(02-06-2019, 06:14 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2019, 08:51 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Um, no matter how you slice it...GDP or GNI, Australia falls way behind many in "richer countries" status, including US. And you know that $1.60 is per litres right? So roughly $82 to fill 30 gallons in US to $180 to fill 30 gallons in Australia. Yep, huge bargain.
Can you clarify the "voting against your own interests" comment?
Actually fuel is about $1.20 currently. Probably about half what it is in some European countries.
I thought you lot acknowledged that higher wages leads to higher cost of goods. Isn't that why you go holiday in Mexico? The average Australian is far wealthier than the average American it doesn't matter that as a CEO you would make more in the US or that GDP is higher.
If you are born into wealth sure the US is great and I can understand why you are happy with voting status quo. Everything is geared to benefit the richest including health.
Care to cite some facts regarding this? The definition of "wealth" means a lot of different things to people. I personally consider myself an "average middle class" U.S. citizen. Some might say that I'm "wealthy" based on what I purchased in the last year and my spending habits, but I certainly don't consider myself "wealthy" when it comes to economics. As far as my life in general? Yes I am certainly "wealthy" by some people's standards. What I consider "wealth" is the fact that I have a really good family both immediate and extended. I have a good job which I enjoy and make a pretty good living. I purchased 35 acres of property and am in the process of building our "retirement home"... something that I've worked for over the years and I purchased it in cash.... no mortgage. I purchased a couple of tractors as well as some other tools that I use to develop the property on my own.
I don't HAVE to work since I have no bills to speak of. My current home has been paid off for several years and the vehicles that my wife and I drive were bought with cash.
The thing is though, it wasn't always like that. My wife and I once lived in a rented mobile home with one crappy car that we owed money on with 3 children. Our "kitchen table" where we ate our meals was a 4x4 card table. Our "furniture" in our living room consisted of boxes covered with afghans that my wife made.
I'm not white and certainly wasn't "born into wealth" or money so you can throw out the whole "white privilege" argument before you even start it. We saved and worked during our younger years to achieve what we have and what we are doing. That's the difference. We are an example of the American Dream and what is possible if a person is willing to put down the cell phone and actually work, sacrifice and save.
The Jaguars owner Shad Khan is another good example. He was a LEGAL immigrant to our country that arrived with very little, yet worked hard and accomplished many great things. Is he "wealthy"? Most would say yes because he has made a lot of money.
My point is though, "wealth" isn't always about money.
The obstacles to entry into the marketplace allow 3 companies to play 3 card Monte with patterns on the latest irritation of insulin. Couple that with the insulation of the consumer from the actual price of the product (through health insurance) and u have an environment where drugs like insulin (that don't naturally lend themselves to cheaper generic versions) increase in cost over time.
It's funny how in mixed economies you have regulatory policy that insulates companies from competative pressure and somehow it's the market side that is declared deficient.
(02-06-2019, 07:07 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/we...d0047e5d59
You only have to walk around a US city then an Aussie one and you will understand. Income equality is not a good thing. That's why Aussie's don't have the tipping culture
See? So you agree ... we need a wall. If we were an island, we would leave you in the dust.
(02-06-2019, 06:14 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2019, 08:51 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Um, no matter how you slice it...GDP or GNI, Australia falls way behind many in "richer countries" status, including US. And you know that $1.60 is per litres right? So roughly $82 to fill 30 gallons in US to $180 to fill 30 gallons in Australia. Yep, huge bargain.
Can you clarify the "voting against your own interests" comment?
Actually fuel is about $1.20 currently. Probably about half what it is in some European countries.
I thought you lot acknowledged that higher wages leads to higher cost of goods. Isn't that why you go holiday in Mexico? The average Australian is far wealthier than the average American it doesn't matter that as a CEO you would make more in the US or that GDP is higher.
If you are born into wealth sure the US is great and I can understand why you are happy with voting status quo. Everything is geared to benefit the richest including health.
Okay, $1.20 or $1.60 is still per litre and more expensive than here.
Higher wages does not mean higher price for goods. If that was the case how are you claiming Australians on average are wealthier? Would it actually offset at that point? You do understand wealth isn’t a measure of earnings, right? As I predicted, you used individual wealth versus country, which is where GNI factors in. Australia still trails.
Who holidays in Mexico except poor college students? I certainly wasn’t born into wealth, in fact, I was raised by a single mom who put herself through medical school. We lived in a notoriously rough area in South Florida. I put myself through school and then spent 24 years in the military. I don’t consider myself wealthy but I am comfortable enough to not want for anything, nor have to work.
Don’t listen to the news. America is still prosperous, offers endless opportunity, and isn’t as divisive as it appears. Just requires honest work and initiative.
(02-06-2019, 07:56 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2019, 06:14 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]Actually fuel is about $1.20 currently. Probably about half what it is in some European countries.
I thought you lot acknowledged that higher wages leads to higher cost of goods. Isn't that why you go holiday in Mexico? The average Australian is far wealthier than the average American it doesn't matter that as a CEO you would make more in the US or that GDP is higher.
If you are born into wealth sure the US is great and I can understand why you are happy with voting status quo. Everything is geared to benefit the richest including health.
