Thursday, November 12, 2020

The Biden-Harris Plan for Covid Recovery Is Not the Biden-Harris Plan You Voted For

>

The Biden-Harris Covid Advisory Council

by Thomas Neuburger

The new, improved transition version of the [Biden-Harris Covid plan] is so threadbare compared to the extensive, full bore assault campaign version that the shared elements are few and far between.
     —Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism
 

I have remarked privately and worried publicly that Joe Biden's Covid proposals would not pass two critical marks — free treatment for all, and free vaccines for all (see "When Should the War Against Biden's Neoliberalism Begin?").

About the vaccine in particular, I wrote, "It's impossible, on moral or practical grounds, to make the case that during a global pandemic (a) the price should be a multiple of the cost of manufacture; and (b) any user should spend a single dollar to receive it." The same applies to the cost of treatment.

Yet that case looks like it's about to be made, especially about the cost of treatment. Thanks to this excellent examination by Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism, "Quick Comments on the Biden-Harris Covid Plan: Not Much Sizzle and No Steak," we have some insight into the many differences between the Covid plan that was advertised on the campaign website and what's being touted today:

First, this new plan isn’t the same as the one on the Biden campaign site. The campaign version had no mention of contact tracing, while this iteration does. But if you simply skim the campaign version versus the president-presumptive one, you’ll see tons of program proposals from the campaign have vanished, like emergency paid leave (with reimbursements to employers), income support for gig workers whose pay has declined, rental assistance, and support for small businesses.

The campaign plan also had sweeping promises about paying for all Covid treatments, not just testing. For instance, this section, by using the term “balance billing” clearly meant it included hospitalizations and emergency room visits ... There’s not a peep about any of this in the new version. ...

The lack of financial support for workers to stay at home because they are sick, quarantined, or just waiting for test results makes it difficult to treat this scheme as serious. And the failure to even ask for the government to cover all Covid treatment costs, not just the kind that can be administered with a needle means a lot of people who have or think they have Covid won’t seek treatment until they are really really ill, increasing the load on hospitals and producing worse outcomes.

About the cost of drugs, Matt Taibbi caught this clever price positioning by the CEO of Gilead, makers of remdesivir. First, he implied that remdesivir was worth $48,000 per treatment because "earlier hospital discharge would result in hospital savings of approximately $12,000 per patient," which Taibbi takes to mean $12,000 per day multiplied by four, the number of days earlier than normal that remdesivir-treated patients were released on average.

But Gilead, says Taibbi, was inclined to be generous and reduce the price to "a measly $3,120 per patient." Keep that $3,000 per patient number in mind.

About vaccine pricing, I see three ways a Biden-Harris plan might go:

1. The government will provide the vaccine for free to all and buy it at near cost from the manufacturer, saving lots of government money.

2. The government will provide the vaccine for free to all, but reimburse the manufacturer at near-retail prices, spending lots of government money.

3. Vaccine recipients will be charged a co-pay to offset the cost to the government of reimbursing the manufacturer at near-retail prices, spending lots of government money, but less of it. 

Since option one is actually a Sanders plan, I don't hold much hope that it will be chosen. So keep your eye on the amount of money that passes from the government to whichever drug manufacturer hits the jackpot. Billions will be a low estimate. 

More than 300 million people live in the U.S. At "just" $100 per dose, that's $30 billion dollars, not counting redosage income. And why, with a compliant government paying the bill, would the manufacturer stop at $100 per dose? Gilead's CEO counts himself generous for charging a mere $3,000 per patient for remdesivir.

Multiply $3,000, or even $1,000, times 300 million. Jackpot indeed.

_____ 

(For those who like my work, I've launched a Substack site. You can get more information here. If you decide to sign up — it's free — my thanks to you!)


Labels: , , , ,

8 Comments:

At 9:58 AM, Blogger Scott said...

Notably, the Pfizer option requires at least one booster shot. So doubling any hypothetical math isn’t out of the question. Should we be rooting for the Russian vaccine at this point?

 
At 10:02 AM, Blogger Ten Bears said...

I thought she (Yves) said that about their new climate change plan?

 
At 11:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott, I just read it would require ANNUAL boosters.

So Thomas and TB have awakened to the vast difference between what a democrap says to get the vast greenhouse to vote for them, and what they will actually *DO* (if anything).

And before I 'splain it again in simple language... I have been telling you so for years.

When someone belongs to an evangelically corrupt neoliberal fascist party, they exist to affirm corruption, neoliberalism and fascism.

When someone ascends to the highest rung in that party's leadershit ladder, you can be damn fucking sure they are among the most enthusiastic of the evangelically corrupt neoliberal fascists.

full fucking stop!

Now if you happen to find a progressive-ish sounding "plan" on a website BEFORE an election, you can be damn fucking sure it's horse shit.

If that motherfucker fools enough of the greenhouse to get elected, you can be damn fucking sure that whatever they actually *DO*, if anything, will be of the evangelically corrupt neoliberal fascist variety.

full. fucking. stop.

And... DUH!!

 
At 12:07 PM, Blogger Scott said...

Thank you Anon :32, the booster I mention is at 3 weeks per the current test protocol. A 1 year minimum booster is not solidified and could be every 1, 2, or 3 years depending on the long term efficacy of the trial group, but you can effectively add our points together to be something worse.

Assuming maximum/expedient trial successes, production limitations will prevent this from being a $ trillion or multi-trillion 2021 play. But future years WILL easily see that even at the low, low, generous price of $100/poke... and that’s just domestically! For one SKU!

 
At 12:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's really very simple to explain.

THEY LIED SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD VOTE FOR THEM!

Now that the "will of the peepull" has provided the necessary affirmation via the election, the "Democrats" can immediately throw us overboard and serve their true corporate masters.

Die For Profit$!

 
At 5:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

for every $100 you get nicked so you don't die of covid, the democraps are planning on getting back $5 in campaign ca$h.

factor that into your "plan".

 
At 7:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

$5??? To get that much, "Democrats" would each have to perform the Lewinsky Maneuver on the donor.

 
At 3:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For $50 billion per (figuring on a trillion to vaccinate everyone), they'd tag-team them gleefully.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home