Over 75% of US bankrupcies are due to medical costs

[hater]

:wow shithole country thqh

“Unless you are Bill Gates, you are 1 major illness away from bancrupcy”

:wow

https://twitter.com/paybalances/status/1095334945390645248?s=21

Cue in the morons “but US medical system is best in the world”

What good is a Ferrari if you cannot afford fucking gas??? :lmao

[Will Hunting]

2 out of 3 isn't 75%. Add OP to the list of Trumpers who are bad at math.

That aside, nothing really surprising here. US Healthcare is shitty unless you're either rich or work for an employer large enough to get its employees the cadillac insurance plan.

[boutons_deux]

Many different studies, many different results

but health care fleecing, "de-wealthing", impoverishing of Americans is one horrible problem that social democracy would attack, but would fail to succeed because BigHealth owns politicians of both parties.

Medical Bankruptcy and the Economy

https://www.thebalance.com/medical-bankruptcy-statistics-4154729

[hater]

2 out of 3 isn't 75%. Add OP to the list of Trumpers who are bad at math.

That aside, nothing really surprising here. US Healthcare is shitty unless you're either rich or work for an employer large enough to get its employees the cadillac insurance plan.

Haha my bad nig

I meant over 66% :tu

My point stands tbqh

[Will Hunting]

Haha my bad nig

I meant over 66% :tu

My point stands tbqh
Yeah I was just being a dick, I definitely agree with your overall point.

The only thing I will say is that healthcare costs aside, Americans have more health issues than the rest of the industrialized world because we have a diet loaded with added sugar and processed shit, work too much, don’t sleep enough and rely on uppers and downers to get ourselves through the day.

[hater]

That also plays a role

But lets be jonest anyone can get a cancer or some shit illness like that. And all bets are off time for bankrupcy.

Its sad

[Chris]

BigPharma...nothing new here.

At least we have some people in this current administration willing to go to battle:


https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1095433961726201856

[hater]

Lol if bu battle you mean battle for more corporate lobby cash :lmao

[Will Hunting]

“Our seniors” aren’t footing the bill for shit anymore. Their contributions to Medicare were made with fucked up actuarial projections and their healthcare costs are way more than what the put into it. The Gen Xers and Millennials are the ones who are currently paying into a Medicare program that’ll be bankrupt before they ever get any benefit from it.

[midnightpulp]

Yeah I was just being a dick, I definitely agree with your overall point.

The only thing I will say is that healthcare costs aside, Americans have more health issues than the rest of the industrialized world because we have a diet loaded with added sugar and processed shit, work too much, don’t sleep enough and rely on uppers and downers to get ourselves through the day.

In addition, Generation Z is a mental-health ticking time bomb due to technology and the way their lives revolve the distorted representation of reality that is social media.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/?utm_source=twb

[Will Hunting]

In addition, Generation Z is a mental-health ticking time bomb due to technology and the way their lives revolve the distorted representation of reality that is social media.

https://9to5mac.com/2017/08/04/impact-of-smartphones-on-mental-health/
Very true. I already see it in younger millennials who are 5-10 yrs younger than me. Their brains are practically wired differently because they’ve had cell phones since before they hit puberty.

[BD24]

Not surprising at all

[Xevious]

Very true. I already see it in younger millennials who are 5-10 yrs younger than me. Their brains are practically wired differently because they’ve had cell phones since before they hit puberty.
They are wired differently. It fundementally changes the way in which they communicate and view other people and relationships. I don't think we fully understand yet all the negative effects the internet, social media, electronics, etc will have on our youth as the people that grew up with this shit are still young adults.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1095499555511111680

[midnightpulp]

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1095499555511111680

Trump won't pull the trigger on what's really necessary to control drug prices: Regulation and price caps.

Approving manufacturing of more generics doesn't do shit because Big Pharma works with health care providers and insurance companies to get their drugs as the ones doctors prescribe. Health care providers and insurance companies have no problem with this because the margins are great for the former and the latter can use the 6000.00 per bottle blood pressure medication grandpa takes every month as an excuse to raise premiums. Drug companies also know they have an open tap via Medicare and Medicaid, so they arbitrarily set high prices knowing it'll be subsidized by the tax payer.

"From 2017-18...saved customers a staggering 26 billion!"

:lmao "Staggering"

There's 300 million insured Americans, so this "more generics" strategy has saved the individual American about 8.00 per month. Staggering, indeed.

[midnightpulp]

Oh, here's what the CEO of a pharma company that manufacturers generics had to say when his company raised the price of a 400.00 generic to 2300.00:


(CNN)A pharmaceutical company executive defended his company's recent 400% drug price increase, telling the Financial Times that his company had a "moral requirement to sell the product at the highest price." The head of the US Food and Drug Administration blasted the executive in a response on Twitter.

Nirmal Mulye, founder and president of Nostrum Pharmaceuticals, commented in a story Tuesday about the decision to raise the price of an antibiotic mixture called nitrofurantoin from about $500 per bottle to more than $2,300. The drug is listed by the World Health Organization as an "essential" medicine for lower urinary tract infections.

"I think it is a moral requirement to make money when you can," Mulye told the Financial Times, "to sell the product for the highest price."


The Financial Times said Mulye compared his decision to increase the price to that of an art dealer who sells "a painting for half a billion dollars" and said he was in "this business to make money."

"I agree with Martin Shkreli that when he raised the price of his drug he was within his rights because he had to reward his shareholders," Mulye was quoted as saying.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/health/drug-price-hike-moral-requirement-bn/index.html

I've said it before. The profit motive is fundamentally incompatible with the "Do No Harm" concept expressed in the Hippocratic Oath. This CEO's mentality is a clear illustration of that, but Republicans want to give his type big tax breaks and let good old honest private insurance companies that work with BigPharma dictate the market. To want otherwise is "evil socialism."

