• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Administration does something right!!

phattonez said:
Or we could stop the absurd practice of advertising prescription medicines to the public.
Click to expand...

This is a democracy. This is a country where people think they know more than the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on climate change. So it's not hard to market all sorts of weird expensive medicines to them so they go and bug their doctor to give them the stuff. I know a doctor who has just stopped trying, and just gives people whatever they want. Sure, they may not need that antibiotic for that sore throat, but if he doesn't give it to them, they will just get online and give him a bad review and destroy his reputation. So he just gives them what they want even if they don't really need it, and everyone's happy. He gets great reviews and everyone loves him. Who cares if antibiotic resistance is on the rise. That's someone else's problem.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why would it be a bad idea for patients to know what medications cost up front?
Click to expand...

Because there is no way to know what the medication costs up front. There are myriad of fee schedules etc from the insurance companies that dictate what the actual cost is IF ANY.. to the consumer.
Not to mention dosing schedules that affect cost. One medication may cost more per pill. But it needs less pills per day.. so ultimately its cheaper.

So.. lets say that there are two advertised drugs..both are blood thinners. One called thinner A has an advertised cost of 300 dollars per month of pills.

The other drug thinner B, has a cost of 150 dollars a day..and has much more risks than thinner A..but its advertised price is less.


So.. of course a patient on blood thinner B.. doesn't ask his doctor about blood thinner B.. because.. well its just too expensive.


But.. what patient doesn't know.. is that 1. Based on his insurance schedule..the out of pocket costs for blood thinner A.. are actually LESS... because the insurance company has negotiated a better rate for this drug.. AND because blood thinner A.. needs less costly monitoring than blood thinner B.. so overall costs to the patient is LOWER with blood thinner A... AND has the bonus of actually being better for the patient.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
If I call my local auto parts store for the cost of a water pump, and they tell me $500, I'm going to call another place and ask them. If they say $100, then I'll buy it there.

Pill ads are more like, use this water pump. Just look at all of the happy people playing with puppies and walking through wild flowers. Shouldn't you ask your mechanic?

all without mentioning price.

Sell water pumps like that, and they won't cost $500. They'll cost $5,000, just like the pills they advertise ad nauseam.
Click to expand...

Whoa their cowboy. Selling water pumps like that won't cost 5000. Why would it?


You mean that when you find out about a new water pump..thats advertised to be better than the water pump you were planning on buying....that you won't go check price?

You really think you won't call to find out what that water pump is going to actually cost..and whether it may cost more.. but will last longer and so be more cost effective...

just because you saw an advertisement on TV?

Come on.

The way you are really getting fleeced for your water pump.. is that you AREN"T getting any advertisements for water pumps. You have no idea whats available..and what differences in quality etc.. that are available.

So.. you go into your mechanic.. and he says.. you need x water pump.. because that's the waterpump that he gets a kickback on.. and the more pumps he sells..the bigger his bonus.

So you end up paying for a poor waterpump.. because you only rely on the mechanic.
 
jaeger19 said:
Whoa their cowboy. Selling water pumps like that won't cost 5000. Why would it?


You mean that when you find out about a new water pump..thats advertised to be better than the water pump you were planning on buying....that you won't go check price?

You really think you won't call to find out what that water pump is going to actually cost..and whether it may cost more.. but will last longer and so be more cost effective...

just because you saw an advertisement on TV?

Come on.

The way you are really getting fleeced for your water pump.. is that you AREN"T getting any advertisements for water pumps. You have no idea whats available..and what differences in quality etc.. that are available.

So.. you go into your mechanic.. and he says.. you need x water pump.. because that's the waterpump that he gets a kickback on.. and the more pumps he sells..the bigger his bonus.

So you end up paying for a poor waterpump.. because you only rely on the mechanic.
Click to expand...

Why would water pumps sold the same way pills are sold cost $5,000? Well, that's how much pills cost, so why not? To be fair, the cost would have to be complicated and obfuscated by being covered by one insurance or another first.

And, if you can't trust your mechanic, you need to find a new one. Same with your doctor.
 
jaeger19 said:
Because there is no way to know what the medication costs up front. There are myriad of fee schedules etc from the insurance companies that dictate what the actual cost is IF ANY.. to the consumer.
Not to mention dosing schedules that affect cost. One medication may cost more per pill. But it needs less pills per day.. so ultimately its cheaper.

So.. lets say that there are two advertised drugs..both are blood thinners. One called thinner A has an advertised cost of 300 dollars per month of pills.

The other drug thinner B, has a cost of 150 dollars a day..and has much more risks than thinner A..but its advertised price is less.


