Layoff Thread:

[Chizzang]

There is NO DOUBT the affordable Healthcare Act is going to get some folks sent to the unemployment line...
And the notion that this is all somehow greedy businesses fault is ridiculous

[BlueHen86]

They are lying. They can blame Obama if they want, but it's really the economy. They wouldn't be laying people off if they were making money.

You're just pretending to be stupid here, aren't you?

And you're just a sore loser, aren't you?

[Chizzang]

You're just pretending to be stupid here, aren't you?

And you're just a sore loser, aren't you?

He voted for Gary Johnson (The other guy that lost)
I voted for Jill Stein (she lost too)

but I agree AZ is a loser

[kalm]

There is NO DOUBT the affordable Healthcare Act is going to get some folks sent to the unemployment line...
And the notion that this is all somehow greedy businesses fault is ridiculous

It can be both.

[Chizzang]

There is NO DOUBT the affordable Healthcare Act is going to get some folks sent to the unemployment line...
And the notion that this is all somehow greedy businesses fault is ridiculous

It can be both.

It can be - but - in a down economy Business owners aren't going to toss out profit margin on a gamble like the Affordable Healthcare Act. and they shouldn't be blamed for doing what theythink is right - which is putting business before anything else

Do I think this will come back to bite them - sure it will
It's a gamble either way

[AZGrizFan]

You're just pretending to be stupid here, aren't you?

And you're just a sore loser, aren't you?

Nobody wins with Obama getting reelected. That much is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[kalm]

It can be both.

It can be - but - in a down economy Business owners aren't going to toss out profit margin on a gamble like the Affordable Healthcare Act. and they shouldn't be blamed for doing what theythink is right - which is putting business before anything else

Do I think this will come back to bite them - sure it will
It's a gamble either way

Agreed. And for the record I wasn't a fan of Obamacare. That being said, a country as wealthy as ours and/or companies as profitable as Walmart that have benefited from it should be able afford healthcare for all citizens - especially when it's as expensive as it is. If not, they are failing IMHO.

On the bright side, companies reducing hours below 30/week to get around this will decrease the unemployment rate. I remember reading somewhere years ago that France mandated a shorter work week during a severe recession once and that's exactly what happened and it helped pull them out of it.

[YoUDeeMan]

On the bright side, companies reducing hours below 30/week to get around this will decrease the unemployment rate. I remember reading somewhere years ago that France mandated a shorter work week during a severe recession once and that's exactly what happened and it helped pull them out of it.

The French never really pull themselves out of any type of recession or depression...they're French. That's why they drink so much.

[Ibanez]

On the bright side, companies reducing hours below 30/week to get around this will decrease the unemployment rate. I remember reading somewhere years ago that France mandated a shorter work week during a severe recession once and that's exactly what happened and it helped pull them out of it.

The French never really pull themselves out of any type of recession or depression...they're French. That's why they whine so much.

FIFY

[BearIt]

Orlando hospital cuts 400 jobs due to Obamacare:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loc ... 3193.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As hospitals make moves that improve care and reduce readmission rates from infections, their revenues drop, said Sitarik.

"We have made great strides in improving our quality outcomes. But these gains have also triggered lowered revenues due in part to a reduction in readmissions."

The cuts are necessary as the hospital transitions to a new payment model, one that pays based on value or outcome, not on volume, said Sitarik.

Obamacare is making hospitals improve care which results in fewer admissions which results in less money for the hospital. Fewer patients means they need fewer employees. In addition Medicare is not paying for patients that are readmitted for certain conditions shortly after being treated for that condition. In other words the hospital didn't fix it the first time so medicare isn't going to pay them twice for it.

Seems like this is a good thing. Unfortunately the loss of jobs will be one of the unintended consequences of an improved healthcare system.

[Baldy]

Orlando hospital cuts 400 jobs due to Obamacare:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loc ... 3193.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As hospitals make moves that improve care and reduce readmission rates from infections, their revenues drop, said Sitarik.

"We have made great strides in improving our quality outcomes. But these gains have also triggered lowered revenues due in part to a reduction in readmissions."

The cuts are necessary as the hospital transitions to a new payment model, one that pays based on value or outcome, not on volume, said Sitarik.

Obamacare is making hospitals improve care which results in fewer admissions which results in less money for the hospital. Fewer patients means they need fewer employees. In addition Medicare is not paying for patients that are readmitted for certain conditions shortly after being treated for that condition. In other words the hospital didn't fix it the first time so medicare isn't going to pay them twice for it.

Seems like this is a good thing. Unfortunately the loss of jobs will be one of the unintended consequences of an improved healthcare system.

Yes, how dare someone with chronic heart failure get sick again, or a woman with reoccurring breast cancer. That'll teach them.