[midnightpulp]

They are wired differently. It fundementally changes the way in which they communicate and view other people and relationships. I don't think we fully understand yet all the negative effects the internet, social media, electronics, etc will have on our youth as the people that grew up with this shit are still young adults.

I'm pessimistic about it, unfortunately. Studies have shown a sharp increase in teenage depression and anxiety since the introduction of the smart phone and social media. Yeah, the older generations were concerned about what them new fangled television sets and video games would do to our brains, but the primary difference is that they weren't portable in the same way smart phones are, so at least when you went out with your friends or family, you were able to leave those distractions at home. Also, television and video games of that era didn't offer the near unlimited amount of entertainment choices as offered by today's Internet. I think having infinite choice in this regard is more a negative than positive since it creates even shorter attention spans leading to more frivolous and lazy content that is compatible with those attention spans (i.e. Vines, GIFs, Memes, etc).

On the psychological side, it's leading to more atomization and disintegration of social cohesion. The Internet has this great ability to dehumanize people, since people are just represented by text and profile pics, while the relative anonymity offered protects you from the physical/emotional consequences of being a jerk. For kids whose life is more Internet than reality, will they begin to dehumanize others in real life the same way? There's some indications that they might be, with the way the 21 year old and under demographic is overrepresented in the mass shooting epidemic. Either that, or they lack zero real world social skills all together.

I think online retail has also played a huge role in the disintegration of social cohesion I mentioned, since you never have to leave your house to get anything you want. Back in the "good old days" the local businesses (i.e. record store, sporting good store, hobby shop, electronic store, video store etc) were important and integral to the local community, with those businesses and their owners being kind of like "old friends." You usually got to know the owners on personal terms, which translated into a more meaningful consumer experience. Amazon et al basically sees you as nothing but an account. When commerce was linked to your neighborhood in this way, you felt part of a "community." Now commerce is basically linked to your house.

To keep this from being tl;dr, this all basically translates into people becoming a lot more disconnected and self-absorbed, which could result in a lack of general empathy for anyone but your immediates.

[DMC]

:wow shithole country thqh

“Unless you are Bill Gates, you are 1 major illness away from bancrupcy”

:wow

https://twitter.com/paybalances/status/1095334945390645248?s=21

Cue in the morons “but US medical system is best in the world”

What good is a Ferrari if you cannot afford fucking gas??? :lmao

You're also one major illness away from death! The end is NEAR!!! Shit is about to get REAL!!!!

I'm in Australia, the hospitals here are like homeless shelters and homeless people are actually sleeping on the street in front of one. :lol

"socialized medicine!"

[AaronY]

BigPharma...nothing new here.

At least we have some people in this current administration willing to go to battle:


https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1095433961726201856
Too bad they've been in office two years and having battled shit yet tbh

[johnsmith]

2 out of 3 isn't 75%. Add OP to the list of Trumpers who are bad at math.

That aside, nothing really surprising here. US Healthcare is shitty unless you're either rich or work for an employer large enough to get its employees the cadillac insurance plan.

Yeah but most that get the “Cadillac” are still low level employees of those companies and therefore still fucked. Insurance in the United States is the worst thing about this country. Well, that and the mass shootings, constant in fighting, do nothing politics, racism, income gap, media, Boutons, MTV, taxes, vacation time, sexism, etc, etc.

[boutons_deux]

"I think it is a moral requirement to make money when you can," Mulye told the Financial Times, "to sell the product for the highest price."

:lol moral?

:lol this greedy Capitalistic asshole hides his predatory, exorbitant pricing as "moral" :lol

[Will Hunting]

Yeah but most that get the “Cadillac” are still low level employees of those companies and therefore still fucked. Insurance in the United States is the worst thing about this country. Well, that and the mass shootings, constant in fighting, do nothing politics, racism, income gap, media, Boutons, MTV, taxes, vacation time, sexism, etc, etc.
Agreed, I should have been specific in referring to large employers wherw the median employee makes a decent wage.

[Xevious]

I'm pessimistic about it, unfortunately. Studies have shown a sharp increase in teenage depression and anxiety since the introduction of the smart phone and social media. Yeah, the older generations were concerned about what them new fangled television sets and video games would do to our brains, but the primary difference is that they weren't portable in the same way smart phones are, so at least when you went out with your friends or family, you were able to leave those distractions at home. Also, television and video games of that era didn't offer the near unlimited amount of entertainment choices as offered by today's Internet. I think having infinite choice in this regard is more a negative than positive since it creates even shorter attention spans leading to more frivolous and lazy content that is compatible with those attention spans (i.e. Vines, GIFs, Memes, etc).

On the psychological side, it's leading to more atomization and disintegration of social cohesion. The Internet has this great ability to dehumanize people, since people are just represented by text and profile pics, while the relative anonymity offered protects you from the physical/emotional consequences of being a jerk. For kids whose life is more Internet than reality, will they begin to dehumanize others in real life the same way? There's some indications that they might be, with the way the 21 year old and under demographic is overrepresented in the mass shooting epidemic. Either that, or they lack zero real world social skills all together.

I think online retail has also played a huge role in the disintegration of social cohesion I mentioned, since you never have to leave your house to get anything you want. Back in the "good old days" the local businesses (i.e. record store, sporting good store, hobby shop, electronic store, video store etc) were important and integral to the local community, with those businesses and their owners being kind of like "old friends." You usually got to know the owners on personal terms, which translated into a more meaningful consumer experience. Amazon et al basically sees you as nothing but an account. When commerce was linked to your neighborhood in this way, you felt part of a "community." Now commerce is basically linked to your house.