So.. of course a patient on blood thinner B.. doesn't ask his doctor about blood thinner B.. because.. well its just too expensive.


But.. what patient doesn't know.. is that 1. Based on his insurance schedule..the out of pocket costs for blood thinner A.. are actually LESS... because the insurance company has negotiated a better rate for this drug.. AND because blood thinner A.. needs less costly monitoring than blood thinner B.. so overall costs to the patient is LOWER with blood thinner A... AND has the bonus of actually being better for the patient.
Click to expand...

Since they're able to explain every scary side effect possible while showing warm puppies and hoping you aren't listening, I'm sure they can do the same with costs. Anyway, the cost is the cost, and they could do the same thing that car dealers do: Never mind the sticker! We'll give you $xxxx off.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why would water pumps sold the same way pills are sold cost $5,000? Well, that's how much pills cost, so why not? To be fair, the cost would have to be complicated and obfuscated by being covered by one insurance or another first.

And, if you can't trust your mechanic, you need to find a new one. Same with your doctor.
Click to expand...

Umm sir.. their are plenty of pills that cost much less than a water pump for your car.

Yep...if you can't trust your mechanic you need to find a new one. And the way you know you can't trust your mechanic.. or doctor is when you have competing information for alternatives and you are better informed..

Putting meaningless "costs".. on drug advertisements doesn't better inform people.. it makes them less informed.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Since they're able to explain every scary side effect possible while showing warm puppies and hoping you aren't listening, I'm sure they can do the same with costs. Anyway, the cost is the cost, and they could do the same thing that car dealers do: Never mind the sticker! We'll give you $xxxx off.
Click to expand...

You would be completely wrong about showing the costs. The myriad of insurances out there.. plus the number of self insured entities..government insurances... plus discounts that are given due to volume etc.. . There is no way of showing the cost of a medication...in any meaningful way to consumers.

The cost is NOT the cost.

You can do that with dealers..because there isn't a third party paying for the car... not so with medication.
 
jaeger19 said:
Umm sir.. their are plenty of pills that cost much less than a water pump for your car.

Yep...if you can't trust your mechanic you need to find a new one. And the way you know you can't trust your mechanic.. or doctor is when you have competing information for alternatives and you are better informed..

Putting meaningless "costs".. on drug advertisements doesn't better inform people.. it makes them less informed.
Click to expand...

They're more informed when they have no idea what the medications being advertised cost.

Does that make sense?
 
jaeger19 said:
You would be completely wrong about showing the costs. The myriad of insurances out there.. plus the number of self insured entities..government insurances... plus discounts that are given due to volume etc.. . There is no way of showing the cost of a medication...in any meaningful way to consumers.

The cost is NOT the cost.

You can do that with dealers..because there isn't a third party paying for the car... not so with medication.
Click to expand...

About third party costs... someone pays one way or another whether it is the taxpayers or the insurance ratepayers.
 
Dittohead not! said:
About third party costs... someone pays one way or another whether it is the taxpayers or the insurance ratepayers.
Click to expand...

Yep.. so.. its meaningless.

So Medication B is advertised cost of 500 dollars.

And the insurance company pays 30 dollars.. and its free for those with their insurance.


Medication A which does the same thing.. is advertised as a cost of 200 dollars.


But the insurance company pays 100 dollars.. and out of pocket for you as their insureds is 75 dollars.



Which one do you pick based on price...? The one advertised... or the one based on what the third party payer got for a rate?


See how confused you are now because you made a decision based on the advertised price.. when it was NOT actually what the third party or you paid?


Please explain to me why this is helpful to do this.
 
Dittohead not! said:
They're more informed when they have no idea what the medications being advertised cost.

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Why yes.. it makes perfect sense. Because there is no way in an advertisement.. to know what your third party insurance is paying for the medication.. nor what its going to cost you out of pocket.

So.. that advertised cost is meaningless and misleading.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yep.. so.. its meaningless.

So Medication B is advertised cost of 500 dollars.

And the insurance company pays 30 dollars.. and its free for those with their insurance.


Medication A which does the same thing.. is advertised as a cost of 200 dollars.


But the insurance company pays 100 dollars.. and out of pocket for you as their insureds is 75 dollars.



Which one do you pick based on price...? The one advertised... or the one based on what the third party payer got for a rate?


See how confused you are now because you made a decision based on the advertised price.. when it was NOT actually what the third party or you paid?


Please explain to me why this is helpful to do this.
Click to expand...

It helps the patient make an informed decision.