[Cap'n Cat]

We need prescription drug price controls, something the rest of the world figured out long ago. Reagan is dead, guys.

[BearIt]

Yes, how dare someone with chronic heart failure get sick again, or a woman with reoccurring breast cancer. That'll teach them.

You obviously don't understand the law and how hospitals are reimbursed by Medicare. It doesn't impact reimbursement for breast cancer patients. Hospitals are penalized if patients treated for heart failure, heart attack or pneumonia are readmitted with in 30 days.

Hospitals basically get a set reimbursement from medicare based on the diagnosis. If a patient stays in the hospital 2 days or 5 days the payment is the same. So they try to get them out the door as soon as possible. This often results in patients not getting complete treatment and/or not being given adequate education and resources to get proper care once they leave. This often results in readmission with in a few days or weeks for the same condition. The hospital could then collect payment again. It was actually an incentive to have a patient return.

The new law now penalizes hospitals up to 1% of reimbursment if these patents (heart failure, pneumonia or heart attack) are readmitted with in 30 days. So hospitals are now doing more to ensure patients go to their follow up appointments and take their medications properly after they leave instead of just kicking them out the door. Hospitals get the choice now of reducing readmissions or reduced payment. This is a good thing.

Unfortunately reduced readmissions will result in few hospitilized patients which results in reduced need for hospital workers.

Sometimes job loss isn't a bad thing for society.

World peace would also cause a loss of jobs. Would that be a bad thing?

[BDKJMU]

We need prescription drug price controls, something the rest of the world figured out long ago. Reagan is dead, guys.

Would would = no more new drug breakthroughs.

[AZGrizFan]

We need prescription drug price controls, something the rest of the world figured out long ago. Reagan is dead, guys.

What we really need is gasoline price controls, airline ticket price controls and food price controls. If the government could just control ALL the prices, then things would work perfectly and we'd never have any inflation, because the government is so frugal and good with our money.

[kalm]

We need prescription drug price controls, something the rest of the world figured out long ago. Reagan is dead, guys.

Would would = no more new drug breakthroughs.

I'm not neccessarrily in favor of price controls, but at the least, medicare should be able to negotiate prices down. But why wouldn't there be breakthroughs? Would the demand for new meds simply disappear? I've seen this talking point a few times now....

[Grizalltheway]

We need prescription drug price controls, something the rest of the world figured out long ago. Reagan is dead, guys.

Would would = no more new drug breakthroughs.

Bullshit. Most big pharma companies have profit margins close to 20%.

[BDKJMU]

Would would = no more new drug breakthroughs.

Bullshit. Most big pharma companies have profit margins close to 20%.

You're an idiot if you think Big Pharma is going to to put the billions into RD that they are now if they are price controls.

Europe has price controls. US doesn't. Guess where most of the new drug breakthroughs come from?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... -steps-in/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chizzang]

Bullshit. Most big pharma companies have profit margins close to 20%.

You're an idiot if you think Big Pharma is going to to put the billions into RD that they are now if they are price controls.

Europe has price controls. US doesn't. Guess where most of the new drug breakthroughs come from?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... -steps-in/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Um..
Actually I think India and Germany are the two countries with the most pharmaceutical Drug advancements

[kalm]

Bullshit. Most big pharma companies have profit margins close to 20%.

You're an idiot if you think Big Pharma is going to to put the billions into RD that they are now if they are price controls.

Europe has price controls. US doesn't. Guess where most of the new drug breakthroughs come from?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... -steps-in/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Before you call people idiots, you should answer my question.

[BlueHen86]

You're an idiot if you think Big Pharma is going to to put the billions into RD that they are now if they are price controls.

Europe has price controls. US doesn't. Guess where most of the new drug breakthroughs come from?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... -steps-in/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Before you call people idiots, you should answer my question.

[BDKJMU]

You're an idiot if you think Big Pharma is going to to put the billions into RD that they are now if they are price controls.

Europe has price controls. US doesn't. Guess where most of the new drug breakthroughs come from?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... -steps-in/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Before you call people idiots, you should answer my question.

The article I linked answers your question.

[AZGrizFan]

You're an idiot if you think Big Pharma is going to to put the billions into RD that they are now if they are price controls.

Europe has price controls. US doesn't. Guess where most of the new drug breakthroughs come from?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... -steps-in/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Before you call people idiots, you should answer my question.

He's only calling people idiots who believe Big Pharma will spend billions on R&D with no mechanism for any type of ROI. If that shoe fits you, then so does the name "idiot", I guess.

[kalm]

Before you call people idiots, you should answer my question.

