Copyright needs to be changed to 5 or 10 yrs not 20

Copyright is life plus 70 years, in the USA.

I think you meant to write patent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement
<ed>Of course that covers wi-fi and ozzie mozzie's too

---

Copyright needs to be changed to 5 or 10 yrs not 20
Copyright is life plus 70 years, in the USA.

I think you meant to write patent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement
<ed>Of course that covers wi-fi and ozzie mozzie's too

True !...however there are Loopholes , Health Care !

---

Copyright needs to be changed to 5 or 10 yrs not 20

Copyright is life plus 70 years, in the USA.

I think you meant to write patent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement
<ed>Of course that covers wi-fi and ozzie mozzie's too

But pharmaceutical companies say that without the present patent laws over 60% of products would not have got the funding for their drugs to be tested and then introduced.
Also the patent start date for pharmaceuticals can usually be deferred until the date the FDA approves the drug.

So any attempt to shorten the patent period could mean new drugs don't get researched or the cost during the shortened period would increase at least pro rata.

N.B. In 2015, Glybera outpaced Soliris to become the most expensive drug in the world. The cost for this medication is over $1.2 million a year.

---

N.B. In 2015, Glybera outpaced Soliris to become the most expensive drug in the world. The cost for this medication is over $1.2 million a year.

mmmmm Copyright laws need to change good example of why.

The argument of it costs xxxxx billions to develop is getting a bit thin , there knowledge is built on others , it never costs as much as they say it does by at least 400% and they have 70 years .!!!!!!!!

B/S if you ask me . if it works 10 years is plenty to pay for all costs and make heaps off doe let alone the other 60 freaking years plus inflation of 4% ....phew I say to there B/s arguments

---

N.B. In 2015, Glybera outpaced Soliris to become the most expensive drug in the world. The cost for this medication is over $1.2 million a year.

mmmmm Copyright laws need to change good example of why.

The argument of it costs xxxxx billions to develop is getting a bit thin , there knowledge is built on others , it never costs as much as they say it does by at least 400% and they have 70 years .!!!!!!!!

B/S if you ask me . if it works 10 years is plenty to pay for all costs and make heaps off doe let alone the other 60 freaking years plus inflation of 4% ....phew I say to there B/s arguments

A survey of companies worked out it costs about 2.6 Billion to bring a new drug into production. 60% of the costs are spent on the required clinical trials to get approval.

And if Trump wants to reduce the spending of the FDA and move all responsibility for health care onto each individual state. Then one has to assume the individual states costs will have to be raised to cover cost of their own version of the FDA and the costs to get a drug approved in every state will rise significantly.

---

and they have 70 years .!!!!!!!!

17 until 1995, then 20. Again you are confusing copyright and patent. utterly different things.

I don't doubt those cost figures at all. In the extremely litigious USA the insurance to conduct a clinical trial is likely half of the cost. I'm sure the cost is pennies on the dollar if they are not interested in US FDA approval, but then you get thalidomide. Of course if you are a multi-national drug company you have to run those almost but not quite, identical tests in a dozen different countries pushing your costs out the roof. But if you don't do that some thief in a country where you didn't get a patent will start making a generic version on day 1 and steal your market.

What I'd like to see is a skew in the length that favors cures and disfavors treatments. Remember a treatment is a continuing revenue stream, where a cure is a one time purchase.

Now if we want to Make Amerika Great again, then there needs to be another incentive. Develop it in the USA, make it in the USA and only sell it in the USA patent is full length. Make it elsewhere and sell it elsewhere, patent is half as long. Keep those jobs in the USA an Make Amerika Great again!

---

CLYDE, do you have data supporting the access vs use comment? Did you look at any of the data linked?

The heart attack (Triple Bypass) is from personal experience. While attempting to get the aforementioned homeless individual to voluntarily seek medical attention. He suffered a heart attack while denying to me, and then to Fire/Rescue (who I called) that he had any problem. If he did not suffer a major heart attack in front of Fire/Rescue. They could not have forced him to a hospital. As I stated. All his medical care was free. As with all our poor.

I, on a continuous basis. Work personally with homeless, including pregnant women. Disabled poor, which includes pregnant women, Drug addicts, et al. In an attempt to find them shelter, assistance, etc.

All, I repeat ALL, have access to free shelter, free medical care, financial assistance, etc. Whether they avail themselves of our free medical care, and everything else. Is a different matter. No one can force a person to seek assistance. You can only offer.

bobby... You have to understand the Limitations of Education, without personal experience. And the Limitations of Numbers.

And it seems that you need to understand the plural of anecdote is not data.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Personal knowledge. While speaking with an acquaintance today. He mentioned the following problem, after he signed up with Obama Care.

He is a working stiff with a, now disabled, wife and 3 children. and pays over $400.00 a month premium.

Partially tore his Achilles Tendon. But... He must pay the $5,000.00 Deductible first. He doesn't have of course, $5,000.00.

Looks like your acquaintance bought the wrong type of insurance, "catastrophic health insurance". And didn't take note of the shortfalls.

A catastrophic plan may be right for you if:

You want lower premiums or can't afford more expensive coverage.
You are generally healthy and rarely see the doctor.
You don’t mind having high out-of-pocket costs.
You want to be prepared against high medical bills in a "worst-case scenario."
You don’t qualify for Medicaid.
You don't qualify for a subsidy based on your income. Or, you do qualify, but don't mind forgoing your right to those savings (remember, you can't get premium tax credits or out-of-pocket subsidies with a catastrophic plan).

Would look like, the highlighted line was not taken into account.
Ask him if he made the choice or was he advised that this was the right plan for his circumstances, and take it from there.

