Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
seanbrock

2020 Democratic Primary Race

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Insulin isn't the only one by. Looooooooong shot. Heart medication, antacids, antibiotics, I mean that happens everywhere.

 

The number is usually 20 years when you a member of the WHO. And there are a god plenty of extensions for patents.

https://www.upcounsel.com/how-long-do-medical-patents-last

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Omerta said:

Insulin isn't the only one by. Looooooooong shot. Heart medication, antacids, antibiotics, I mean that happens everywhere.

There's generics for all of those? Amoxicillin is a generic antibiotic. Famotodine is a generic antacid. Carvedilol is a generic heart medication. There isn't a generic for every single medicine, sure, but there is after seven years for the vast majority of them, and none of them, to my knowledge, are even close to 60 years old and don't have a generic. That is unique to insulin. I work in the pharmaceutical industry, I deal with this every day on the job. Can you give me a specific example you're referring to here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And rare diseases you can 7 year extensions on top of new use. Then reformulate it and make it weaker so you from a pill a day to three and boom another 20...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont quote me but I think MDMA had a patent for over 70. I will look it up later though for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Drugs that treat rare diseases oftentimes don't have generics, but the reason is not evil or price-gouging, its capitalism- there aren't enough people that need that specific type of drug in order for someone to make a generic and turn a profit. In other words, the patent has expired, but no one has yet made a generic. Insulin is a common need for Americans, and it would absolutely have one by now if this shit wasn't done.

MDMA? Ecstasy? As far as I am aware, there is no medical benefit to MDMA. There's an ongoing study seeing if it helps with PTSD, but that's it. So it never went to market at all, so the patent never really was activated, and eventually lapsed due to non-usage. Had it gone to market, the 7 years would have kicked in there.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

Drugs that treat rare diseases oftentimes don't have generics, but the reason is not evil or price-gouging, its capitalism- there aren't enough people that need that specific type of drug in order for someone to make a generic and turn a profit. In other words, the patent has expired, but no one has yet made a generic. Insulin is a common need for Americans, and it would absolutely have one by now if this shit wasn't done.

MDMA? Ecstasy? As far as I am aware, there is no medical benefit to MDMA. There's an ongoing study seeing if it helps with PTSD, but that's it. So it never went to market at all, so the patent never really was activated, and eventually lapsed due to non-usage. Had it gone to market, the 7 years would have kicked in there.

Did you read that article I linked. It was a law firm stating it was 20 years which is what I always thought it was 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I did not, I think you edited it in after I saw your post. I am thinking of the extension most people get when the drug gets approved for medical usage- which is generally 7 years- not the original patent.

And I actually would not support lowering the original patent- at least in this current environment- to 10 for this reason: Most of the time it takes more than 10 years to get a drug approved. For example Carvedilol was discovered in 1978 and only medically approved in the US in 1995. The 20 year patent is given when the drug is discovered and the patent applied for- so in this case 1978. Generally speaking, they then give a 7 year extension when the drug hits the market, if it has been a large amount of time, otherwise you would do all the work and then someone else would just make a generic. Had they not given Carvedilol an extension, the patent would only have protected Coreg- the brand name- for 3 years. 

Possibly we could do a different way, where we give them 7 years after the drug hits the market- which is generally granted via an extension, but this extension is on top of whatever time is left on the patent- and thus you wouldn't punish people for the FDA moving so damn slow.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

I did not, I think you edited it in after I saw your post. I am thinking of the extension most people get when the drug gets approved for medical usage- which is generally 7 years- not the original patent.

And I actually would not support lowering the original patent- at least in this current environment- to 10 for this reason: Most of the time it takes more than 10 years to get a drug approved. For example Carvedilol was discovered in 1978 and only medically approved in the US in 1995. The 20 year patent is given when the drug is discovered and the patent applied for- so in this case 1978. Generally speaking, they then give a 7 year extension when the drug hits the market, if it has been a large amount of time, otherwise you would do all the work and then someone else would just make a generic. Had they not given Carvedilol an extension, the patent would only have protected Coreg- the brand name- for 3 years. 

Possibly we could do a different way, where we give them 7 years after the drug hits the market- which is generally granted via an extension, but this extension is on top of whatever time is left on the patent- and thus you wouldn't punish people for the FDA moving so damn slow.