He's only calling people idiots who believe Big Pharma will spend billions on R&D with no mechanism for any type of ROI. If that shoe fits you, then so does the name "idiot", I guess.

Ultimately, Obama Care will turn our pharmaceutical industry into a quasi public utility that earns a moderate federally-set profit by churning out established drugs. The risk-averse FDA will still insist on a rigorous approval process, meaning that the costs and risks of new drug development will remain forbidding. Why would any pharmaceutical company risk its assets on the development of an innovative drug?

Because they can still make a profit. Or would the profit be so low that pharma would take it's ball and go home?

The article never states that they don't make a profit elsewhere. It just points out that other countries pay less than the U.S. If the author is implying that the US profit margins subsidize prices elsewhere and without that subsidy, pharma would be losing money overseas, than he should come out and say it. If that is indeed the case, who's holding the gun to pharma's head to sell to these markets? Are they doing it out of the kindness of their hearts?

Assuming pharma is not forced to sell a product in markets where it will lose money, and if these dire predictions from the author's "free market" perspective come true, wouldn't that mean that other countries might be forced to increase their prices?

[kalm]

Before you call people idiots, you should answer my question.

The article I linked answers your question.

Oops, didn't pay attention to the link. My bad.

But I did just now read your opinion piece and here's a farily decent rebuttal of the general meme put forth by Forbes if not that particular article:

As authors of an article on the costs of R&D cited by Forbes, we would like to straighten a few errors in these estimates that pharmaceutical reps, executives, and lobbyists use to justify higher prices and costs to employers and governments that pay for them...

First, the Forbes estimates accept company R&D figures uncritically and ignore evidence that what companies count as “R&D” may be much broader than the costs of bench, lab, and trial research that make up R&D. Drug companies work hard to hide any verifiable figures from independent review. And they never link their alleged costs to how quickly they earn them back at high prices. See more on http://www.pharmamyths.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Second, the Forbes estimates divide total reported costs by the number of “new drugs,” which is not defined. It probably means NMEs or new active ingredients; but most of the products coming out of industry R&D are newly patented variations on existing drugs that involve less risk, time and cost, even though much larger trials are needed for small differences to be proven statistically significant. These me-too are the main products of R&D, and they account for about 60 percent of the nation’s drug budget.

In other words, the Forbes estimates divide apples by oranges — total R&D for all research activities on all products, divided by the handful of NMEs...

Finally, half of the DiMasi estimate is not real R&D costs at all but highly inflated estimates of what companies would have made had they put their money in an index fund and not developed new drugs in the first place! Given the staggering cost estimates in Forbes, it looks as if drug companies should do just that and become investment banks.

Our own estimate of pharmaceutical R&D is often misquoted as an average of $43 million, which commentators reject as absurd without actually reading what we wrote. In fact, we make clear this estimate in 2000 does not include the cost of discovery (because no one has accurate figures and it varies from 3 months to 30 years), nor the “cost of capital” (for reasons explained in our article). It is also the net cost after taxpayers cover about 50% of corporate R&D expenses (free market my hairy ass )and the median cost, which is not biased up by 35% to the average cost by a few costly R&D projects. Any 2000 figure is 30% more in 2011.

In sum, our estimate is that the median, net, corporate cost to develop a new drug, based on the confidential cost data that companies reported to DiMasi and his Center, is $56 million in 2011, plus the unknown company costs of discovery and the artificial cost of capital, if you think it applies.

Our estimate is substantially higher than the only hard number we could find, audited tax returns in the late 1990s where companies reported that their average trial costs were only $22.4 million. DiMasi’s own high estimate applies only to the most costly 21.8% of new approvals, which his article indicates are 15 times more costly than R&D for new variations on existing molecules. If you actually read our deconstruction of how DiMasi et al inflated their estimate, you will learn a lot. (Search for “demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research” ) See also http://www.pharmamyths.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What do we get for all that money?

Forbes is right that staggering costs should not be “a badge of honor.” What matters is how much better new drugs are for patients against clinical criteria and how many people can afford them. Sadly, 85-90 percent of all newly approved products of pharmaceutical R&D are judged by independent review groups to be little better than existing ones. See THE RISKS OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS on Amazon. These are the drugs that brilliant marketing turns into huge sales that make up that 60 percent of the nation’s drug costs.

But drug companies know what they are doing. Between 1995 and 2010 (the era of the so-called “innovation crisis”), they reported spending $34.3 billion more in R&D and generating $200.4 billion more revenues – not a bad return. Pharmaceutical companies average several times more profit than the Fortune 500. By contrast, if the Forbes figures and business arguments are correct, then nearly all the global companies would have gone bankrupt between 1997 and 2011.

http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2012/02 ... utical-rd/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;