This is why we need single-payer health care

[ip_law-hokie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/th ... ef=us&_r=0

[awesome guy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/th ... ef=us&_r=0

that's a great example of government driving up costs. It's better for the government to stop driving up costs than giving them even more power to screw up things even more.

[One4VT]

yeah and then the next vindictive regressive administration can come along and deny people their healthcare when another budget impasse crops up. Get government involved in everything and then nothing can justify less government spending... right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/th ... ef=us&_r=0

[RiverguyVT]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/th ... ef=us&_r=0

Would it be worth the unprecedented, massive loss of freedom?
It is one thing if someone from Aetna knows I am HIV positive.
It is quite another if my government would be in a position to wreak revenge upon me for having something they deem "unacceptable".

Seriously.

[Marine Hokie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/th ... ef=us&_r=0

that's a great example of government driving up costs. It's better for the government to stop driving up costs than giving them even more power to screw up things even more.

It's interesting that he choose inhalers to be the example of why too little government drives up medical costs.
That inhalers went from $10 to $175 (I'm just going to accept their numbers here for the sake of argument) isn't a result of not enough government involvement in healthcare. There are no good OTC solutions, and what did exist was recently banned by the FDA under pressure from lobbyists. As the article admitted, patents take some of the blame there, but there's a lot more to it than that.
If you have permanent chronic asthma, you are forced to buy expensive inhalers from a government protected monopoly. On top of the inhaler costs, doctors typically only prescribe a limited amount at a time, so you have to pay for expensive doctors visits. If government got out of inhalers, there would be many more choices, you could get them over the counter without a prescription, and they'd cost much less than $10.
Too much government caused the problem, and more government shouldn't be looked to as the solution.

[USN_Hokie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/th ... ef=us&_r=0

According to this website, the US has a lower asthma death rate than the UK:

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/caus ... y-country/

Statistics are a bitch.

A little more research seems to confirm the above. The UK averages ~1200 total deaths per year related to asthma, whereas the US averages ~3600 total deaths. Do the math. The number is even more interesting when you consider that latinos and blacks are most likely to suffer from asthma.

Oh look:

It is not clear why the number of deaths per year from asthma in the UK has not reduced significantly from around 1,200 for many years, even though it is widely accepted that there are preventable factors in 90% of deaths.

http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/nat ... hma-deaths

[USN_Hokie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/th ... ef=us&_r=0

that's a great example of government driving up costs. It's better for the government to stop driving up costs than giving them even more power to screw up things even more.

It's interesting that he choose inhalers to be the example of why too little government drives up medical costs.
That inhalers went from $10 to $175 (I'm just going to accept their numbers here for the sake of argument) isn't a result of not enough government involvement in healthcare. There are no good OTC solutions, and what did exist was recently banned by the FDA under pressure from lobbyists. As the article admitted, patents take some of the blame there, but there's a lot more to it than that.
If you have permanent chronic asthma, you are forced to buy expensive inhalers from a government protected monopoly. On top of the inhaler costs, doctors typically only prescribe a limited amount at a time, so you have to pay for expensive doctors visits. If government got out of inhalers, there would be many more choices, you could get them over the counter without a prescription, and they'd cost much less than $10.
Too much government caused the problem, and more government shouldn't be looked to as the solution.

That's all true, but I don't think we even need to investigate that far. If cost is a barrier to treatment, it should show in morbidity statistics....it doesn't.

[BigDave]

Albuterol, one of the oldest asthma medicines, typically costs $50 to $100 per inhaler in the United States, but it was less than $15 a decade ago, before it was repatented.

Hey IP Law, what does this mean???? How can something be "repatented"? That makes no sense.

[ip_law-hokie]

Albuterol, one of the oldest asthma medicines, typically costs $50 to $100 per inhaler in the United States, but it was less than $15 a decade ago, before it was repatented.

Hey IP Law, what does this mean???? How can something be "repatented"? That makes no sense.

