☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
311,763
Reputation
-34,173
Daps
621,981
Reppin
The Deep State
Again this is not really about Warren. It is about framing through the eyes of the average voter. M4A and even a public option have little room for error. Mainstream media already shyts on M4A all day everyday. You can’t have both moderates and progressives talking negative about M4A. Once we get offline and talk to average people, they are not deciphering all of the specifics of the policy. In real life I have yet to run into anyone that truly understands what M4A is, and they are confused when listening to a deep drives on it. And i’m not talking about people that are low information voters. I’m talking about people that are highly educated. For example when people were freaking out over the head tax nobody I talked to even knew what a head tax was. And this is not just antidotal evidence. Polling shows that people don’t really know or understand the details. This is why Sanders number are not dramatically going up even through Warren numbers are going down. If Bernie was going up like Buttigieg then I would say people are just down on Warren. But that is not the case. M4A policy as a whole is taking a hit.

This is a major problem even for a public option. The same thing the media is doing to drive down support for M4A will be the same tactic they use to oppose a public option. They even called The ACA a socialist program. Once M4A is out the paint they will start asking how do you pay for a public option, and if people will be able to keep their doctors. The insurance companies will come after the public option just as hard as they will come after M4A. If M4A is not even a threat, then the public option becomes the most radical position. That makes the likelihood of a strong public option less likely, and we might have to settle on something like Regional Health Alliances like what Bill and Hillary was proposing in the early 90s.

As far as we are on the path for M4A yes and no.
National healthcare was first proposed by Harry Truman in 1945 and it is 74 years later and we still don’t have it. Yes we are closer then we were in the 2000s, but we were much closer to getting National Healthcare in the 60s and 70s.
Yet if you let tankies like Jamie on The Majority Report thinks that warren “wants people to die” in achieving a more structured plan.

these people really are idiots.
 

Warren Moon

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
8,656
Reputation
760
Daps
25,590
Again this is not really about Warren. It is about framing through the eyes of the average voter. M4A and even a public option have little room for error. Mainstream media already shyts on M4A all day everyday. You can’t have both moderates and progressives talking negative about M4A. Once we get offline and talk to average people, they are not deciphering all of the specifics of the policy. In real life I have yet to run into anyone that truly understands what M4A is, and they are confused when listening to a deep dives on it. And i’m not talking about people that are low information voters. I’m talking about people that are highly educated. For example when people were freaking out over the head tax nobody I talked to even knew what a head tax was. And this is not just antidotal evidence. Polling shows that people don’t really know or understand the details. This is why Sanders number are not dramatically going up even through Warren numbers are going down. If Bernie was going up like Buttigieg then I would say people are just down on Warren. But that is not the case. M4A policy as a whole is taking a hit.

This is a major problem even for a public option. The same thing the media is doing to drive down support for M4A will be the same tactic they use to oppose a public option. They even called The ACA a socialist program. Once M4A is out the paint they will start asking how do you pay for a public option, and if people will be able to keep their doctors. The insurance companies will come after the public option just as hard as they will come after M4A. If M4A is not even a threat, then the public option becomes the most radical position. That makes the likelihood of a strong public option less likely, and we might have to settle on something like Regional Health Alliances like what Bill and Hillary was proposing in the early 90s.

As far as we are on the path for M4A yes and no.
National healthcare was first proposed by Harry Truman in 1945. It is 74 years later and we still don’t have it. Yes we are closer then we were in the 2000s, but we were much closer to getting National Healthcare in the 60s and 70s.

I mean rebranding once it’s needed isn’t going to take a lot. Bernie forced the m4all label.

All it takes is calling it universal healthcare or a new and improved m4all.

I don’t think the premise of m4all has suffered at all. As an idea/plan it wasn’t widely talked about until 6 months ago. The trajectory and implementation timeline for universal healthcare hasn’t meaningful changed at all.

the media at no point has called the public option radical.

Republicans will during the general election but they we’re going to do that anyway. Nothing has really changed man
 

Warren Moon

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
8,656
Reputation
760
Daps
25,590
Progressives are going to get hit on why universal healthcare is “cheaper” in Canada, and Europe.

once we move towards a universal model ourselves, the shining examples of socialist healthcare costs will increase by 50%. That’s bc the USA subsidizes their healthcare. They depend on us paying more so they can pay less

It’s something Bernie refuses to call out. The person who implements m4all must be truthful about everything.


America Needs to Stop Subsidizing Europe and Canada’s Prescription Drugs | RealClearPolitics
 

Oville

Pro
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
1,045
Reputation
150
Daps
2,150

Be cool with passing legislation that in-debts college students, de-regulates financial institutions, ships American jobs overseas, and leads mass incarceration at levels beyond any other nation in the world.