To keep this from being tl;dr, this all basically translates into people becoming a lot more disconnected and self-absorbed, which could result in a lack of general empathy for anyone but your immediates.
All good points. And just to piggyback on the bolded section (as it is something that bothers me as a parent), parents of yesteryear were concerned about time spent on TV/video games. And I try to limit time on electronic devices as much as I can, don't allow them at them at the dinner table, make sure homework is done first, etc. But I would be thrilled if the entertainment they chose even had an inkling of creative thought behind it. Instead of watching a television show with some type of creative narrative, they'd prefer to watch some dumbass gamer channel on youtube. Instead of playing a single player game with at least a storyline or some problem-solving aspect to it (or even something cooperative with their siblings), they'd rather play Fortnite. I think this illustrates perfectly how the attention span of kids today is just fucked.

And my wife and I are real quick to take all this shit away when they aren't doing what they need to do (chores, schoolwork, etc). But I know most kids have free reign on everything because both parents work and frankly it's easier to just give the kid what they want.

[hater]

You're also one major illness away from death! The end is NEAR!!! Shit is about to get REAL!!!!

I'm in Australia, the hospitals here are like homeless shelters and homeless people are actually sleeping on the street in front of one. :lol

"socialized medicine!"

I been to australia niga and didnt see none of that. You must be in a real dump tbqh

Cuba tbqh has one of the most efficient cancer treatments in the world. And doesnt cost a dime to individuals tbqh (cubans that is as foreigns im sure have to pay and tightly so)

If I get sick im going to the island :tu

[Ginobilly]

Yeah I was just being a dick, I definitely agree with your overall point.

The only thing I will say is that healthcare costs aside, Americans have more health issues than the rest of the industrialized world because we have a diet loaded with added sugar and processed shit, work too much, don’t sleep enough and rely on uppers and downers to get ourselves through the day.

My main gripe with certain us products have been this! When i went to germany and italy I noticed that their sodas had like half the sugar compared to your standard 12oz coke. And their diet/light versions of it had no suagr at all. Not even that fake foul tasting, cancer inducing stevia kind.

[Ginobilly]

In addition, Generation Z is a mental-health ticking time bomb due to technology and the way their lives revolve the distorted representation of reality that is social media.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/?utm_source=twb

True. This generation is the one who kills themselves over "cyber bullying". Have they ever heard of just shutting down all social media? And just focus on good ole reading and sports like old fashioned kids?


And this generation is the first that can't spell or do math without a smart phone or calculator. Also the first that's being exposed to 24/7 porn access on a cellphone.

[midnightpulp]

All good points. And just to piggyback on the bolded section (as it is something that bothers me as a parent), parents of yesteryear were concerned about time spent on TV/video games. And I try to limit time on electronic devices as much as I can, don't allow them at them at the dinner table, make sure homework is done first, etc. But I would be thrilled if the entertainment they chose even had an inkling of creative thought behind it. Instead of watching a television show with some type of creative narrative, they'd prefer to watch some dumbass gamer channel on youtube. Instead of playing a single player game with at least a storyline or some problem-solving aspect to it (or even something cooperative with their siblings), they'd rather play Fortnite. I think this illustrates perfectly how the attention span of kids today is just fucked.

And my wife and I are real quick to take all this shit away when they aren't doing what they need to do (chores, schoolwork, etc). But I know most kids have free reign on everything because both parents work and frankly it's easier to just give the kid what they want.

The counterargument to our concerns is usually, "well, they thought books would lead to the intellectual decline of mankind [Socrates feared books would kill off the oral tradition and thus make human memory weaker], they thought the phonograph would forever kill off live music, they thought people would never leave their homes to talk to each other after the telephone was invented [which funny enough relates to our core concern], and look, we're still fine!"

Where I think modern technology differs is the limitless (and relatively inexpensive) choice it offers. You can always find another distraction and thus "never get bored," (to clarify, just because a distraction keeps you from being bored, doesn't mean it's stimulating). Sure, parents were concerned about our tv time and video game time, but the difference was, even with 100+ cable channels, it was still likely "there was nothing on." Videogames were expensive and we were lucky to get a new one every 2 or 3 months for birthdays, Christmas, good grades, whatever. Faced with boredom, we were forced to do something else beside consume something mediated through an electronic device: Draw, craft, or daydream (which is important to developing a creative mind). Boredom is actually a fertile breeding ground for the imagination, but today's kids are terrified of it.

https://www.ahaparenting.com/parenting-tools/intelligent-creative-child/boredom-busters-good-for-kids

Videogame streaming is indeed one of the most frivolous forms of "entertainment" ever created. I honestly think limitless entertainment options is a bad thing, especially for kids. When you have limitless choice, you're prone to only seeking things out that interest you, when the way you often develop a love for something is usually the result of chance exposure (i.e. hearing a great song on the radio in a genre you wrote off). The Internet was supposed to be the antidote to homogenous culture, but culture actually seems to be more homogenous than ever.

[Spurminator]

The Internet was supposed to be the antidote to homogenous culture, but culture actually seems to be more homogenous than ever.

Seems to be human nature to seek groups of like-minded people. The internet is a convenient portal to either find information to fit in better with a subculture you want to be a part of, or to find a subculture that aligns with your interests.

Overall, I have to be an optimist and believe young people (and humanity as a whole) will adapt to technology without it ruining them. I'd like to think evolution is more powerful than technology. Device addiction doesn't affect everyone the same, so maybe those who are less affected will naturally thrive.

Is there any time in human history where we can definitively say humanity got worse as a whole? We've already weathered a lot of massive changes in lifestyle and innovation.

[midnightpulp]

Seems to be human nature to seek groups of like-minded people. The internet is a convenient portal to either find information to fit in better with a subculture you want to be a part of, or to find a subculture that aligns with your interests.

Overall, I have to be an optimist and believe young people (and humanity as a whole) will adapt to technology without it ruining them. I'd like to think evolution is more powerful than technology. Device addiction doesn't affect everyone the same, so maybe those who are less affected will naturally thrive.

Is there any time in human history where we can definitively say humanity got worse as a whole? We've already weathered a lot of massive changes in lifestyle and innovation.

I don't think modern technology is going to ruin humanity, but I don't think the effect its having on modern life is generally positive.