Thisstuff (after a long ad touting how great it is and explaining that it really can kill you) costs $3,290 per month. If you have (list of insurance companies) it will cost you $45 out of pocket.

Thatstuff (after a long ad touting how great it is and explaining that it really can kill you) costs $2,499.20 per month. If you have (different list) it will cost you $56 out of pocket.

If nothing else, the consumer will know just how convoluted the pricing of prescription drugs is.

They could add: In Canada, thisstuff costs $130, and the Canadian Medicaid picks up all of it if you're Canadian.
 
jaeger19 said:
Why yes.. it makes perfect sense. Because there is no way in an advertisement.. to know what your third party insurance is paying for the medication.. nor what its going to cost you out of pocket.

So.. that advertised cost is meaningless and misleading.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they should leave off the litany of scary side effects as well and let the pharmacist explain them.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It helps the patient make an informed decision.

Thisstuff (after a long ad touting how great it is and explaining that it really can kill you) costs $3,290 per month. If you have (list of insurance companies) it will cost you $45 out of pocket.

Thatstuff (after a long ad touting how great it is and explaining that it really can kill you) costs $2,499.20 per month. If you have (different list) it will cost you $56 out of pocket.

If nothing else, the consumer will know just how convoluted the pricing of prescription drugs is.

They could add: In Canada, thisstuff costs $130, and the Canadian Medicaid picks up all of it if you're Canadian.
Click to expand...

No it does not.

Because there is no way to "list".. all the insurance plans and the out of pocket costs. Your talking about thousands and thousands of different plans, different costs, different formularies. So they can not be.. "it will cost you this"...

Simply not possible.

If nothing else, the consumer will know just how convoluted the pricing of prescription drugs is.
Click to expand...
Which does nothing for them.. in fact its more likely for them to make bad decisions for their healthcare.. based on an advertisement.

That's the irony here. You want people to be given misleading information..so people can decide... NOT to discuss with their doctor a medication that might be beneficial for them.. Why would you want that?


AS far as this:
They could add: In Canada, thisstuff costs $130, and the Canadian Medicaid picks up all of it if you're Canadian.
Click to expand...

Well.. you will have to explain to me what Canadian Medicaid is. Because I have never heard of Canadian Medicaid. They do have what is often called Canadian Medicare.

And since Canadian medicare does not pay for outpatient medications... in Canada.. the person would be liable for the total cost unless they have some type of supplement.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Perhaps they should leave off the litany of scary side effects as well and let the pharmacist explain them.
Click to expand...

Why? Unlike the costs..the side effects are known and researched.


I guess if we were following your logic.. we should have them advertise any and all side effects even if its not for their medication... because that's basically what you are doing with pricing. Its meaningless.
 
jaeger19 said:
No it does not.

Because there is no way to "list".. all the insurance plans and the out of pocket costs. Your talking about thousands and thousands of different plans, different costs, different formularies. So they can not be.. "it will cost you this"...

Simply not possible.

Which does nothing for them.. in fact its more likely for them to make bad decisions for their healthcare.. based on an advertisement.

That's the irony here. You want people to be given misleading information..so people can decide... NOT to discuss with their doctor a medication that might be beneficial for them.. Why would you want that?


AS far as this:

Well.. you will have to explain to me what Canadian Medicaid is. Because I have never heard of Canadian Medicaid. They do have what is often called Canadian Medicare.

And since Canadian medicare does not pay for outpatient medications... in Canada.. the person would be liable for the total cost unless they have some type of supplement.
Click to expand...


OK, you've convinced me. Pricing is just too complex for a TV ad. Of course, selecting the proper medication is also a pretty complex process, best left to doctors and pharmacists.

So, let's just quit advertising prescription drugs directly to the consumer.
 
jaeger19 said:
Why? Unlike the costs..the side effects are known and researched.


I guess if we were following your logic.. we should have them advertise any and all side effects even if its not for their medication... because that's basically what you are doing with pricing. Its meaningless.
Click to expand...

They aren't advertising "any and all" medications. They are advertising a particular medication.
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, you've convinced me. Pricing is just too complex for a TV ad. Of course, selecting the proper medication is also a pretty complex process, best left to doctors and pharmacists.

So, let's just quit advertising prescription drugs directly to the consumer.
Click to expand...


Actually wrong.. Because yes.. selecting medications is a pretty complex process.. which should be done by PATIENTS with consultation with their physicians and pharmacists.


An educated patient.. that may now be aware of a medication that may help them through an advertisement.. can definitely help their doctor and pharmacist design a drug regimen that works for them.

