Meanwhile, at the Capital...

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: GSK and Novo Nordisk report net profits in the 20-25% range. Hardly single digits. I'll bet individual products are in the triple digit margin range.

Let me guess, the most profitable companies in the segment? Having a good year? How about the average, that might be more relevant number (which seems to contradict your numbers). BTW he was referring to medical device manufactures not pharma.

http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/average-profit-margin-pharmaceuticals-20671.html

(quote from article above):

Pharma Industry Profit Margins

According to Yahoo! Finance’s industry summary, the average profit margin for generic drug companies as of April 2013 is 5.4 percent. The largest average profit margin is for major drug manufacturers at 18.4 percent. This group includes Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb. For the "other drug manufacturers" category, which includes Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Allergan, the average margin drops to 12.2 percent. These segments of the pharmaceutical industry have high barriers to entry due to high research and development costs tied to U.S. Food and Drug Administration compliance; these costs can exceed hundreds of millions of dollars.

More Profit Margins

The average profit margin for publicly traded drug wholesalers, including Cardinal Health and McKesson Corporation, is the lowest in the pharmaceutical industry at 1.30 percent. The profit margin for drug-related product producers, which includes Herbalife and USANA Health Sciences, is 11.7 percent. The latter category is sometimes referred to as nutraceuticals. More small businesses operate in these segments.

oldsaw wrote: ...You're right in that the old system was terribly flawed. I also agree with the basics of your economic analysis. But, I not remotely convinced that trading multiple layers of profit for multiple layers of bureaucracy is an attractive or affordable alternative...

Which brings up the question: What is the R's plan?

There may be one, but I have not heard of it (apparently this one is a variation of an R plan). This is another problem with their "stop the ACA at all costs" stance. They appear to have no alternative, other then the current (former?) system, which almost everyone admits is far from ideal. Certainly doesn't help strengthen their position.

I was gonna put this in the GGA thread, but it seemed to fit here better.

aircooled wrote:

Flight Service wrote: ...The unpaid bills are given as tax write off to the hospitals and medical facilities, not the people...

Soooo, this makes it free? This is kind of like saying "its not hurting anyone, the insurance company pays" So the hospitals are paying less tax because of all these expenses. Taxes are collected for a purpose. If the hospitals don't pay their "share" someone else has to make that up, and obviously "the people" will pay more taxes in some way (or pay more to someone else who does) to cover it.

I am not trying to be snarky, I am trying to understand your logic. so please bare with me.

So if the hospitals have to pay their taxes, because the insurance people pay the hospitals and the people who are on insurance pay them, how is this short falling the government or doubling down on the tax payer?

oldsaw wrote:

Flight Service wrote: The unpaid bills are given as tax write off to the hospitals and medical facilities, not the people

OK; that still means previously uninsured are on the hook for high-deductibles which will then be funded by the govt. The plan only works if it appeals to younger, healthy people and they forego the penalty. The penalty is very low and the "easy button". If those who cannot afford it are also subsidized, we have an even deeper spending deficit when ordinary folks are real, real tired of watching govt doing things they (themselves) cannot rationally do.

How is that funded by the government. I don't see the logic jump here, please clarify. I see the people who are healthy now have a bottom tier plan (for some reason the plans are metal base, so this would be bronze.) that basically gives them catestrophic coverage. These people won't use it much but it does go into the pool of money for the carriers. The government isn't a provider.

Your comment seems like it is getting the exchanges and the Medicaid/Medicare expansion mixed.

When you are in the exchanges you are on an insurance coop. ADP used to do this for small businesses that uses their check services. You have an option to join with other small business to get the big business group rate. You will have an insurance company just like if you are at work.

oldsaw wrote:

Flight Service wrote: As I said in an earlier post, they have done and incredibly poor job of selling it and getting rid of the mis-information. They aren't crossing Ts and dotting Is. But then again they are politicians...

Being politicians is but one excuse; there are many others that go far beyond crossing T's and dotting I's.