---

Personal knowledge. While speaking with an acquaintance today. He mentioned the following problem, after he signed up with Obama Care.

He is a working stiff with a, now disabled, wife and 3 children. and pays over $400.00 a month premium.

Partially tore his Achilles Tendon. But... He must pay the $5,000.00 Deductible first. He doesn't have of course, $5,000.00.

Looks like your acquaintance bought the wrong type of insurance, "catastrophic health insurance". And didn't take note of the shortfalls.

A catastrophic plan may be right for you if:

You want lower premiums or can't afford more expensive coverage.
You are generally healthy and rarely see the doctor.
You don’t mind having high out-of-pocket costs.
You want to be prepared against high medical bills in a "worst-case scenario."
You don’t qualify for Medicaid.
You don't qualify for a subsidy based on your income. Or, you do qualify, but don't mind forgoing your right to those savings (remember, you can't get premium tax credits or out-of-pocket subsidies with a catastrophic plan).

Would look like, the highlighted line was not taken into account.
Ask him if he made the choice or was he advised that this was the right plan for his circumstances, and take it from there.

Some of us have group plans at work that are worse than that and more expensive, and are ineligible for anything else.

---

#resist

Personal knowledge. While speaking with an acquaintance today. He mentioned the following problem, after he signed up with Obama Care.

He is a working stiff with a, now disabled, wife and 3 children. and pays over $400.00 a month premium.

Partially tore his Achilles Tendon. But... He must pay the $5,000.00 Deductible first. He doesn't have of course, $5,000.00.

Looks like your acquaintance bought the wrong type of insurance, "catastrophic health insurance". And didn't take note of the shortfalls.

We are talking Obamacare. All of the 4 plans, Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum, cover all the same things. The difference is the premium, copay and deductible. The company offering chooses the participating doctors and facilities, PPO or HMO.

So if you know you won't need it, buy Bronze, if you know you will use it a lot buy Platinum.

Poor can't afford more than Bronze, so they get a huge shock to find they are on the hook for the entire cost until the deductible is met, which is more that a full year of premiums, which they couldn't afford to begin with.

---

Since Obama Care is Collapsing. And Ryan Care isn't the answer to many in this Topic.

What is the answer to those apparently supporting failed Obama Care?

Obama Care is only Collapsing, because of uncertainty in the market and because it is no longer being pushed at those without insurance.
It could be that, as the Republicans who have spent 7 years of opposing Obamacare and applying their best brains planning its replacement and only came up with RyanCare/TrumpCare which is a total failure, as described be several Republicans, be left in the end a slightly modified Obamacare. A modified version of the Republican RomneyCare.

---

Since Obama Care is Collapsing. And Ryan Care isn't the answer to many in this Topic.

What is the answer to those apparently supporting failed Obama Care?

Bernie knew, properly funded medicare for all. Yes that means more taxes but it also means no insurance premiums. Unfortunately the oligarchs don't want to lose the income stream.

---

What I'd like to see is a skew in the length that favors cures and disfavors treatments. Remember a treatment is a continuing revenue stream, where a cure is a one time purchase.

This is the correct way to go about it Gordon and it's what our system has been trying to do via what is called the PBS system but has been tampered with of late by the Lib's .

The Patient system and copy wright systems are being misused by drug company's and others

Develop it in the USA, make it in the USA and only sell it in the USA patent is full length

This is part of your current problem maybe if you have a caveart of it actually being a cure and not a treatment

Make it elsewhere and sell it elsewhere, patent is half as long. Keep those jobs in the USA an Make Amerika Great again!

Not practical and discriminates against your own people buy not allowing cheaper drugs onto the market witch is why you already pay $35 for a Ventolin spray and yet I get them for $9.50 AUD $7.31 USD and the generic version is 2 bucks ozzy cheaper

---

From 2014 to 2017, my annual premium went from abut $1150 to $4100 for the cheapest PPO individual plan in my county/state. I was considering not buying insurance in 2017, but I convinced myself that it was too risky not to have it.

I don't know enough about how insurance works to know what the GOP plan will do. I just know whenever there is change to redistribution of money and resources, some people gain, and others lose. I thought I lost with ACA. Hopefully, the GOP plan won't make things even worse.

The question I have is why are these bills not addressing the root cause of the problem, the cost of healthcare, instead of only looking at insurance coverage. Of course, that is a complicated issue, but doesn't seem like there's a serious effort to do something about it. Or I could be ignorant about any such efforts.

Because overall, government is pretty corrupt and broken. Most politicians have forgotten who they are supposed to work for.

---

#resist

Putting a mentally unstable, physically weak, known felon with uncontrolled anger issues in the white house would not have helped ...

Putting a mentally unstable, physically weak, known felon with uncontrolled anger issues in the white house will not help, and it isn't helping. And his/your party is not the answer either,

[edit] Plain and simple I don't think liberal ideology is the problem, the problem is people and their greed. And putting a big ol' long coat wearin' orange ball of greed in the white house was a very bad move.

---

#resist

Putting a mentally unstable, physically weak, known felon with uncontrolled anger issues in the white house would not have helped ...

Putting a mentally unstable, physically weak, known felon with uncontrolled anger issues in the white house will not help, and it isn't helping. And his/your party is not the answer either,

[edit] Plain and simple I don't think liberal ideology is the problem, the problem is people and their greed. And putting a big ol' long coat wearin' orange ball of greed in the white house was a very bad move.

+infinity

---

that goes against your religious beliefs. Be careful next time.

You have no clue what his or my beliefs are. All you know it what beliefs you want to assign, so that you can hate.

---