I did edit it. That said there is a new use extension for that purpose. And they can just reformulate the  Dosage, or the method of ingestion and boom, another 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever the 1st extension end is irrelevant to so long as its reasonable. Is common United 5, 7 , 10, 15 whatever the case may be, just as long as they end at some point. After  That everyone has access to the formula.

 That right there would go a long way in making health care far more affordable, and accessible. And yet, for some reason no one is talking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primaries are ridiculous. Pushes parties to the extremes because candidates want to stand out and get the hardcore votes needed to win the primary. Ends up being all pie in the sky bullshit, race baiting/pandering, and fear mongering. They (dems) literally just have to put out someone that'll draw moderates and they win, easily.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BJORN said:

Primaries are ridiculous. Pushes parties to the extremes because candidates want to stand out and get the hardcore votes needed to win the primary. Ends up being all pie in the sky bullshit, race baiting/pandering, and fear mongering. They (dems) literally just have to put out someone that'll draw moderates and they win, easily.  

 This is the thing I don't understand. They spend so much time going for the hardcore extreme liberal, which are far less in number than moderates. And yet they pander to those votes, I just don't understand it from a strategic standpoint. That is one of the things I love about tulsi's campaign, is she is all for medicare, but she doesn't want to abolish private insurance which is something moderates are all for. I just don't understand why they do that, if they lose they literally have nothing to blame a set for their own incompetence. Literally when you look at a moderate liberal agenda, there isn't a whole lot of selling that has to be done. It's a really good system, they just refuse to get on board with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because a lot of those moderates are not registered to vote in the Dem primary. Hell, a lot of states you CANT register unless you're a member of that party. So those people will never get the Dem's nomination. It's how we got Trump- same problem, other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Omerta said:

I did edit it. That said there is a new use extension for that purpose. And they can just reformulate the  Dosage, or the method of ingestion and boom, another 20 years.

Well, it wouldn't be 20, it would be 7 or w/e the extension is. But the fact remains that of the common drugs in the US marketplace, only insulin has abused this out the ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, seanbrock said:

So then how would you like the system to work if it was up to you?  How you gonna pay for it? You gonna leave it up to markets or some kind of hybrid? You think regular peeps should get basic shitty insurance and people who pay more should get something better? You like ACA with a public option? How do we control premiums and medications? 

You called down the thunder, now you got it. I have got a computer so hang onto your ass. Dramatic intro over, this is what I would do if it were up to me. 

I would like to start by saying this would be a hybrid approach. I think there should be MINIMAL government involvement after initiation and let a fair marketplace develop within the following framework. I will also add that this is not me trying to shit on poor people or rich people and I am not one who has just lived the blessed life I have now. I was a broke down alcoholic who blamed everyone else for not respecting a national hero such as myself and giving me free shit. It was so bad and I was so entitled that I drank myself into a wallowing pit of misery, entitlement, alcoholism, and homelessness. Not homeless like living with my parents, homelessness like sleeping in the band shell at Wright Park, and stealing food from Applebees every night before 11 but after 8 or else the manager would call the cops. This is not for pity, this is so you dont get on your soapbox and say, "Well you and your Dr.Wife" as though we have never felt the crushing isolation of despair and desperation. I have been there so before you accuse me of being just lucky enough to be wealthy know this. 

 

1.) Eliminate medical coding. The coding system we have is time consuming, massively inefficient, and adds to administrative costs that account for 25% of all medical expenses. now I would understand if they were value added but that is simply not the case. There are codes for people who get burns inflicted from water skis bursting into flames. This is no bullshit that is actually a medical billing code. this is a pedantic process that needs to be done away with. I can see codes for incisions, contusions, trauma, and so on and another code for where they are on the body but that is all it would really need to be. This would save us billions annually, and the job could be done by nurses better, more efficiently, and with better details. 