Being proud about passing those kinds of legislations because their easy to get passed with Republicans does not impress me. We need to demand for ourselves
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
311,763
Reputation
-34,173
Daps
621,981
Reppin
The Deep State
Progressives are going to get hit on why universal healthcare is “cheaper” in Canada, and Europe.

once we move towards a universal model ourselves, the shining examples of socialist healthcare costs will increase by 50%. That’s bc the USA subsidizes their healthcare. They depend on us paying more so they can pay less

It’s something Bernie refuses to call out. The person who implements m4all must be truthful about everything.


America Needs to Stop Subsidizing Europe and Canada’s Prescription Drugs | RealClearPolitics
honestly, no one wants to talk about the fact that the USA leads the world in drug development and research...

thats why I wasn't mad at Cory Booker for supporting the Pharma industry in New Jersey...theres nothing in Vermont to support or defend. Booker has actual constituents who lead the world.
 

Warren Moon

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
8,656
Reputation
760
Daps
25,590
honestly, no one wants to talk about the fact that the USA leads the world in drug development and research...

thats why I wasn't mad at Cory Booker for supporting the Pharma industry in New Jersey...theres nothing in Vermont to support or defend. Booker has actual constituents who lead the world.

yep. Other countries have cheap drugs bc they copy the drugs we make
 

Warren Moon

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
8,656
Reputation
760
Daps
25,590
This isn't true. The same drugs are being sold by the same companies for cheaper in those countries because those countries have better pharmaceutical regulations and controls.

You're wrong. The only reason they have better regulation and controls is because they bank on the US paying more. If we did the same thing they did their costs would skyrocket. They are financially incentivized for us not to move to M4All.

Once our prices go lower, there's will go way higher.

America Needs to Stop Subsidizing Europe and Canada’s Prescription Drugs | RealClearPolitics



How The US Subsidizes Cheap Drugs For Europe

The true story of America’s sky-high prescription drug prices

Right now, the United States’ exceptionally high drug prices help subsidize the rest of the world’s drug research. We benefit from that work with new and better prescriptions — and so does the rest of the world. In other words: Right now, the United States is subsidizing the rest of the world’s drug research by paying out really high prices. If we stopped doing that, it would likely mean fewer dollars spent on pharmaceutical research — and less progress developing new drugs for Americans and everybody else.
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
74,379
Reputation
8,681
Daps
223,779
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
You're wrong. The only reason they have better regulation and controls is because they bank on the US paying more. If we did the same thing they did their costs would skyrocket. They are financially incentivized for us not to move to M4All.

Once our prices go lower, there's will go way higher.

America Needs to Stop Subsidizing Europe and Canada’s Prescription Drugs | RealClearPolitics



How The US Subsidizes Cheap Drugs For Europe

The true story of America’s sky-high prescription drug prices

Right now, the United States’ exceptionally high drug prices help subsidize the rest of the world’s drug research. We benefit from that work with new and better prescriptions — and so does the rest of the world. In other words: Right now, the United States is subsidizing the rest of the world’s drug research by paying out really high prices. If we stopped doing that, it would likely mean fewer dollars spent on pharmaceutical research — and less progress developing new drugs for Americans and everybody else.

The point still remains those countries have regulatory boards that negotiate prices. We have no such mechanism. Which is why we're getting price gouged to begin with.

Sure, if tomorrow Medicare could negotiate and push down prices, those prices could be increased globally but not to the levels we have here. A vial of insulin in the U.S. is $300 and its $30 in Canada. We aren't going to see the Canadians paying that much more if we finally use the laws on the books and existing government power to stop this madness.

The Pharmaceutical Industry - True Cost of Heathcare

As I said before, I went over seven years of financial reports for 13 major pharmaceutical companies and here is some of what I found:

-The combined total revenue for all 13 companies over 8 years was about $3.78 Trillion.

-The Combined total profits for these companies was about $744 Billion.

-All 13 pharmaceutical companies spent a total of $643 Billion on research.

-The total amount they spent on marketing was about 60% more than what they spent on research: $1.04 Trillion.

Here’s the same information in two graphs:
PharmBG2018.png

Figure 2: Total combined profits earned by all 13 major pharmaceutical companies from 2011-2018 compared to amount spent on marketing and research over the same time period. Proportion of total revenue allocated for each is below (figure 3).
PharmaPG2018.png

Figure 3

As you can see, the pharmaceutical companies do spend a lot on research but their research budgets are dwarfed by their marketing budgets. They also made more in profits each year, on average, than they spent on research.

So let’s do some estimates. Just as an example, we’ll take that dose of Xarelto that we get for $14.37 and the Canadians for about $3. The pill most likely costs just a few cents to manufacture (we know that from the cost of the generics), so the $14.37 is mostly profit. But they charge (us in the U.S.) $14.37, they say, to cover the cost of discovering it.

Yet from their own statements, only about $2.44 of the $14.37 (17%) goes into research. Another $2.73 is pure, after-tax profit, and a whopping 27%, or about $3.88 of that $14.37 pill goes, not to the scientists at the pharmaceutical companies, but toward buying all of those medication ads you love so much. So most of what we “buy,” when we pay the highest drug prices in the world, is high corporate profits and lots of television commercials of middle-aged men with very pretty wives.
 
Top