Okay, $1.20 or $1.60 is still per litre and more expensive than here.
Higher wages does not mean higher price for goods. If that was the case how are you claiming Australians on average are wealthier? Would it actually offset at that point? You do understand wealth isn’t a measure of earnings, right? As I predicted, you used individual wealth versus country, which is where GNI factors in. Australia still trails.
Who holidays in Mexico except poor college students? I certainly wasn’t born into wealth, in fact, I was raised by a single mom who put herself through medical school. We lived in a notoriously rough area in South Florida. I put myself through school and then spent 24 years in the military. I don’t consider myself wealthy but I am comfortable enough to not want for anything, nor have to work.
Don’t listen to the news. America is still prosperous, offers endless opportunity, and isn’t as divisive as it appears. Just requires honest work and initiative.
I have no doubt the US is highly prosperous it is just not very evenly spread. However you guys have been well programmed to vote against your own interests to vote in favour of the elite.
In regards to health care I'm glad as an average kind of person that I don't need to stress about costs if I am unfortunate enough to get ill. Americanisation of health is not thought of favourably in countries I have lived.
(02-06-2019, 07:31 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]The obstacles to entry into the marketplace allow 3 companies to play 3 card Monte with patterns on the latest irritation of insulin. Couple that with the insulation of the consumer from the actual price of the product (through health insurance) and u have an environment where drugs like insulin (that don't naturally lend themselves to cheaper generic versions) increase in cost over time.
It's funny how in mixed economies you have regulatory policy that insulates companies from competative pressure and somehow it's the market side that is declared deficient.
There are more than three pharma companies and more than three people capable of gathering the capital needed to get a new insulin to market.
Things might be better if more doctors and pharmacists counseled their patients that the different forms of insulin were interchangeable, if that were true. I don't know if it is.
Things also might be better if we came to see rebates offered by big Pharma to insurers, but not to individuals, as kickbacks. Medicare and Medicaid don't accept rebates because they look like bribes. Private insurance should follow the same rule.
(02-06-2019, 11:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2019, 07:31 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]The obstacles to entry into the marketplace allow 3 companies to play 3 card Monte with patterns on the latest irritation of insulin. Couple that with the insulation of the consumer from the actual price of the product (through health insurance) and u have an environment where drugs like insulin (that don't naturally lend themselves to cheaper generic versions) increase in cost over time.
It's funny how in mixed economies you have regulatory policy that insulates companies from competative pressure and somehow it's the market side that is declared deficient.
There are more than three pharma companies and more than three people capable of gathering the capital needed to get a new insulin to market.
Things might be better if more doctors and pharmacists counseled their patients that the different forms of insulin were interchangeable, if that were true. I don't know if it is.
Things also might be better if we came to see rebates offered by big Pharma to insurers, but not to individuals, as kickbacks. Medicare and Medicaid don't accept rebates because they look like bribes. Private insurance should follow the same rule.
True, but from what I read only 3 make insulin.
Also, the nature of insulin production and the constant refining of the formulation actually keep the base cost high.
Yes, patients should be counseled on cost, but u have a business model where in most cases the patient isn't actually exposed to the cost. That's why drug reps take doctors on golf trips not patients.
(02-06-2019, 09:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2019, 10:51 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ][quote pid='1192226' dateline='1549417433']
The point is that the price should be going down as the technology gets older and more of the initial investment and development is paid off.
But that's not how it actually works, because these firms don't actually compete with each other, and we can't actually walk away from them.
You can still buy the original for $20 a vile at Walmart. You dont need the newest label, it's just a consumerist desire.
Are you saying the humalog insulin is available for $20 per vial or that the older beef or pork insulin is available for that price?
(02-06-2019, 12:08 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes Mike, a decade of regulatory compliance causes a shortage of producers and thus lack of true competition.
But who are the producers?
The insurance companies, the hospitals, or the doctors?
[/quote]
Wait, are you saying you pay more for newer technology like that only happens in pharma?
(02-06-2019, 01:34 PM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2019, 06:11 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Ummmm, do any of you guys know how much it costs to bring a drug to market? It's more than a few bucks a dose.
To get it on to the market takes time and money. Once on the market all that's left is producing and shipping the product. All the research and development costs have been made,all regulatory obligations satisfied and all that's left is sales
Oh, so you dont then, your argument makes more sense now.
(02-06-2019, 02:44 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2019, 02:28 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]That's not how it works. Day one of the market you have to work at repaying all that r & d over time. It's not a magic wand and the consumer pays for a.) The cost of bringing the drug to market and the additional cost of capital not being invested to create a competing drug.
You're either being dense or obfuscating. Wrong_box knows how business works, and so do I. Nothing he said was wrong. It is reasonable for a new drug to be very expensive when it first enters the market. There is no reason for that price to increase afterwards. It should only ever go down until all of the initial investment, plus a reasonable margin, is paid off. Then and only then there could be small price increases due to the cost of inputs, like labor, or botanicals, or petroleum, changing. That is not what we see when we look at real drugs made by real companies. We see unexplained and very high price increases even as everything else we can measure remains constant. Again, look at Humalog insulin.
How much did it cost to bring that product to the market?