2.) Refine our databases and medical systems.  WE are using technology that is in the 1980's. Can someone tell me why we need a faxed copy of everything? I get the signed orders argument, but then yet again, there is this nifty thing called E-sign. The stats on this alone would save us billions.  Over 60% of physicians in this country rate their communication avenues as poor because there are so many old systems that things will end up on some ladys desk for 3 days at the bottom of a pile meanwhile there is an appointment made nobody knows about but the doctor and the patient which causes latency in billing and insurance billing. There is no reason there can not be a central database cannot be created where a patients chart, medical history, allergies, and preferences are loaded into it. If I can Wikipedia a guy who is famous for playing symbols in India there is no reason that we cannot find a better way to collate data into useful information that can be pulled up by everyone in under a few seconds. This just makes no sense to not do. Add into that that every one doctor has about 4 support staff to handle the 20,000 document per year average for a physician. This is the equivalent of paying two doctors. This makes no sense, and is an unnecessary expense for these jobs. 30% of all tests are reordered because nobody can find the results. That means every year  30% of test costs are for nothing. That alone would also save us an estimated 250 billion per year. As a little parting note on this point 86% of mistakes made in this country in regards to healthcare are administrative. Is there a reason we have not done this yet? Absolutely. 

3.) Abolish networks. There is no more in network and out of network. Your insurance covers wherever you go. There is no more,

"Got to Multicare"

"I cant because Franciscan is in Network" 

"Well you can get a referral" 

65% of the time in this country you have to go to a referred out of network provider so insurance picks it up as a higher cost because the hospital does not do business with that particular insurance network. This costs a hospital 971K per year per physician. Think about that. And who are they passing the costs too. Yep you.  This is a massive problem.  This helps insurance companies as well because they no longer have to pay higher costs for not being in a network. Hospitals will again serve their community not their network. 

4.) Tort reform. Have you ever gone to a hospital for a runny nose and then you get a bill with 2 EKG's, 7 Ultrasounds, 2 X-rays, and an anal probe? And you are wondering why you have $50, 000 dollars worth of medical expenses for a runny nose? Its because do nothing bitch douchebags are waiting to sue a doctor because their mal practice insurance will cover it. Doctors run unnecessary tests just to make 100% certain that runny nose isn't ragged red fiber disease because you will come back and sue them. There are times doctors need to be held liable but the overwhelming amount are bullshit. If you go to a doctor you must realize that they are people who make mistakes too. You should not be able to sue them because they didn't see a genetic disorder when you came in for your check up that they didn't get the results of because of number 2. This drives up the cost of insurance for doctors who then negotiate their rates with hospitals to get raises to cover this expense. Which they then pass back on to every one else. Its stupid and often times unnecessary, but thanks to the stupid bitch at McDonalds here we are. 

5.) Eliminate patents on medications after 10 years. So how the medical industry works with "Big Pharma" is that they can hold onto a patent almost indefinitely by doing some shady shit. So if they have a drug that they think is a winner they are going to get a 20 year patent. Then there are extensions they can get that range anywhere from 6 months to seven years. Then when the patent comes up they are going to say that the 30 mg single pill dosage you have been getting for 10 years is now 3 10mg pills because they have changed the method of delivery because they reformulated it and then BOOM another 20 years. It happens often which is why we now know "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli because Daraprim was under patent and he raised prices enormously. This is where capitalism is awesome. If we tell pharmaceutical companies you have 10 years after you bring a product to market to recoup those costs, then it is open source knowledge. What happens? Ten years and one day later 600 companies are waiting to add this drug to their arsenal with price being the only differentiating factor which will drive down the prices of pharmaceuticals. This is a great example of the market economy doing what it is supposed to.

6.)  Eliminate shareholders from medicine. Take all the money from the saving above and replace that money from shareholders with the money already in the system with government grants. These grants will already be funded form above. if all of those saving where to happen there would be an estimated $500 billion for research on an annual basis which would keep American at the forefront of technology as we currently are. Right now research companies and Big Pharma are beholden to the shareholders and the stakeholders because they are the ones that keep the lights burning. If you replace that with the government along with the other changes mentioned there is more than enough money to keep innovation alive. 

7.)  Replace hospital CEO's with boards of medicine. A hospital Ceo really does nothing that can be done better by a board of doctors and considering they make millions in salary they are no value added and they are getting paid for something a board and an accountant could do just as well. IT really is a pretty useless position. 

 

If you did these things you could revolutionize medicine in this country and make access and affordability to healthcare something that is attainable for everyone. There is enough money from making it run more efficiently and saving the government ER visits and current inefficient medicare insurance that you could afford to keep everyone happy.  And not a damn one of these raise your taxes, but that is not what people want to hear. We must take from the rich and yadda yadda because I am a woke liberal and will not do my own research. The only way this is possible is taking from the rich and lowering standards of care of those with private insurance. That is what healthcare would look like if I had my druthers about it. Way better than the bullshit anybody on that podium is spouting. Every wonder why we dont hear about this, because they are all bought in one way or another. NOT A SINGLE DOLLAR would be taken from the middle class, or any class. 