The main culprit that has made culture more homogenous is social media and the associated "FOMO" (Fear of Missing Out) phenomenon. Since people seem to have their smartphones surgically grafted to their hands these days, you can never really get away from the "influence of the crowd," to engage in self-discovery, cultivate your tastes, and thus develop a more robust palette of interests. When your phone is constantly buzzing with updates of your friends, family, and the whole facebook and twitter worlds sharing Bird Box and Thanos memes, well, you better watch those at once to get caught up. Here's an example. Look at the variety of genres that topped the box offices in 1986 (a movie about pool was 12. Sure, had the biggest star in the world in it, but a movie about pool wouldn't make over million dollars today, regardless of the actors): https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1986&p=.htm

Obviously we know the movies that dominate today's box office (Superhero movies and animated children's movies). Similar thing is happening in music, with the image centric genres of hip-hop and hip-hop influenced pop dominating everything, since those genres are more compatible with social media. And as I said in a prior post, kids today can't get away from the proverbial crowd since they're basically required to follow what their friends are doing on social media to keep up. As the Atlantic article pointed out, kids are basically in their rooms just looking at social media sites on their phones, when time alone in your room at night used to be a time for self-reflection, self-discovery, and personal cultivation, uninfluenced by the pressure of the crowd.

[spurraider21]

I don't think modern technology is going to ruin humanity, but I don't think the effect its having on modern life is generally positive.

The main culprit that has made culture more homogenous is social media and the associated "FOMO" (Fear of Missing Out) phenomenon. Since people seem to have their smartphones surgically grafted to their hands these days, you can never really get away from the "influence of the crowd," to engage in self-discovery, cultivate your tastes, and thus develop a more robust palette of interests. When your phone is constantly buzzing with updates of your friends, family, and the whole facebook and twitter worlds sharing Bird Box and Thanos memes, well, you better watch those at once to get caught up. Here's an example. Look at the variety of genres that topped the box offices in 1986 (a movie about pool was 12. Sure, had the biggest star in the world in it, but a movie about pool wouldn't make over million dollars today, regardless of the actors): https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1986&p=.htm

Obviously we know the movies that dominate today's box office (Superhero movies and animated children's movies). Similar thing is happening in music, with the image centric genres of hip-hop and hip-hop influenced pop dominating everything, since those genres are more compatible with social media. And as I said in a prior post, kids today can't get away from the proverbial crowd since they're basically required to follow what their friends are doing on social media to keep up. As the Atlantic article pointed out, kids are basically in their rooms just looking at social media sites on their phones, when time alone in your room at night used to be a time for self-reflection, self-discovery, and personal cultivation, uninfluenced by the pressure of the crowd.
the trend to superhero movies was inevitable as the technology allowed for it. the market was always there. comic books, animated shows about comic characters, video games about comic book characters, action figures of comic book characters had always been massive hits. the main thing that held them back from dominating the box office was that they simply couldn't make them very well. and you could generally lump in the over-the-top action movies in that category too.

superman and superman 2 were both big commercial hits. star wars and indiana jones blockbuster action movies dominated when they came out. batman was #1 in 1989. batman returns was #3 in 1992, ahead of A Few Good Men. jurassic park was the biggest movie of all time when it came out. batman forever was #2 only behind toy story in 1995. independence day/mission impossible were huge. men in black and jurassic park 2 massively outdid good will hunting.

that category of movie has always been uber popular, they're just able to make them a lot better now.

people aren't going to see Marvel films because "oh well, that's whats out, may as well." no. people have always had the appetite for these movies and for once the supply is meeting the demand

[midnightpulp]

the trend to superhero movies was inevitable as the technology allowed for it. the market was always there. comic books, animated shows about comic characters, video games about comic book characters, action figures of comic book characters had always been massive hits. the main thing that held them back from dominating the box office was that they simply couldn't make them very well. and you could generally lump in the over-the-top action movies in that category too.

superman and superman 2 were both big commercial hits. star wars and indiana jones blockbuster action movies dominated when they came out. batman was #1 in 1989. batman returns was #3 in 1992, ahead of A Few Good Men. jurassic park was the biggest movie of all time when it came out. batman forever was #2 only behind toy story in 1995. independence day/mission impossible were huge. men in black and jurassic park 2 massively outdid good will hunting.

that category of movie has always been uber popular, they're just able to make them a lot better now.

people aren't going to see Marvel films because "oh well, that's whats out, may as well." no. people have always had the appetite for these movies and for once the supply is meeting the demand

Yeah, but people don't have the appetite for anything else. Back to School made 206 million in 1986 (adjusting for inflation). You're lucky if a live action comedy breaks a 100 million today. And a live action comedy that starred a senior citizen comic would have zero chance at being a box office hit. My other problem with the public's insatiable appetite for property based (Star Wars, comic book movies, sequels to established properties, like Mission Impossible and Fast and the Furious) action films is that it prevents Hollywood from taking risks on original ideas. Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Terminator, Predator, Alien, Indiana Jones, Star Wars (at one time, an original property) wouldn't be made today with the same level of budget and care, and would likely be relegated to Netflix's defacto B-movie section, along with the most recent Steven Seagal and Dolph Lundgren movies.

This is an industry I'm more than familiar with, and Hollywood will not take a chance on anything that requires the semblance of a budget unless it was based on a successful property of some sort (old tv show, book, comic book, or biography etc). It's a logical business decision considering the risk involved with how big the budgets are, but Hollywood will respond to the market, and it speaks to the general public's lack of open-mindedness that they won't patronize any other kind of big budget extravaganza unless it features a anthropomorphic eggplant wearing a big glove or a guy in a cat suit. I don't get it. Most of these movies aren't even competently written or directed. The only one I felt was clever was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (haven't seen Vol 1.) Ant-Man had some interesting set-pieces, to be fair.

