• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why health care is at above market prices

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
1. Tax deductions for Employers instead of personal tax deductions-- This creates an excessive demand for health care and particularly insurance which guarantees that prices are kept high. The fact that Congress has no intentions of repealing the employer tax exemption and replacing it with a tax deduction for all tax filers for all health care expenses shows that Obamacare was about control. Obamacare was never intended to help anyone but the ruling class (i.e., agents of the state) and a handful of big businesses.

2. Patents. They should be outright abolished, but even if they weren't abolished, they should be scaled way back to not more than 4 years. Drug inventors could still be profitable if they didn't have patent protection. Sure they wouldn't be guaranteed profit margins of 16-25% anymore, managmement probably wouldn't make as much, advetising budgets would have to be reduced, and research would probably have to be more efficient, but pharmaceutical industries could still be profitable. Being first to the market is a big advantage. For some inventors a 2-5% profit margin might be enough--how good the profit you make is subjective. Maybe they could even get more than 25% in some instances since the market wouldn't lock them in at 25%. Restaurants fail all the time (it's very risky), but Big Pharma can't because Big Pharma has the state on their side. Businesses need to be allowed to fail, they should not be propped up the state.

3. Ban on importation of drugs due to the FDA. No good can come from the FDA. In fact, regulatory agencies like the FDA were first created in other countries to protect their industries, The U.S. followed suit. Upton Sinclair was upright dissatisfied with Teddy Roosevelt's policies. He considered them fascism. Upton Sinclair was really for something for nothing, not for regulations which are always fascism and are never in the public interest. Ir was also later discovered that he didn't really see what he said he did in the meat factories.

4. Licensure. The EU regulates midwives less stringently than what is lobbied for by the AMA. As a result, the U.S. has a much higher infant mortality rate. The aforementioned is just one of many examples.

5. Laws saying that Health insurance must cover everything. There should be a choice as to the health insurance you want to buy. Also, if you pay out of pocket, some doctors will give you as much as 1/3 off.

6. Medicare combined with fiat currency (which hurts seniors) instead of Paulite Health Savings Accounts. Congress has shown no interest in Health Savings Accounts. The money that you take out to put into them should be tax free, the money should not be taxed while it's in there, and the money should not be taxed when it's taken out, and health care should not be taxed. Unfortunately, due to the IRC of 1954 mentioned in point number 1 and rhe income tax, there was an illusion that medicare was necessary.


Granted, there are market forces raising the price of health care (~1/3 of the patients at the free clinic I volunteer at have "diet, exercise, and smoking" written on their charts. They drive the cost of health care up for everyone by creating more demand for it), but they are very little compared to the forces of the state (which in fact, subsidizes unhealthy foods like corn syrup through subsidizing corn and through protecting the American sugar industry. The American state also encourages smoking through regulations).
 
Don't quit your day job. Oh wait you never had one. Let me encourage you to get in the medical field pays really well for some insight.
 
There is no such thing as a truly free market wrt healthcare. Never will be by its very nature. You do raise *a few* good points, but your basic premise is flawed.
 
My costs are going up, but thankfully the company I work for is splitting the raise in cost 50/50 with me instead of dumping the whole increase in health care onto me.
 
I also love it when it is all blamed on Obama....


The only thing I blame Obama for is not having balls from the beginning. He TRIED to work things out and all he got was a bloated bill with all the bone and muscle cut out of it.
 
Ninjahedge said:
I also love it when it is all blamed on Obama....


The only thing I blame Obama for is not having balls from the beginning. He TRIED to work things out and all he got was a bloated bill with all the bone and muscle cut out of it.
Click to expand...
I blame it on everyone but Ron Paul. Almost everyone else in the U.S. House rejected his free market health care legislation earlier this year.

In fact, I blame it more on Bush and Reagan than Obama. They had plenty of oppurtunity to move to a free market system but chose not to do so. Health care costs would've been so low that Obama would've been unelectable if he was proposing shit like Romneycare.
 
Just about Everything you stated is either factually incorrect or just plain idiotic. You make completely asinine assumptions based entirely in fantasy, and demonstrate he fact that you are about as ignorant as they come with regards to economics and business.

Despite your attempt to sound rational and educated, your post reflects nothing of the sort.
 
Anarchist420 said:
How is my basic premise flawed? Why is the health care market naturally not free?
Click to expand...

Imagine you go shopping at a supermarket to buy two pounds of steak at $8.00 a pound. You go to the checkout card and hand the cashier a card. You pay a dollar. The company who issues the card pays the store $5.00 more. Almost everyone has one of these BTW. That's your "free market"?
 
HR, the store only charges $8 because they take a hit on the $6 you pay.

The irony being, those that CANT AFFORD health care are the ones that pay the most for it when they need it.

They need to enact policy forcing same prices across the board, nevermind these contracts with health insurance companies.

How is it right that they can tell you what you can charge for your services in order to be a part of their referral network?
 
Ninjahedge said:
HR, the store only charges $8 because they take a hit on the $6 you pay.

The irony being, those that CANT AFFORD health care are the ones that pay the most for it when they need it.

They need to enact policy forcing same prices across the board, nevermind these contracts with health insurance companies.

How is it right that they can tell you what you can charge for your services in order to be a part of their referral network?
Click to expand...

So supermarkets should be forced to take $2.00 because those who don't have one of the magic cards should? In any case how is this free market? You've missed the whole point. Insurances cap payment and you take what they offer even if it's below the cost of providing care. There is no free market health care.
 