Advertisement plays a role in that. I gave you the example of the erectile dysfunction ads.. that prompted millions of men to discuss ED with their physicians and in some cases.. it ended up with evaluations for prostate cancer and actually helped save lives.


I don't really understand why you are having such a problem with this. It appears to me that you are one of those folks that thinks you can just go into your doctors office and order him/her to provide you with prescriptions for problems you don't have.. and you get them.
 
Dittohead not! said:
They aren't advertising "any and all" medications. They are advertising a particular medication.
Click to expand...

Well..heck.. why not give them all the possible side effects of any and all medications...

because that's just about as useful as giving the "cost"..of the medication... which is entirely meaningless and may actually do more harm by influencing a patients decisions based on a price that is not meaningful..rather than an honest discussion with their physician.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually wrong.. Because yes.. selecting medications is a pretty complex process.. which should be done by PATIENTS with consultation with their physicians and pharmacists.


An educated patient.. that may now be aware of a medication that may help them through an advertisement.. can definitely help their doctor and pharmacist design a drug regimen that works for them.

Advertisement plays a role in that. I gave you the example of the erectile dysfunction ads.. that prompted millions of men to discuss ED with their physicians and in some cases.. it ended up with evaluations for prostate cancer and actually helped save lives.


I don't really understand why you are having such a problem with this. It appears to me that you are one of those folks that thinks you can just go into your doctors office and order him/her to provide you with prescriptions for problems you don't have.. and you get them.
Click to expand...

I'm having a problem with it because I'm one of those folks who think that the doctor and the pharmacist learned more about drugs and their effectiveness, their side effects and interactions than one could gain from a 30 second commercial. Moreover, the purpose of the commercial is not to inform the prospective patient, but to sell a particular medication. That's what TV ads are for, after all, to sell everything from pills to presidents to the public. Besides, spending hundreds of millions on advertising and marketing just ramps up the ultimate cost. When cost is not even mentioned, that tends to ramp up the costs even more.
 
jaeger19 said:
Well..heck.. why not give them all the possible side effects of any and all medications...

because that's just about as useful as giving the "cost"..of the medication... which is entirely meaningless and may actually do more harm by influencing a patients decisions based on a price that is not meaningful..rather than an honest discussion with their physician.
Click to expand...

The cost is what the cost is. If a medication costs an arm and a leg, the patient should know that up front.
Since the commercials are designed to sell medications, discussion of price is likely to be counter productive to that end. That's why price is not mentioned. "Shouldn't you ask your doctor about Thiscrap?" Well, maybe, but first ask your insurance company how much.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm having a problem with it because I'm one of those folks who think that the doctor and the pharmacist learned more about drugs and their effectiveness, their side effects and interactions than one could gain from a 30 second commercial. .
Click to expand...

Sure..who is saying that they don't? Where in the world do you get that because there is an advertisement..that somehow.. the doctor and the pharmacist become magically out of the loop?

Moreover, the purpose of the commercial is not to inform the prospective patient, but to sell a particular medication.
Click to expand...

Which it does by informing the patient about their product. That's how it sells.

Besides, spending hundreds of millions on advertising and marketing just ramps up the ultimate cost.
Click to expand...

Actually it probably reduces the ultimate cost.. and that's because: it helps prevents one medication from getting a virtual monopoly by virtue of being the first.. or because the company producing it.. is better at marketing to the doctors.

Now instead.. if a new medication that competes with an existing one.. is developed. IT an be marketed directly to the public... "hey..ask your doctor if this is right for you".

That introduces competition.

Also.. if it increases the volume that's sold.. that means the cost to produce drops. A company can offer lower prices because they make it on volume.

When cost is not even mentioned, that tends to ramp up the costs even more.
Click to expand...
no it does not.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The cost is what the cost is. If a medication costs an arm and a leg, the patient should know that up front.
.
Click to expand...

No.. the cost is not what the cost is. It just doesn't work that way.. in any business.

You think the cost of a car is the cost? Not.. there is no way of knowing the cost of the floor space, the interest the owner is paying on the cars on the lot.. and so forth. for each individual dealership.

Since the commercials are designed to sell medications, discussion of price is likely to be counter productive to that end
Click to expand...
Yep... which means that patients may be deciding to not discuss a medication with their physician.. that may be actually CHEAPER and more beneficial and effective for them... because the advertised price.. scares them off. When.. that advertised price... IS NOT.. what they will be paying at all.
 
phattonez said:
Or we could stop the absurd practice of advertising prescription medicines to the public.
Click to expand...

Well...know that the media won't push for that. Where do you think most of their money comes from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom