THIS is the problem with healthcare

[blackangst1]

Its not access, or the ability to get treated. Thats not an issue at all. The issue is cost. Drug cost. Care cost. Treatment cost. I know for instance in Japan they have price controlls, so although providers can charge whatever they want, they cant go above certain price for any given proceedure or drug. Although that sounds great, I dont know that such controls could be implemented constitutionally. With that said, I know we have price controls WRT interest rates, so maybe?

The other issue is theres so much emphasis on insurance, no one is addressing the elephant in the room. At first blush, single payer *seems* like an answer, but is it really? single payer (read: government) would be catastrophic for two reasons. First, the costs will be passed on to the public in full. Secondly, the collapse of the health insurance industry would be devastating to our economy.

Thoughts?

Pfizer raises prices on 100 drugs—again—despite backlash from public, lawmakers

 

[Genx87]

Drug prices are the most direct example of what protectionist policies will do the cost of a product. If our politicians had any balls and morals they would open up our market and watch as the price of most drugs plummets because drug makers do not have a captive audience. Now they are competing with factories in China, India, or anywhere else to sell their products.

Single payer can be structured in a way to make it affordable and cover catastrophic injury\illness. Which is what insurance is supposed to be about anyways. And we could even make it progressive so the lowest ring of our society bears no cost. And if people want private gap insurance then go for it.

 

[dank69]

...

Thoughts?

...

You first.

No I'll go first. Did you think about the fact that as a "single payer" the government would have enormous leverage to negotiate lower prices or implement price controls? Did you think about the fact that unloading the cost of healthcare from employers would be a good thing for the economy? Did you think about the fact that many people employed by the insurance companies could perform similar, if not identical, functions for the government?

 

[soundforbjt]

How about the fact we (US) consume 80% of all drugs in the world. Maybe the US has a huge drug problem and I’m not referring to illegal drugs.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You first.

No I'll go first. Did you think about the fact that as a "single payer" the government would have enormous leverage to negotiate lower prices or implement price controls? Did you think about the fact that unloading the cost of healthcare from employers would be a good thing for the economy? Did you think about the fact that many people employed by the insurance companies could perform similar, if not identical, functions for the government?

It’s almost like he doesn’t know that single payer is cheaper.

 

[dank69]

It’s almost like he doesn’t know that single payer is cheaper.

It can't be. Liberals can't be right.

 

[vi edit]

I had a whole thing typed out. But what's the point. You have a 2nd grade mindset on a doctorate level issue.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Drug prices are the most direct example of what protectionist policies will do the cost of a product. If our politicians had any balls and morals they would open up our market and watch as the price of most drugs plummets because drug makers do not have a captive audience. Now they are competing with factories in China, India, or anywhere else to sell their products.

Single payer can be structured in a way to make it affordable and cover catastrophic injury\illness. Which is what insurance is supposed to be about anyways. And we could even make it progressive so the lowest ring of our society bears no cost. And if people want private gap insurance then go for it.

What really needs to be reworked is the IP systems.

Countries with pharma industries like India and China have a very hard time meeting the quality requirements that are required by the CRA. It's immensely complicated.

Full disclosure: I'm a scientist at a pharma company.

 

[blackangst1]

You first.

No I'll go first. Did you think about the fact that as a "single payer" the government would have enormous leverage to negotiate lower prices or implement price controls? Did you think about the fact that unloading the cost of healthcare from employers would be a good thing for the economy? Did you think about the fact that many people employed by the insurance companies could perform similar, if not identical, functions for the government?

Dont know what you mean me go first. I did. The difference between you and I is I dont think I have the answers. Nor do you. Just opening up for discussion. Theres a ton wrong with your ideas, but Im sure you dont give a fuck my opinion so Ill leave it be.

 

[blackangst1]

It’s almost like he doesn’t know that single payer is cheaper.

Cheaper for who?

 

[blackangst1]

What really needs to be reworked is the IP systems.

Countries with pharma industries like India and China have a very hard time meeting the quality requirements that are required by the CRA. It's immensely complicated.

Full disclosure: I'm a scientist at a pharma company.

I agree with you. And the IP issues in China apply to more than drugs.

 

[dank69]

Cheaper for who?

If it was cheaper for everyone except you, would you vote for it?

 

[blackangst1]

I had a whole thing typed out. But what's the point. You have a 2nd grade mindset on a doctorate level issue.

Please dont project your insecurities on to me.

 

[blackangst1]

If it was cheaper for everyone except you, would you vote for it?

Depends on how its structured.

 

[dank69]

Dont know what you mean me go first. I did. The difference between you and I is I dont think I have the answers. Nor do you. Just opening up for discussion. Theres a ton wrong with your ideas, but Im sure you dont give a fuck my opinion so Ill leave it be.

I don't have the answers. Most other nations on the planet have the answers, but because liberals want it, you're skeptical.

 

[fskimospy]

Cheaper for who?

As for who the costs are passed on to you already pay them in a million ways every day. Almost everything you buy is more expensive because you're paying for the health care premiums for the people who made it.

As far as who it is cheaper for, it's cheaper for the people paying for care. Research shows pretty clearly that more socialized systems are more efficient than ours. Saying we shouldn't let an old, inefficient system like our insurance industry go away because of the economic effects is similar to worrying about the buggy whip factories of the past. It's time to leave the old, inefficient ways of distributing health care behind.

 

[dank69]

Depends on how its structured.

What does structure have to do with my question? Literally everyone else in the country would pay less for healthcare except for you. You would pay more. Would you vote for it?

 

[blackangst1]

I don't have the answers. Most other nations on the planet have the answers, but because liberals want it, you're skeptical.

Yes other countries have different answers. But theres more to it than simply adopting. No other countries have a constitution. Thats a huge factor.

 

[dank69]

Yes other countries have different answers. But theres more to it than simply adopting. No other countries have a constitution. Thats a huge factor.

lol

 

[blackangst1]

What does structure have to do with my question? Literally everyone else in the country would pay less for healthcare except for you. You would pay more. Would you vote for it?

How about asking a reasonable question?

 

[dank69]

How about asking a reasonable question?

I'm asking you an off topic question to determine how much of a piece of shit you might be. Your inability to answer a direct question is telling though.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yes other countries have different answers. But theres more to it than simply adopting. No other countries have a constitution. Thats a huge factor.

Just a wee bit ignorant there bunky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions

 

[dainthomas]

Depends on how its structured.

If it's like Medicare or the VA, the government would pay for it (possibly minus a small copay). I get most of my medicine/supplies through the VA, and I guarantee they pay far less than I would have to.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm asking you an off topic question to determine how much of a piece of shit you might be. Your inability to answer a direct question is telling though.

Havent you already decided?

Under certain circumstances, yes. Under other circumstances, no.

 

[dainthomas]

lol

Omg did he just say that?