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

Well, it wouldn't be 20, it would be 7 or w/e the extension is. But the fact remains that of the common drugs in the US marketplace, only insulin has abused this out the ass.

No, but they can reformulate the drug in a myriad of ways to get another 20 years. Even then though it can still be 27 years before it becomes public domain that is too lone. Insulin is abused out the ass, but a lot of the reason we dont see it with other companies is because they rename things that are basically the same thing to get it to go through the FDA and the patents office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

Because a lot of those moderates are not registered to vote in the Dem primary. Hell, a lot of states you CANT register unless you're a member of that party. So those people will never get the Dem's nomination. It's how we got Trump- same problem, other side.

I mean that is the sad part isnt it. Democrats have a few moderates but wont push them. I dont get it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tort reform is a scary road to go down. Especially with the supreme Court ruling that allows employers to force employees to sign a forced arbitration agreement instead of pursuing a lawsuit as a condition of employment. I know it's not exactly related but it is a form of tort control and the court we have right now doesn't have a good take on that. Litigation is one of the few ways people can stand up to big money. It's not perfect and there are people who abuse it but damn, there's gotta be a better way than limiting people's right to sue. I'm uneasy about ever giving up rights and before you ask I'm not really anti-gun bit honestly mostly because you ain't getting all the guns and I think it would create a very dangerous black market if people couldn't buy them legally. Any machinist can make a gun and we're getting close to being able to fucking print them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

Tort reform is a scary road to go down. Especially with the supreme Court ruling that allows employers to force employees to sign a forced arbitration agreement instead of pursuing a lawsuit as a condition of employment. I know it's not exactly related but it is a form of tort control and the court we have right now doesn't have a good take on that. Litigation is one of the few ways people can stand up to big money. It's not perfect and there are people who abuse it but damn, there's gotta be a better way than limiting people's right to sue. I'm uneasy about ever giving up rights and before you ask I'm not really anti-gun bit honestly mostly because you ain't getting all the guns and I think it would create a very dangerous black market if people couldn't buy them legally. Any machinist can make a gun and we're getting close to being able to fucking print them.

Tort reform is necessary too many people are sue happy. Standing up when you've been wronged, I'm all for it. In the medical industry though when you are talking a millimeter between good outcomes and bad we need to be understanding. You are going to them because they are the best and sometime the best isnt enough. Take your losses and move on.

 

Now if a patient dies and the doctor is sleeping in his car sure.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole idea that people are too sue happy is corporate nonsense. Sure, there are people who sue frivolously, the answer is to have judges that will throw out frivolous cases, not revoke people's right to make corporations pay when they screw up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kamala Harris dropped another 5 points in Quinnipiacs latest poll. She’s down to 7% after being up to 20% after debates 1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Thanatos said:

The whole idea that people are too sue happy is corporate nonsense. Sure, there are people who sue frivolously, the answer is to have judges that will throw out frivolous cases, not revoke people's right to make corporations pay when they screw up.

Massive difference between corporations and doctors. It is absolute fact in the medical field and anybody who doesn't think so has not done research or is talking out of their ass. 

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That alt right guy Joe Rogan just had Bernie on his podcast. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He’s been trying to get Bernie on since forever. Bernie must’ve pulled that stick out of his ass. Lol. Haven’t listened yet but will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

He’s been trying to get Bernie on since forever. Bernie must’ve pulled that stick out of his ass. Lol. Haven’t listened yet but will

Probably because like Omerta said, he was afraid of getting hit with the sexist card which I'm not sure why because they're going to use it against him anyway and really they have been for 3 years now.

Also it's kind of funny how much this Epstein shit has died down. If it were any of us running a news org REGARDLESS of our political aftiliation, I think it's safe to say that we would covering it a hell of a lot more. You want Trump in jail? You want Clinton(s) in jail? There's something for everyone. Throw all those fuckers in GITMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still dont want him as president and I dont think he was anymore original in his solutions other tha, "Taxes, we need more taxes. We are the only developed ones who dont do this or that." 

Well I dont want to be like those countries or I would live in those countries. I have visited several and they great for 2 or 3 weeks but then it's time to leave.

That said he came across as a tad more realistic and sensible than usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×