[SpursforSix]

This is an industry I'm more than familiar with, and Hollywood will not take a chance on anything that requires the semblance of a budget unless it was based on a successful property of some sort (old tv show, book, comic book, or biography etc). It's a logical business decision considering the risk involved with how big the budgets are, but Hollywood will respond to the market, and it speaks to the general public's lack of open-mindedness that they won't patronize any other kind of big budget extravaganza unless it features a anthropomorphic eggplant wearing a big glove or a guy in a cat suit. I don't get it. Most of these movies aren't even competently written or directed. The only one I felt was clever was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (haven't seen Vol 1.) Ant-Man had some interesting set-pieces, to be fair.

I think this is a major part of the problem you alluded to with music today. There's a formula in place for these labels to crank out hip hop and pretty much know it will make a return. No reason to spend money to take a chance on something different.

[spurraider21]

Yeah, but people don't have the appetite for anything else. Back to School made 206 million in 1986 (adjusting for inflation). You're lucky if a live action comedy breaks a 100 million today. And a live action comedy that starred a senior citizen comic would have zero chance at being a box office hit. My other problem with the public's insatiable appetite for property based (Star Wars, comic book movies, sequels to established properties, like Mission Impossible and Fast and the Furious) action films is that it prevents Hollywood from taking risks on original ideas. Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Terminator, Predator, Alien, Indiana Jones, Star Wars (at one time, an original property) wouldn't be made today with the same level of budget and care, and would likely be relegated to Netflix's defacto B-movie section, along with the most recent Steven Segal and Dolph Lundgren movies.

This is an industry I'm more than familiar with, and Hollywood will not take a chance on anything that requires the semblance of a budget unless it was based on a successful property of some sort (old tv show, book, comic book, or biography etc). It's a logical business decision considering the risk involved with how big the budgets are, but Hollywood will respond to the market, and it speaks to the general public's lack of open-mindedness that they won't patronize any other kind of big budget extravaganza unless it features a anthropomorphic eggplant wearing a big glove or a guy in a cat suit. I don't get it. Most of these movies aren't even competently written or directed. The only one I felt was clever was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (haven't seen Vol 1.) Ant-Man had some interesting set-pieces, to be fair.
live action comedies are almost never box office smashes anyway. the highest grossing live action comedy ever was hangover 2 and that was in 2011. i dont think thats a great barometer.

i agree that there is a tendency to use licensed material... but that's because the stakes are monstrous. as i said, modern technology has really allowed this genre of movie to flourish, but with that comes increased cost. you cant get away with shitty visuals like superman did, or the hulk tv show anymore because you're no longer the only show in town. you have to compete with the awesome production quality of the MCU. who is going to give you hundreds of millions in budget to make a superhero movie with a character that nobody had heard of?

but that's more tied to the comic/hero genre. in the action genre, they did so with avatar and it was the biggest commercial success of all time.

specifically in the super hero genre, yes, there is a lot less of that. off the top of my head, last major unlicensed character i can remember was Hancock, and that movie performed pretty well. but the star power of Will Smith, Charlize Theron, and to a lesser degree, Jason Bateman is a reason people went for it. i think upgrade was a great movie, probably better than venom. but it didnt perform as well. alita battle angel doesnt look that good to me, but it will likely smash the box office too

[boutons_deux]

The $Bs are in the child/teen market, so they crank out 100s of "commercial" movies that are cartoonishly CGI, really just "science fiction", from start to finish.

[midnightpulp]

live action comedies are almost never box office smashes anyway. the highest grossing live action comedy ever was hangover 2 and that was in 2011. i dont think thats a great barometer.

i agree that there is a tendency to use licensed material... but that's because the stakes are monstrous. as i said, modern technology has really allowed this genre of movie to flourish, but with that comes increased cost. you cant get away with shitty visuals like superman did, or the hulk tv show anymore because you're no longer the only show in town. you have to compete with the awesome production quality of the MCU. who is going to give you hundreds of millions in budget to make a superhero movie with a character that nobody had heard of?

but that's more tied to the comic/hero genre. in the action genre, they did so with avatar and it was the biggest commercial success of all time. alita battle angel doesnt look that good to me, but it will likely smash the box office too

specifically in the super hero genre, yes, there is a lot less of that. off the top of my head, last major unlicensed character i can remember was Hancock, and that movie performed pretty well. but the star power of Will Smith, Charlize Theron, and to a lesser degree, Jason Bateman is a reason people went for it.

They used to be. Adjust for inflation. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1987&p=.htm

Why does the public need to hear of the character (or property) beforehand? At one time, Independence Day was the most expensive film ever made. Not based off a property, Will Smith wasn't a mega-star, and Emmerich didn't have the name recognition like Spielberg or Lucas. I'm not saying Independence Day was necessarily good, but it shows Hollywood at least had some imagination in developing big budget original material. Looking back further, Total Recall (original property) had a 65 million dollar budget in 1990 dollars. Of course Arnie was attached, but even mega stars can't carry films today unless it's an established property. I think the movie going public has just gotten complacent.

[midnightpulp]

Oh, and there isn't a tendency to use licensed material (whether that be comic book, novel, television show, biography, or even news articles), it pretty much dominates Hollywood's business model at the moment. The only exceptions are the occasional horror movie that breaks through to become a surprise hit, and Hollywood doesn't mind taking more risks with the horror genre since they can often be shot cheaply, especially supernatural horror films.

[Spurminator]

When looking at movie trends you have to also look at the proliferation of alternate forms of entertainment. In 1986, video entertainment was limited to television or movie theaters.

Now we can watch video on our computers, our phones, our tablets... and we have a ton of new options on the TV screen with streaming services and improvements in original cable series and films. So theaters have a lot more competition, and it stands to reason that the types of movies that work best on a giant screen (action/superheroes) would have an incredible advantage.

[SpursforSix]

dp

[SpursforSix]

When looking at movie trends you have to also look at the proliferation of alternate forms of entertainment. In 1986, video entertainment was limited to television or movie theaters.