I will go back to another post statement, "I give too much credit to DC for IQ"

oldsaw wrote:

Flight Service wrote: Also as I said before, the ACA isn't the answer or the end all be all, but the old system was killing us. You can not have that many mark ups on something and it stay affordable and not bloated. I count 3 levels of mark up, I suspect there is more. And they aren't looking at 10% either. Now profit isn't a dirty word, but too much crushes the customer base. And what is worse, the extra levels don't add value. Ask any business owner here, if you can't get a volume discount by going through a distributor it is always better to buy direct. If there is no value ad, service, cost savings, extra, always buy direct. Since with insurance you can't buy direct in most cases (direct to Dr., hospital, meds, etc) or straight insurance (looked at single person plans recently?) Direct isn't an option so the exchanges and regulations get the volume discounts.

You're right in that the old system was terribly flawed. I also agree with the basics of your economic analysis. But, I not remotely convinced that trading multiple layers of profit for multiple layers of bureaucracy is an attractive or affordable alternative.

Once again, not bureaucracy. I think you are getting the expansions and the medicaid/medicare and taxes all mixed up. Exchange summary is simple. Your in a coop group. All insurance must cover certain things. Insurance companies are no longer allowed to gouge through the roof, they must go to a cost +30% system. Calling this bureaucracy is like calling the the off-sides rule in football bureaucracy. It's a rule. Now the bureaucracy comes in for the insurance companies. I am sure there is plenty there.

oldsaw wrote:

Flight Service wrote: Even if this one fails it shows they can make changes and gives them something new to build on.

Something about that thought process makes me wonder about the next occurrence of a 1906 magnitude earthquake in modern day San Francisco.

Well the they are looking at Fracking in Northern California so I say 3 years.

aircooled wrote:

oldsaw wrote: ...You're right in that the old system was terribly flawed. I also agree with the basics of your economic analysis. But, I not remotely convinced that trading multiple layers of profit for multiple layers of bureaucracy is an attractive or affordable alternative...

Which brings up the question: What is the R's plan? There may be one, but I have not heard of it (apparently this one is a variation of an R plan). This is another problem with their "stop the ACA at all costs" stance. They appear to have no alternative, other then the current (former?) system, which almost everyone admits is far from ideal. Certainly doesn't help strengthen their position.

Aircooled, that's the problem. This is the R's plan. The Heritage Foundation wrote the original version and failed to get it passed in the 90's with Newt Gingrich pushing it. Then Romney passed it in Massachusetts. They have no plan because this was their plan. That is why all of this is political. They are pissed the Dems stole their idea and are taking credit for it. They aren't afraid of it failing they are afraid it is going to work. Because they wrote it.

Right, Left or Independent. Like Obama or not the one thing you can't say about him is that he is original.

Flight Service wrote: ....So if the hospitals have to pay their taxes, because the insurance people pay the hospitals and the people who are on insurance pay them, how is this short falling the government or doubling down on the tax payer?

Hmmmm, brain now spinning....

...well, you said that a tax right off had no effect on the people, but ultimately "the people" always pay, that is all I was saying...

...maybe we are saying different things.

Flight Service wrote: ....How is that funded by the government. I don't see the logic jump here, please clarify....

I think he is saying that the new plans are subsidized by the government if you are lower income (which I would think most of them would be), so that is a government cost.

I really don't know what percentage of the new benefits and services (which there clearly are) are absorbed by higher insurance cost or by the government (which theoretically should come back to tax payers).

aircooled wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: GSK and Novo Nordisk report net profits in the 20-25% range. Hardly single digits. I'll bet individual products are in the triple digit margin range.

Let me guess, the most profitable companies in the segment? Having a good year? How about the average, that might be more relevant number (which seems to contradict your numbers).

Nope just two public companies I could pull off the tops of my head. And the numbers come from last years filings. Gotta love public companies you can basically figure out everything from the annual report and any 10k's.

aircooled wrote:

Flight Service wrote: ....So if the hospitals have to pay their taxes, because the insurance people pay the hospitals and the people who are on insurance pay them, how is this short falling the government or doubling down on the tax payer?

Hmmmm, brain now spinning.... ...well, you said that a tax right off had no effect on the people, but ultimately "the people" always pay, that is all I was saying... ...maybe we are saying different things.

The tax payer is now buying insurance to so there is an added cost. there is also the fact that wellness check ups are included, which would lower chronic disease costs due to early detection, which would also lower costs.

On a side note, how frickin' early do you guys get on here in the mornings????

