Ignorant Fecal Sack DJT

[Chap]

Those stompers who don't like a moksha joke are just meanies who shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion!!

What, is somebody stopping you from posting? Whence, then, come all the posts on this topic that you have produced in recent hours?

[Marcus]

Those stompers who don't like a moksha joke are just meanies who shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion!!

What, is somebody stopping you from posting? Whence, then, come all the posts on this topic that you have produced in recent hours?

Lol, no one, thankfully. (Thank you Shades! And thanks, Chap, for noticing my posts!)

Well, moksha did ask me to stop stomping him. That's not quite the same as disinviting and I inadvertently left the /s off the above sentence when I was channeling his response to me. Although I did write "should," not "did".

[Chap]

What, is somebody stopping you from posting? [...]

[...]Well, no one except moksha who asked me to stop stomping him. [...]

C'mon now. You know very well that Moksha asking you not to post about him in a certain way does not constitute stopping you posting. Nobody, but nobody, has stopped you posting, have they?

[Marcus]

[...]Well, no one except moksha who asked me to stop stomping him. [...]

C'mon now. You know very well that Moksha asking you not to post about him in a certain way does not constitute stopping you posting. Nobody, but nobody, has stopped you posting, have they?

Lol. I really need to use those /s's. NO ONE HAS STOPPED ME FROM POSTING, as I've stated repeatedly. I posted my opinion about a post, but your way of phrasing it is unclear. Why do you define moksha's response after I posted my opinion about his joke as "Moksha asking you not to post about him in a certain way"?

Is "a certain way" code for 'didn't like his joke'? Is a comedian asking someone to not express a negative opinion about his joke? Surely you jest.

[Chap]

Really, I am sure there are better to do than to continue this exchange which is of little general interest.

[Doctor Steuss]

There was an extensive non-partisan analysis completed on how many newly innovated drugs would not come to market as a result of the negotiations, as part of the process before the bill even made it to a vote. I'm sure you already read that analysis prior to making this embarrassingly ill-informed post, and it just slipped your mind.

I've been feeling embarrassed about this response. I committed a while back to treat interactions with others with the adage of "assume infinite intelligence, just limited knowledge."

I've been failing miserably at that. I was going to revisit this with the non-partisan analysis, but I think it might be more instructive to look at the drug where the biggest discount (79%) was negotiated.

Now, one would think that a drug's price would reflect its cost for development, initial and continued marketing costs, plus a base price that would be included in all new drugs to provide revenue for future development (it's wild how many compounds never ultimately see the light of day), and of course the fun capitalism component to pay shareholders for doing and contributing nothing.... because, reasons.

Januvia was brought to market in 2006. The announced price (in the October 23, 2006 press release) was $4.86 per tablet. That's about $146 a month. Now, let's fast-forward to 2012. The median cost was $212 a month. A short 6 years later, it was $396 a month. That's an 80% increase in just six years. Go forward another few years (to the time of negotiation) and it was $527 a month. Using an inflation calculator, and ignoring the fact that manufacturing and marketing costs generally go down the longer an unchanged pharmaceutical product is on the market, the initial cost in 2024 dollars would be $227.73.

Remember, these were negotiations. The Biden administration didn't send the military to Merck, and hold their executives hostage. They wouldn't have allowed this, if it wasn't still profitable. That's why, while Januvia was negotiated at a 79% discount, Imbruvica was at a 38% decrease.

Incidentally, the poor starving pharma company, that is going to apparently shutter its doors and stop innovating because of this... Merck... went from $39.12 billion in revenue 5 years ago to $62.48 billion in revenue the last twelve months.

As an aside, if you look at the ten drugs that the Biden administration negotiated, they are strategically done in a way that not a single pharma company had to negotiate a reduced price on more than one drug. The only one that was moderately close was Janssen, but even then it was a separate subsidiary for their Stelara vs their Xarelto. One thing to also keep in mind is that these go into effect in 2026. So, for Januvia, that's not even a full year of reduced exorbitant revenue for Merck as the 20-year patent was granted in 2006. This wasn't some haphazard "let's nuke innovation for the sake of fiscal responsibility." This was extremely strategic, and actually pretty conservative compared to the scenarios modeled within the impact analysis prior to the bill being voted on.