Now we can watch video on our computers, our phones, our tablets... and we have a ton of new options on the TV screen with streaming services and improvements in original cable series and films. So theaters have a lot more competition, and it stands to reason that the types of movies that work best on a giant screen (action/superheroes) would have an incredible advantage.

This is a good point. I don't go to the movies much at all but if I do, it's usually to see something like a SH or action movie over a drama or comedy that I can watch at home in a few months.

[Chucho]

Comedy will never be a major draw again but I think it's more than just audience appetites, comedy is probably the most subjective of all genres in regard to how "good"/"funny" it is and also depends on the times. Some things are funny to some and aren't to others.

Another thing is there aren't many funny actors today compared to the glut of talent there was in the days of theatrical comedies being big. They're are some great stand ups right now but not a whole lot of stand ups that can act.

Look at it this way, we were getting a steady stream of legendary standups and comedic actors in the late 70's thru the early 90's- Pryor, Murphy, Steve Martin, Rodney Dangerfield, Murray, Akroyd, Candy, Farley, Chevy Chase, Mel Brooks, Monty Python and even Tom Hanks and so many others that there was a massive volume of comedies of high quality for a long period of time.

Recently, we've seen one comedian/comedy actor (and their associates) lead the pack for awhile and then fade away and kind of taking the genre with them. I'd say it started with Sandler in the late 90s to the mid 00s, we saw the rise of the Frat pack with Old School and everyone has faded basically sans Will Ferrell, then we saw the Seth Rogan rise and Melissa McCarthy was hot for a moment.

The only comedian who has been consistent throughout this entire century is Will Ferrell and his stuff is usually high quality as well. But none of the previously mentioned names that had dominant times of box office success aren't as thick and rich as the 70s-90s material. I'd say Kevin Smith stuff is high quality and consistent but not the volume isn't there, but that's what has made his stuff age well too.

Throw in the industry wide issue of no original ideas and you can see why comedy isn't as great as it can be.

[spurraider21]

When looking at movie trends you have to also look at the proliferation of alternate forms of entertainment. In 1986, video entertainment was limited to television or movie theaters.

Now we can watch video on our computers, our phones, our tablets... and we have a ton of new options on the TV screen with streaming services and improvements in original cable series and films. So theaters have a lot more competition, and it stands to reason that the types of movies that work best on a giant screen (action/superheroes) would have an incredible advantage.
hadn't really considered this angle either. makes sense upon first thought tbh.

[Chris]

Trump won't pull the trigger on what's really necessary to control drug prices: Regulation and price caps.

Approving manufacturing of more generics doesn't do shit because Big Pharma works with health care providers and insurance companies to get their drugs as the ones doctors prescribe. Health care providers and insurance companies have no problem with this because the margins are great for the former and the latter can use the 6000.00 per bottle blood pressure medication grandpa takes every month as an excuse to raise premiums. Drug companies also know they have an open tap via Medicare and Medicaid, so they arbitrarily set high prices knowing it'll be subsidized by the tax payer.

"From 2017-18...saved customers a staggering 26 billion!"

:lmao "Staggering"

There's 300 million insured Americans, so this "more generics" strategy has saved the individual American about 8.00 per month. Staggering, indeed.

If you read the article they are calling for transparency within the hospitals, insurance companies, and drug companies requiring them to disclose real prices to patients to drive costs down. I'm not sure why you are shitting on generic drugs in an open market. The single largest decline in drug prices in 46 years is substantial whether or not you hate Trump.

[Chris]

Too bad they've been in office two years and having battled shit yet tbh

Too bad you never read anything tbh

[Winehole23]

Lower drug prices are nice, hopefully the good will of pharmaceutical firms continues. Price transparency would be nice too, but that's a sticky wicket.

[Winehole23]

You can't control healthcare costs without controlling the costs.

[Avant]

Few people really understand had to build the right insurance package it takes today if you are providing for yourself.

[DMC]

I been to australia niga and didnt see none of that. You must be in a real dump tbqh

Cuba tbqh has one of the most efficient cancer treatments in the world. And doesnt cost a dime to individuals tbqh (cubans that is as foreigns im sure have to pay and tightly so)

If I get sick im going to the island :tu

I've seen their cancer treatment in Cuba and it is very efficient. They put a bunch of people in a boat and they die before they get to the United States

[DMC]

You can't control healthcare costs without controlling the costs.
That's profound. I'm surprised AOC hasn't latched onto that one.

[Winehole23]

That's profound. I'm surprised AOC hasn't latched onto that one.Have you got a better idea?

[midnightpulp]

If you read the article they are calling for transparency within the hospitals, insurance companies, and drug companies requiring them to disclose real prices to patients to drive costs down. I'm not sure why you are shitting on generic drugs in an open market. The single largest decline in drug prices in 46 years is substantialwhether or not you hate Trump.

Per their own claim that they seem to be celebrating, this strategy of theirs has saved Americans a "staggering" 26 billion on the cost of medicines over the fiscal year. I just looked at some more numbers. Doctors write 4.5 billion scripts each year. This equals Americans saving a little over 5.00 on each bottle of medicine. When you consider the on paper price of many these drugs can range from 50.00 to 5000.00, that isn't shit. Another graph. I don't see any "lowest decline on prices in 46 years" here (or in my next graph):

http://oi64.tinypic.com/307xc38.jpg

For Trump to really earn the pat on the back he craves, he's going to have to implement policy that cuts brand name prices by about 60%, which will have kept pace with inflation.

http://oi64.tinypic.com/f9e7f5.jpg

When can all be optimistic about the lower prices of generics (that declined in price well before Trump took office), but I've explained to you that the big brand name players basically monopolize the market through their cronyism with hospitals and insurance companies. If generics were really spooking the big players, we'd see their prices come down, but they're only increasing. Furthermore, if generic brands were to get more market penetration, you can bet your bottom dollar they would raise prices to just below levels of the brand names (the competition argument doesn't work here since there are very few generic drug manufacturers). I posted an article where a CEO of a generic manufacturer did just that.

