even if the results of intervention might be positive in some regards. Innovation is not my primary concern, market freedom is.

However, market freedom usually results in optimal innovation. That is why I believe the slack would eventually be picked up by other nations. If current market conditions make doing the research here most convenient, it will happen here -- whether by market dynamics or by government intervention.

For example, Taiwan currently corners the market on semiconductor construction. The reason for this is the high amount of investment required to start up the factories and infrastructure used to make them. It takes a few years for one of these factories to be up and running, and you need world class engineers to design both the product and aspects of the production.

This doesn't mean that, if Taiwan got nuked, we'd never see semiconductor innovation or production recover. It would just take some time for things to reset. I see no reason to believe the same wouldn't be true for medicine if we removed government subsidization here. There would be a transition period, but after that, innovation would spread to wherever else conditions were most favorable. America doesn't have a permanent monopoly on innovation. It just has very favorable conditions for these companies at the moment. The problem is that it's not particularly favorable for consumers here. Canada is certainly reaping the benefits though.

 

[GMCGeneral]

When you break it down by sex, college-educated men barely favored Kamala. (49% vs. 48%)

Men and white people vote differently based on education

Over all, college graduates voted for Harris by 13 points more than they did Trump. But that gap was even starker for certain demographics.

www.insidehighered.com

Also, Trump made significant gains among various demographics in 2024 vs. 2020. A substantially higher percentage of Latinos and black men voted for Trump in 2024 than in 2020.

Overall, this seems to be a lot less about education and a lot more about men losing interest in the Democratic party. It's not surprising when you consider how fanatically feminist the left has become. Western society in general has shifted in an anti-male direction, despite depending on men to protect their societies.

The non-West has mostly avoided this ideological trap.

The other thing is Trump campaigned in cities that were basically lost causes and it paid off bigly. He damned near turned NY State red.

 

[Stryder50]

In a recent NBC survey of registered voters that gauged the popularity of several things, it was shown that Socialism has more likes and fewer dislikes than Project 2025. With MAGAs eager to classify anything they don't like as Socialism; it's telling to note that it is still more popular than the right-wing plan to purge the government of all whose allegiance is to the constitution rather than trump. When they put out a several hundred-page report about what they intend to do, we should pay attention and vote to stop such heinous actions.

MSN

More Leftist/Marxist bullshit!
Sorry Komrade Coward, but it's Leftist loonie-tunes like you who are against the Constitution and for a more powerful central State to be your Big Brother for allegiance.

Your rot kicked into high gear when traitor Obama, of "I have a pen and a phone (who needs to work with Congress)" lead the most recent attempt for a One Party tyranny.

Your gravy train off the taxpayers is coming to an end.

BTW, it's fairly clear where you would place on this;

What’s Your Political Type?​

Find out right now by taking The World’s Smallest Political Quiz.

World’s Smallest Political Quiz | Advocates For Self-Government

What's your political type? Find out right now by taking The World’s Smallest Political Quiz. Take the Quiz 23,242,153 Quizzes taken & counting What's Your Political Type? What's your political type? Find out right now by taking

www.theadvocates.org

 

[August West]

That's a fair point about gun detectors. I think you should be allowed to be armed at various events. As for schools, teachers should be allowed to be armed.

Arming the teachers would benefit the students that live in homes where there are no guns. Anyone, including teachers can be disarmed.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The difference between auto insurance and health insurance is that auto insurance isn't nearly as bureaucratic as health insurance. Auto insurance is relatively efficient and doesn't incur that much in terms of transactional costs.

Sure wait until you try to file a claim.
Just like health insurance.

Rates are higher for auto insurance than they used to be, but a lot of that is due to a higher percentage of uninsured drivers on the road than before and light penalties for noncompliance. I would prefer we institute significant jail time for uninsured drivers, so that rates can come down some.

As for health insurance, it's quite different. A huge portion of the higher cost of healthcare in the US is tied to bureaucratic issues with health insurance. The red tape involved with billing is absurd, and various insurers are notorious for denying coverage over technicalities. This ultimately leads to doctors and hospitals listing very high rates that insurers will often only pay a small percentage of. There are other factors involved (like people getting service in ERs without paying for it), but taking insurance out of the equation for lower cost services (like routine visits) would help a lot in terms of lowering costs.

Taking insurance out of the equation, period....................... would lower cost.
Countries with universal healthcare don't have the issues, that US has.

Look at all the supplemental medicare insurance companies are always bragging about?
Free reign to deny coverage.

Then there is this............

UnitedHealthcare Calls Doctor Mid Surgery To Ask If Her ...​

Yahoo
https://www.yahoo.com › news › unitedhealthcare-calls...
Jan 9, 2025 — UnitedHealthcare Calls Doctor Mid Surgery To Ask If Her Patient's Overnight Stay Is Necessary.

UnitedHealthcare has become the epicenter of a fierce debate surrounding the systematic denial of health insurance claims in the US. Case in point, the company went as far as to deploy an error-prone AI algorithm in 2023 to override claims to elderly patients that had been approved by their doctors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure wait until you try to file a claim.
Just like health insurance.

Taking insurance out of the equation, period....................... would lower cost.
Countries with universal healthcare don't have the issues, that US has.

Look at all the supplemental medicare insurance companies are always bragging about?
Free reign to deny coverage.

Then there is this............

UnitedHealthcare Calls Doctor Mid Surgery To Ask If Her ...​

View attachment 1079695
Yahoo
https://www.yahoo.com › news › unitedhealthcare-calls...
Jan 9, 2025 — UnitedHealthcare Calls Doctor Mid Surgery To Ask If Her Patient's Overnight Stay Is Necessary.

UnitedHealthcare has become the epicenter of a fierce debate surrounding the systematic denial of health insurance claims in the US. Case in point, the company went as far as to deploy an error-prone AI algorithm in 2023 to override claims to elderly patients that had been approved by their doctors.

Free reign to deny coverage.

"Free rein", it's a term from horseback riding.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Free reign to deny coverage.

"Free rein", it's a term from horseback riding.

"Look at all the supplemental medicare insurance companies are always bragging about?
Free reign to deny coverage".

WTF are you referring to, Q-NUT?

 

[DonGlock26]

In a recent NBC survey of registered voters that gauged the popularity of several things, it was shown that Socialism has more likes and fewer dislikes than Project 2025. With MAGAs eager to classify anything they don't like as Socialism; it's telling to note that it is still more popular than the right-wing plan to purge the government of all whose allegiance is to the constitution rather than trump. When they put out a several hundred-page report about what they intend to do, we should pay attention and vote to stop such heinous actions.

MSN

The people kicked the socialists out of office.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Look at all the supplemental medicare insurance companies are always bragging about?
Free reign to deny coverage".

WTF are you referring to, Q-NUT?

'Free Rein' or 'Free Reign'?

The phrase does not make you king or queen for the day.

www.merriam-webster.com

You're welcome, stupid twat.