It was poor word choice. Something cannot be repatented. Good catch.

[awesome guy]

Albuterol, one of the oldest asthma medicines, typically costs $50 to $100 per inhaler in the United States, but it was less than $15 a decade ago, before it was repatented.

Hey IP Law, what does this mean???? How can something be "repatented"? That makes no sense.

It was poor word choice. Something cannot be repatented. Good catch.

then what happened? What are they trying to say?

[ip_law-hokie]

Albuterol, one of the oldest asthma medicines, typically costs $50 to $100 per inhaler in the United States, but it was less than $15 a decade ago, before it was repatented.

Hey IP Law, what does this mean???? How can something be "repatented"? That makes no sense.

It was poor word choice. Something cannot be repatented. Good catch.

then what happened? What are they trying to say?

I believe there is a weak formulation patent that covers albuterol in a non-CFC dosage form (mere educated guess). This patent would and should be challenged in an economically efficient market. The article doesn't explain it well, and what it does explain, it gets wrong.

[USN_Hokie]

Albuterol, one of the oldest asthma medicines, typically costs $50 to $100 per inhaler in the United States, but it was less than $15 a decade ago, before it was repatented.

Hey IP Law, what does this mean???? How can something be "repatented"? That makes no sense.

It was poor word choice. Something cannot be repatented. Good catch.

then what happened? What are they trying to say?

???

The first patent for Ventolin HFA currently expires in October 2015. Although this patent was originally set to expire in April 2015, the manufacturer was given an extension for performing much-needed pediatric studies.

http://asthma.emedtv.com/albuterol-inha ... haler.html

[ip_law-hokie]

Albuterol, one of the oldest asthma medicines, typically costs $50 to $100 per inhaler in the United States, but it was less than $15 a decade ago, before it was repatented.

Hey IP Law, what does this mean???? How can something be "repatented"? That makes no sense.

It was poor word choice. Something cannot be repatented. Good catch.

then what happened? What are they trying to say?

???

The first patent for Ventolin HFA currently expires in October 2015. Although this patent was originally set to expire in April 2015, the manufacturer was given an extension for performing much-needed pediatric studies.

http://asthma.emedtv.com/albuterol-inha ... haler.html

I believe that is a different patent than the one alluded in the article.

[Marine Hokie]

Albuterol, one of the oldest asthma medicines, typically costs $50 to $100 per inhaler in the United States, but it was less than $15 a decade ago, before it was repatented.

Hey IP Law, what does this mean???? How can something be "repatented"? That makes no sense.

It was poor word choice. Something cannot be repatented. Good catch.

then what happened? What are they trying to say?

They got a new patent on a new type of inhaler, and got the old type outlawed.

[ip_law-hokie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/th ... ef=us&_r=0

that's a great example of government driving up costs. It's better for the government to stop driving up costs than giving them even more power to screw up things even more.

It's interesting that he choose inhalers to be the example of why too little government drives up medical costs.
That inhalers went from $10 to $175 (I'm just going to accept their numbers here for the sake of argument) isn't a result of not enough government involvement in healthcare. There are no good OTC solutions, and what did exist was recently banned by the FDA under pressure from lobbyists. As the article admitted, patents take some of the blame there, but there's a lot more to it than that.
If you have permanent chronic asthma, you are forced to buy expensive inhalers from a government protected monopoly. On top of the inhaler costs, doctors typically only prescribe a limited amount at a time, so you have to pay for expensive doctors visits. If government got out of inhalers, there would be many more choices, you could get them over the counter without a prescription, and they'd cost much less than $10.
Too much government caused the problem, and more government shouldn't be looked to as the solution.

There's a lot of truth here. The drug in question, for example, should be sold OTC.

There is also the negotiating position that a lot (if not most) countries that leads to cheaper meds for their citizens.