Regulation and price caps are the only answer.

[midnightpulp]

When looking at movie trends you have to also look at the proliferation of alternate forms of entertainment. In 1986, video entertainment was limited to television or movie theaters.

Now we can watch video on our computers, our phones, our tablets... and we have a ton of new options on the TV screen with streaming services and improvements in original cable series and films. So theaters have a lot more competition, and it stands to reason that the types of movies that work best on a giant screen (action/superheroes) would have an incredible advantage.

My issue isn't the fact big budget action movies dominate the box office, it's the fact they're all based on a property. And yes, I totally understand the logic. Making a big budget movie from a property with an established fan base is a safer bet than throwing an 8 figure budget at an original spec script. It's just unfortunate that if the Wachowskis pitched The Matrix or Zemeckis Back to the Future in today's development climate, it's not getting made, at least not with a budget that would do the content justice. We occasionally get a big budget original idea put on the screen (Gravity, Jupiter Ascending, the latter of which is probably responsible for development executives being tightfisted more than ever with regard to new IPs, since it was a massive bomb).

This speaks to an overall audience complacency/close-mindedness to patronize new ideas in the genre.

[Spurminator]

This speaks to an overall audience complacency/close-mindedness to patronize new ideas in the genre.

If there's a lack of new big budget ideas in theaters, I don't know that it's about the audience as much as film producers. Like I said before, audiences have a lot of other places to find entertainment, and we're in a golden age of big budget TV entertainment right now. There's countless big (and small) budget, popular, and completely original series available on demand. So there's certainly still an appetite for great new ideas, but there's a wealth of availability and a lot more convenience at home. They have a dozen things on Netflix and HBO that they're already subscribing to that could "wow" them this weekend, so a film has more work to do to gain their interest if it's going to make them leave the house and drop $30 to see it.

And great original films are still being made. Sundance, TIFF and other film festivals have never been bigger nor more lucrative for filmmakers.

[midnightpulp]

[FONT=Verdana]

If there's a lack of new big budget ideas in theaters, I don't know that it's about the audience as much as film producers. Like I said before, audiences have a lot of other places to find entertainment, and we're in a golden age of big budget TV entertainment right now. There's countless big (and small) budget, popular, and completely original series available on demand. So there's certainly still an appetite for great new ideas, but there's a wealth of availability and a lot more convenience at home. They have a dozen things on Netflix and HBO that they're already subscribing to that could "wow" them this weekend, so a film has more work to do to gain their interest if it's going to make them leave the house and drop $30 to see it.

And great original films are still being made. Sundance, TIFF and other film festivals have never been bigger nor more lucrative for filmmakers.

Film producers will look at recent box-office and ratings successes (now informed by analytics) and decide what is worthy of development based on those findings. Obviously, audiences drive box-office and ratings successes, so yes, the audience does decide what gets made generally speaking. I'm not seeing this wealth of great new ideas being facilitated by the big streaming players. Netflix has about half-a-dozen Marvel series alone, along with popular sitcoms like Full House and One Day at a Time that are either continuations or remakes of past properties. Stranger Things was really the only big hit on there based off an original idea. On HBO, Westworld (property), Game of Thrones (property), and coming soon Watchmen (property). AMC's bread-and-butter is the Walking Dead (property). Some of Amazon Prime's big shows are Jack Ryan (property), Bosch (property). Mrs. Maisel and Sneaky Pete have been hits based off original ideas, but I don't see the occasional Stranger Things, Maisel, etc bucking the trend as an example of the industry not being heavily property driven.

Trust me, I'm intimate with the business, and you wouldn't believe some of the logic. A script based off an irrelevant newspaper article has a better chance of being made than one that isn't, even if the stories are identical. The only people that have a real chance of getting something original made are those who have heavy influence or name recognition (Tina Fey [Kimmy Schmidt], Bryan Cranston/David Shore [Sneaky Pete]), so this way you can advertise it as "From the creators of House, comes an exciting new..."

Indie isn't flourishing as well as perceived. The spirit of Sundance, TIFF, SXSW in the old days was to give exposure to complete unknowns (from directors to actors) working on shoestring budgets. Think past indie hits and award winners like Clerks, El Mariachi, Welcome to the Dollhouse, Sex, Lies, and Videotape. Now the big Sundance winners and hits feature A-listers or strong B-listers (Elijah Wood, Chloe Grace Moretz, Michael B. Jordan, Saoirse Ronan, Miles Teller) in the lead roles and have relatively large budgets. Indie is basically Hollywood-lite now.

And to be clear, my main primary gripe is the property based action movies and even shows sucking up development money that would be better (in an ideal world, obviously) put toward original ideas. Again, you try to pitch Robocop or Predator today, you'll get shown the door, as the execs explain that action movies without a property tie-in just don't hit. To boil it down, I'd like to see what a 200 million dollar martial arts film would look like that uses nothing but practical effects. Something like the Lethal Weapon 4 freeway chase scene is light years more impressive than any CGI loaded set-piece the MCU or DCU has come up with.

[hater]

I've seen their cancer treatment in Cuba and it is very efficient. They put a bunch of people in a boat and they die before they get to the United States

You havent seen shit, Nancy

Stop subscribing and parroting fake news, Nancy


https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39640165


Cimavax fights cancer by stimulating an immune response against a protein in the blood that triggers the growth of lung cancer. After an induction period, patients receive a monthly dose by injection.
It's a product of Cuba's biotechnology industry, nurtured by former President Fidel Castro since the early 1980s.
Ironically, Cuba's biotech innovations can partly be explained by the US embargo - something Castro continually railed against. It meant Cuba had to produce the drugs it could not access or afford. And medications like Cimavax - low-tech products that could be administered in a rural setting - were developed to fit the Cuban context.