At least $6 billion in annual savings for the government (i.e. taxpayers), and at least $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket savings for Medicare participants. Every single year, on just 10 drugs. And the Republican roadmap wants to shutter it, because they have somehow become even more corporatist than the neoliberals that they claim are Marxists.

[Marcus]

Really, I am sure there are better to do than to continue this exchange which is of little general interest.

When you have questions it's sooo important to keep it up, but when I have questions, you bail! Gotcha. Moving on.

[Marcus]

There was an extensive non-partisan analysis completed on how many newly innovated drugs would not come to market as a result of the negotiations, as part of the process before the bill even made it to a vote. I'm sure you already read that analysis prior to making this embarrassingly ill-informed post, and it just slipped your mind.

I've been feeling embarrassed about this response. I committed a while back to treat interactions with others with the adage of "assume infinite intelligence, just limited knowledge."

I've been failing miserably at that. I was going to revisit this with the non-partisan analysis, but I think it might be more instructive to look at the drug where the biggest discount (79%) was negotiated.

Now, one would think that a drug's price would reflect its cost for development, initial and continued marketing costs, plus a base price that would be included in all new drugs to provide revenue for future development (it's wild how many compounds never ultimately see the light of day), and of course the fun capitalism component to pay shareholders for doing and contributing nothing.... because, reasons.

Januvia was brought to market in 2006. The announced price (in the October 23, 2006 press release) was $4.86 per tablet. That's about $146 a month. Now, let's fast-forward to 2012. The median cost was $212 a month. A short 6 years later, it was $396 a month. That's an 80% increase in just six years. Go forward another few years (to the time of negotiation) and it was $527 a month. Using an inflation calculator, and ignoring the fact that manufacturing and marketing costs generally go down the longer an unchanged pharmaceutical product is on the market, the initial cost in 2024 dollars would be $227.73.

Remember, these were negotiations. The Biden administration didn't send the military to Merck, and hold their executives hostage. They wouldn't have allowed this, if it wasn't still profitable. That's why, while Januvia was negotiated at a 79% discount, Imbruvica was at a 38% decrease.

Incidentally, the poor starving pharma company, that is going to apparently shutter its doors and stop innovating because of this... Merck... went from $39.12 billion in revenue 5 years ago to $62.48 billion in revenue the last twelve months.

As an aside, if you look at the ten drugs that the Biden administration negotiated, they are strategically done in a way that not a single pharma company had to negotiate a reduced price on more than one drug. The only one that was moderately close was Janssen, but even then it was a separate subsidiary for their Stelara vs their Xarelto. One thing to also keep in mind is that these go into effect in 2026. So, for Januvia, that's not even a full year of reduced exorbitant revenue for Merck as the 20-year patent was granted in 2006. This wasn't some haphazard "let's nuke innovation for the sake of fiscal responsibility." This was extremely strategic, and actually pretty conservative compared to the scenarios modeled within the impact analysis prior to the bill being voted on.

At least $6 billion in annual savings for the government (i.e. taxpayers), and at least $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket savings for Medicare participants. Every single year, on just 10 drugs. And the Republican roadmap wants to shutter it, because they have somehow become even more corporatist than the neoliberals that they claim are Marxists.

Excellent analysis, Dr. Steuss, thank you. Rewarding pharma companies with patents in exchange for innovation monies spent was a way to deal with the externality of research, but you have very clearly outlined the additional externality of the result unfairly discriminating against people who need the drug to survive, creating a captive or monopoly market, in effect, and the current policy in place to alleviate that externality. Nicely done.

[Dr Exiled]

Aww, two more non-stompers on Moksha!! He should feel better now. Those stompers who don't like a moksha joke are just meanies who shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion!!

(Not really. All are invited here. )

Please express yourself.

[dantana]

So, we could probably actually survive another four years of just the one fecal cow stack out in the pasture. The problem is all the other ones that come with him. Steven Miller, Bannon, Stone, etc.

A true cattle rancher can walk out through the pasture and seemingly, to the casual observer, never look down and still miss the pies. In this case though, not even Will Rogers could get across.