[Marine Hokie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/th ... ef=us&_r=0

that's a great example of government driving up costs. It's better for the government to stop driving up costs than giving them even more power to screw up things even more.

It's interesting that he choose inhalers to be the example of why too little government drives up medical costs.
That inhalers went from $10 to $175 (I'm just going to accept their numbers here for the sake of argument) isn't a result of not enough government involvement in healthcare. There are no good OTC solutions, and what did exist was recently banned by the FDA under pressure from lobbyists. As the article admitted, patents take some of the blame there, but there's a lot more to it than that.
If you have permanent chronic asthma, you are forced to buy expensive inhalers from a government protected monopoly. On top of the inhaler costs, doctors typically only prescribe a limited amount at a time, so you have to pay for expensive doctors visits. If government got out of inhalers, there would be many more choices, you could get them over the counter without a prescription, and they'd cost much less than $10.
Too much government caused the problem, and more government shouldn't be looked to as the solution.

There's a lot of truth here. The drug in question, for example, should be sold OTC.

There is also the negotiating position that a lot (if not most) countries that leads to cheaper meds for their citizens.

If the state quits giving special privileges to favored companies, the problem solves itself, and prices are a race to the bottom.

[ip_law-hokie]

it not that simple. Industries have colluded, which argues for government intervention. consider reverse payment patent settlements.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/th ... ef=us&_r=0

that's a great example of government driving up costs. It's better for the government to stop driving up costs than giving them even more power to screw up things even more.

It's interesting that he choose inhalers to be the example of why too little government drives up medical costs.
That inhalers went from $10 to $175 (I'm just going to accept their numbers here for the sake of argument) isn't a result of not enough government involvement in healthcare. There are no good OTC solutions, and what did exist was recently banned by the FDA under pressure from lobbyists. As the article admitted, patents take some of the blame there, but there's a lot more to it than that.
If you have permanent chronic asthma, you are forced to buy expensive inhalers from a government protected monopoly. On top of the inhaler costs, doctors typically only prescribe a limited amount at a time, so you have to pay for expensive doctors visits. If government got out of inhalers, there would be many more choices, you could get them over the counter without a prescription, and they'd cost much less than $10.
Too much government caused the problem, and more government shouldn't be looked to as the solution.

There's a lot of truth here. The drug in question, for example, should be sold OTC.

There is also the negotiating position that a lot (if not most) countries that leads to cheaper meds for their citizens.

If the state quits giving special privileges to favored companies, the problem solves itself, and prices are a race to the bottom.

[Marine Hokie]

it not that simple. Industries have colluded, which argues for government intervention. consider reverse payment patent settlements.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/th ... ef=us&_r=0

that's a great example of government driving up costs. It's better for the government to stop driving up costs than giving them even more power to screw up things even more.

It's interesting that he choose inhalers to be the example of why too little government drives up medical costs.
That inhalers went from $10 to $175 (I'm just going to accept their numbers here for the sake of argument) isn't a result of not enough government involvement in healthcare. There are no good OTC solutions, and what did exist was recently banned by the FDA under pressure from lobbyists. As the article admitted, patents take some of the blame there, but there's a lot more to it than that.
If you have permanent chronic asthma, you are forced to buy expensive inhalers from a government protected monopoly. On top of the inhaler costs, doctors typically only prescribe a limited amount at a time, so you have to pay for expensive doctors visits. If government got out of inhalers, there would be many more choices, you could get them over the counter without a prescription, and they'd cost much less than $10.
Too much government caused the problem, and more government shouldn't be looked to as the solution.

There's a lot of truth here. The drug in question, for example, should be sold OTC.

There is also the negotiating position that a lot (if not most) countries that leads to cheaper meds for their citizens.

If the state quits giving special privileges to favored companies, the problem solves itself, and prices are a race to the bottom.

Industry collusion is a reaction to government intervention. There's no reason to suggest that without government-sanctioned monopolies, the free market wouldn't fix the problem.