[spurraider21]

Film producers will look at recent box-office and ratings successes (now informed by analytics) and decide what is worthy of development based on those findings. Obviously, audiences drive box-office and ratings successes, so yes, the audience does decide what gets made generally speaking. I'm not seeing this wealth of great new ideas being facilitated by the big streaming players. Netflix has about half-a-dozen Marvel series alone, along with popular sitcoms like Full House and One Day at a Time that are either continuations or remakes of past properties. Stranger Things was really the only big hit on there based off an original idea. On HBO, Westworld (property), Game of Thrones (property), and coming soon Watchmen (property). AMC's bread-and-butter is the Walking Dead (property). Some of Amazon Prime's big shows are Jack Ryan (property), Bosch (property). Mrs. Maisel and Sneaky Pete have been hits based off original ideas, but I don't see the occasional Stranger Things, Maisel, etc bucking the trend as an example of the industry not being heavily property driven.

Trust me, I'm intimate with the business, and you wouldn't believe some of the logic. A script based off an irrelevant newspaper article has a better chance of being made than one that isn't, even if the stories are identical. The only people that have a real chance of getting something original made are those who have heavy influence or name recognition (Tina Fey [Kimmy Schmidt], Bryan Cranston/David Shore [Sneaky Pete]), so this way you can advertise it as "From the creators of House, comes an exciting new..."

Indie isn't flourishing as well as perceived. The spirit of Sundance, TIFF, SXSW in the old days was to give exposure to complete unknowns (from directors to actors) working on shoestring budgets. Think past indie hits and award winners like Clerks, El Mariachi, Welcome to the Dollhouse, Sex, Lies, and Videotape. Now the big Sundance winners and hits feature A-listers or strong B-listers (Elijah Wood, Chloe Grace Moretz, Michael B. Jordan, Saoirse Ronan, Miles Teller) in the lead roles and have relatively large budgets. Indie is basically Hollywood-lite now.

And to be clear, my main primary gripe is the property based action movies and even shows sucking up development money that would be better (in an ideal world, obviously) put toward original ideas. Again, you try to pitch Robocop or Predator today, you'll get shown the door, as the execs explain that action movies without a property tie-in just don't hit. To boil it down, I'd like to see what a 200 million dollar martial arts film would look like that uses nothing but practical effects. Something like the Lethal Weapon 4 freeway chase scene is light years more impressive than any CGI loaded set-piece the MCU or DCU has come up with.
House of Cards, Narcos, Ozark, Making a Murderer, The Crown... there's a bunch of good stuff

[DMC]

You havent seen shit, Nancy

Stop subscribing and parroting fake news, Nancy


https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39640165


Cimavax fights cancer by stimulating an immune response against a protein in the blood that triggers the growth of lung cancer. After an induction period, patients receive a monthly dose by injection.
It's a product of Cuba's biotechnology industry, nurtured by former President Fidel Castro since the early 1980s.
Ironically, Cuba's biotech innovations can partly be explained by the US embargo - something Castro continually railed against. It meant Cuba had to produce the drugs it could not access or afford. And medications like Cimavax - low-tech products that could be administered in a rural setting - were developed to fit the Cuban context.

Mr 3rd world oracle of uh oh is going to try to lecture me on 3rd world advancements in medicine.

[Winehole23]

^^^ankle biter doing what ankle biters do

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1096874912202084352

[Winehole23]

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1096874912202084352Great, now do insurance, hospitals and doctors.

[Chris]

0hZJ4cotUWc

[Winehole23]

No, just saying drug prices are but one part of a complex puzzle.

[Winehole23]

Trump won't solve rising healthcare costs with regulatory tweaks to the price of drugs. That's incrementalist bureaucrat talk.

[baseline bum]

Trump won't solve rising healthcare costs with regulatory tweaks to the price of drugs. That's incrementalist bureaucrat talk.

He won't do shit for the price of drugs.

[Winehole23]

He won't do shit for the price of drugs.OH BUT THE DRUG COMPANIES ARE PRETENDING TO COOPERATE.

[Down Under]

You're also one major illness away from death! The end is NEAR!!! Shit is about to get REAL!!!!

I'm in Australia, the hospitals here are like homeless shelters and homeless people are actually sleeping on the street in front of one. :lol

"socialized medicine!"
I saw more homeless people in Santa Monica than I've seen in 35 years in Australia.

[DMC]

I saw more homeless people in Santa Monica than I've seen in 35 years in Australia.

Yes Santa Monica is a shit hole.

[RandomGuy]

“Our seniors” aren’t footing the bill for shit anymore. Their contributions to Medicare were made with fucked up actuarial projections and their healthcare costs are way more than what the put into it. The Gen Xers and Millennials are the ones who are currently paying into a Medicare program that’ll be bankrupt before they ever get any benefit from it.

Current beneficiaries are getting more out of the system than they ever paid into it.

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAZkLOvVIAYWh7Q?format=jpg&name=small

if you cry during surgery you can be billed for that


According to a Mentegram article titled, "CPT Code 96127: How to Increase Revenue with This NEW Behavioral or Emotional Assessment (https://mentegram.com/blog/how-to-increase-revenue-with-the-new-behavioral-or-emotional-assessment-cpt-code-96127/)" CPT Code 96127 "is a code that may be used to report brief behavioral or emotional assessments for reimbursement" and "may be billed four times for each patient per visit, utilizing four different instruments or assessments. So not only will clinicians have more efficient practices by utilizing these screenings, but they can also use them to build revenue." The article concludes with "Can you see how this missed income can really add up?"https://boingboing.net/2021/09/30/woman-charged-for-crying-during-surgery.html

[Winehole23]

the US protects profits rather than public health

1443582764591161346

[Winehole23]

We're pretty much the only rich country that pays extortionate costs for worse outcomes while bankrupting patients.

1537446974567419904

[Winehole23]

Our medical system makes us poorer and sicker.

1616508622321684487