Flight Service wrote:

aircooled wrote: Which brings up the question: What is the R's plan? There may be one, but I have not heard of it (

Aircooled, that's the problem. This is the R's plan. The Heritage Foundation wrote the original version and failed to get it passed in the 90's with Newt Gingrich pushing it. Then Romney passed it in Massachusetts.

Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation drafted the original plan. He claims there were significant differences between what he drafted and the ACA. Most notably:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-03/health-individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1

the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance. Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick. And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.

Read that entire link. Then read this one from the WSJ where they take issue with some of Butler's points.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577211161144786448.html

Flight Service wrote: On a side note, how frickin' early do you guys get on here in the mornings????

Fueled never sleeps man, its all that Coke man.......

Time zones and night time man......

I've been known to post anywhere from 8am in the morning until 3-5 on the next morning.....perks of only being able to sleep 4-5hrs.

Government Shutdown has been planned since Obama's re-election and funded by the Koch Brothers.

Well that settles that one.

Flight Service wrote: Government Shutdown has been planned since Obama's re-election and funded by the Koch Brothers. Well that settles that one.

Apparently I just stepped onto the set of Newsroom ROFL!

yamaha wrote:

Flight Service wrote: On a side note, how frickin' early do you guys get on here in the mornings????

Fueled never sleeps man, its all that Coke man.......

5 am or so... I'm up.

Appleseed wrote:

Over qualified

The DCMA was forced back to work. Looks like the furloughs were cancelled.

Perhaps Im oversimplifying things a bit, but here is the argument I keep having internally:

I understand the cost of medical care was becoming so astronomical, that even lower middle class citizens were having a hard time covering it, even with the (admittedly flawed) insurance/medical care system in place 3 years ago.

The ACA is "reportedly" designed to help low income citizens obtain insurance coverage to pay for those astronomical bills.

If the problem is the bills were too high, or the cost of coverage was too high, why didnt we focus on bringing the costs down, and not on how to make it possible to get subsidized care?

If the costs for medical care were driven sky high because medical providers had to carry stupid high insurance against malpractice suits, and they needed to carry this because it had become easy to bring a case against a provider for almost nothing, then why didnt uncle sam go after the lawyers/legal system that makes this possible? Dropping the cost of care makes it easy(er) to pay for. More bills paid means more taxes collected. Everybody wins.

If the cost of insurance is high because the system limited who you could purchase coverage from by forming a sort of localized monopoly, or because the insurance providers were gouging their customers by charging ludicrous amounts of money for coverage (or both), and were restricting a "free market" system for purchasing coverage, why didnt uncle sam go after the state line restrictions for purchasing insurance or regulate the providers so they cannot gouge their customers...or both? It seems to me a free market in this industry wouldve driven costs down to levels the market would support...am I wrong?

Im not necessarily an opponent of ACA, but I think that there were many many other options to make care more affordable for lower income folks that didnt regulate the end consumers options, but did regulate the industry.

In the end, as much as the O wants to sound like he just wants to help the children...wont you think of the children? ...hes really just posturing for his party. Another govt handout designed to keep the unwashed masses voting D in elections. O-Phone, O-care, foodstamps for everyone..."keep me elected, Im here to help you! Oh and youll never work another day in your life. How much do you love me now???"

Its been posted the Rs arent offering up any alternatives...or anything of value even. This is actually not false, they really arent. No jobs bills, no trade equity bills, no energy independence ideas, nothing...just gay chicken sandwiches and whatnot. But the Ds are offering about the same...nothing. Like, people will need to do nothing, and we will take care of you.

kick em all out.

In reply to 4cylndrfury:

I like your logic. And I also say, kick 'em all out. Ain't none of them doing what we elected them to do.

A co-worker of mine, who used to be a self-described Conservative, quit after he realized that all a "Conservative" is is a "Lagging Liberal".

4cylndrfury wrote: ...nothing...just gay chicken sandwiches and whatnot.

Are they gay chickens better for sandwich meat or do they just use them because they produce no eggs and don't breed? Or is it a homophobic farmer thing?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: ...nothing...just gay chicken sandwiches and whatnot.

Are they gay chickens better for sandwich meat or do they just use them because they produce no eggs and don't breed? Or is it a homophobic farmer thing?

They use the gay chickens because their flamboyant presentation gets customers in the door.

I like where these last two comments have gone, thanks for making me laugh guys.....