[ip_law-hokie]

In this example, the government intervention is a patent (provided for by the constitution). not to say that there is not merit to your argument, but it does not apply in this particular example (reverse payment patent settlements), unless you want to dismantle the patent system (which would itself be form of government intervention)


*this is only in response to marine's point **

[awesome guy]

In this example, the government intervention is a patent (provided for by the constitution). not to say that there is not merit to your argument, but it does not apply in this particular example (reverse payment patent settlements), unless you want to dismantle the patent system (which would itself be form of government intervention)


*this is only in response to marine's point **

Can I patent the idea of patents? So when you want a patent, I get a cut to use the process that I've invented.

I think there is a reasonable level of government that doesn't dissolve the Sherman anti-trust act but also doesn't establish the government as a monopoly either. Or why wouldn't that be a violation of Sherman, the act of the government being a trust?

[ip_law-hokie]

In this example, the government intervention is a patent (provided for by the constitution). not to say that there is not merit to your argument, but it does not apply in this particular example (reverse payment patent settlements), unless you want to dismantle the patent system (which would itself be form of government intervention)


*this is only in response to marine's point **

Can I patent the idea of patents? So when you want a patent, I get a cut to use the process that I've invented.

I think there is a reasonable level of government that doesn't dissolve the Sherman anti-trust act but also doesn't establish the government as a monopoly either. Or why wouldn't that be a violation of Sherman, the act of the government being a trust?

no

[Marine Hokie]

In this example, the government intervention is a patent (provided for by the constitution). not to say that there is not merit to your argument, but it does not apply in this particular example (reverse payment patent settlements), unless you want to dismantle the patent system (which would itself be form of government intervention)


*this is only in response to marine's point **

Correct, government intervention via patents is (part of) the problem (though not the only government intervention problem in this case).
I'm not sure that I agree that the government stopping intervention is itself intervention. But if that's what you want to call it, then sure, I'm for the government intervening in itself to stop intervening in markets.

[Marine Hokie]

In this example, the government intervention is a patent (provided for by the constitution). not to say that there is not merit to your argument, but it does not apply in this particular example (reverse payment patent settlements), unless you want to dismantle the patent system (which would itself be form of government intervention)


*this is only in response to marine's point **

Can I patent the idea of patents? So when you want a patent, I get a cut to use the process that I've invented.

I think there is a reasonable level of government that doesn't dissolve the Sherman anti-trust act but also doesn't establish the government as a monopoly either. Or why wouldn't that be a violation of Sherman, the act of the government being a trust?

The difference is that government monopolies are legalized monopolies. Meaning that, the government hasn't outlawed itself creating a monopoly or sanctioning favored monopolies.

[ip_law-hokie]

In this example, the government intervention is a patent (provided for by the constitution). not to say that there is not merit to your argument, but it does not apply in this particular example (reverse payment patent settlements), unless you want to dismantle the patent system (which would itself be form of government intervention)


*this is only in response to marine's point **

Correct, government intervention via patents is (part of) the problem (though not the only government intervention problem in this case).
I'm not sure that I agree that the government stopping intervention is itself intervention. But if that's what you want to call it, then sure, I'm for the government intervening in itself to stop intervening in markets.

Are you advocating that we abolish the patent system?

[Marine Hokie]

In this example, the government intervention is a patent (provided for by the constitution). not to say that there is not merit to your argument, but it does not apply in this particular example (reverse payment patent settlements), unless you want to dismantle the patent system (which would itself be form of government intervention)


*this is only in response to marine's point **

Correct, government intervention via patents is (part of) the problem (though not the only government intervention problem in this case).
I'm not sure that I agree that the government stopping intervention is itself intervention. But if that's what you want to call it, then sure, I'm for the government intervening in itself to stop intervening in markets.

Are you advocating that we abolish the patent system?

I've consistently advocated for states to not continue the practice of issuing special monopoly privileges.