You need to quit whining haya. I've seen the numbers on my brothers pain clinic and three pharmacies. Oxy alone, when he can get it, is $180 gross profit and sells about 60-100 scripts a day of it. Course obama's DEA is being dickheads and cranking down on distributors like Cardinal, want's a 80/20 ratio on schedule 2's so it's just at a trickle now but still Pharmacists were never millionaires in the past.

Same goes for Drs and surgeons. He pays $1500 a day to his doctor at pain clinic + 25% bonus. She's a millionaire.

1. HC is expensive because of exclusion. It's hard as hell to open a Medical or Pharmacy or nursing school. They rarely open and have not kept up with demand in HC. With less professional servicing more people it shifts supply and demand curve artificially. You have tens of thousands of kids with A averages not getting slots.

2. HC is expensive because of finacialization and EMTLA. Like houses, when everyone can get financed, it shifts supply and demand curve combind with #1 it goes through roof. They just cost shift on to us private people loss leaders EMTLA/medicare mandates.

3. HC is expensive because of of insurance cartel. Not free market and must have congressional approval. They make billions with this special sanction.

4. HC is expensive because all phrama must be made in USA if possible no importation.

5. HC is expensive because we want it all, new technologies and insurance testing so you don't get sued.
 
Last edited:
When Medicare was started the idea was that it would slowly lower the eligibility age by one decade for each decade that passed. by now almost everyone or everyone would be covered. Other Countries have ways of covering everybody with a certain minimum standard of health care so that as many people as possible are covered.

This lowers the costs generally because people don't put off seeing the doctor until they have to go to the emergency rooms for illnesses that in a lot of cases could have been treated more cheaply if the patient went to see a doctor much earlier.

There are also just about as many systems that try to cover everyone in countries that use "universal health care." Those countries have better outcomes overall for their patients than we do. There will always be a few areas where our health system performs better, but at least the other industrialized countries don't let portions of their populations go bankrupt or die from lack of adequate care.

TLDR: Countries with "Universal Health Care" systems (every industrialized country except for the U.S.) have better outcomes overall for their citizens at a cheaper cost per capita. Something to think about.

Contrary to popular belief their citizens do have choices. In Germany, for example, for you can buy extra premium insurance to get better accommodations if you have to be hospitalized. If you make enough money you can opt out of the national system entirely to purchase private health care.
 
We'll never have UHC in a sensible form in USA. Country is too corrupt and protects those at the top of the food chain. Just look at Obama's bill which is basically a insurance, pharma and hospital profit racket forcing you to buy monopolistic products at zero discount. Or Medicare part D whereby largest buyer in the world can get no bulk discount but pays full retail.

HC professionals, executives, middle men, lawyers would have to take a serious hair cut to implement it like Germany and they won't. They'll funnel billions into campaigns to keep the racket going.

My advice is to get in on the racket or work for those that are. I've built 23 homes, half for doctors. I am considering managing my brothers businesses because he wants to retire but so do I so maybe not.
 
Last edited:
Zebo said:
We'll never have UHC in a sensible form in USA. Country is too corrupt and protects those at the top of the food chain. Just look at Obama's bill which is basically a insurance, pharma and hospital profit racket forcing you to buy monopolistic products at zero discount. Or Medicare part D whereby largest buyer in the world can get no bulk discount but pays full retail.

HC professionals, executives, middle men, lawyers would have to take a serious hair cut to implement it like Germany and they won't. They'll funnel billions into campaigns to keep the racket going.

My advice is to get in on the racket or work for those that are. I've built 23 homes, half for doctors. I am considering managing my brothers businesses because he wants to retire but so do I so maybe not.
Click to expand...

That's really cynical...

However looking back on the past 30 years I can't say that you are wrong even if I wish that you are.

You are right about the Health Care bill that was recently passed.

The chart in the link right below this sentence details the similarities it has to the Republican counter proposal when Hilary Clinton was trying to advocate for a single payer system.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/graphics/2010/022310-bill-comparison.aspx
 
blankslate said:
When Medicare was started the idea was that it would slowly lower the eligibility age by one decade for each decade that passed. by now almost everyone or everyone would be covered. Other Countries have ways of covering everybody with a certain minimum standard of health care so that as many people as possible are covered.

This lowers the costs generally because people don't put off seeing the doctor until they have to go to the emergency rooms for illnesses that in a lot of cases could have been treated more cheaply if the patient went to see a doctor much earlier.

There are also just about as many systems that try to cover everyone in countries that use "universal health care." Those countries have better outcomes overall for their patients than we do. There will always be a few areas where our health system performs better, but at least the other industrialized countries don't let portions of their populations go bankrupt or die from lack of adequate care.

TLDR: Countries with "Universal Health Care" systems (every industrialized country except for the U.S.) have better outcomes overall for their citizens at a cheaper cost per capita. Something to think about.

Contrary to popular belief their citizens do have choices. In Germany, for example, for you can buy extra premium insurance to get better accommodations if you have to be hospitalized. If you make enough money you can opt out of the national system entirely to purchase private health care.
Click to expand...
Those countries with UHC have populations that have less risk factors. Like I said in my Original post, in addition to the Federal government increasing the costs, the people here who smoke and eat Micky Dicks every meal every day increase the demand which raises the cost. Having UHC here would exacerbate that issue and only the wealthiest people who could afford decent care would get it because the middle class would be paying most of the taxes that finance universal health care. Having a homogeneous population helps, but then if you have homogeneous population it doesn't really benefit anyone. That said, it's an illusion that UHC in other countries is better than a free market system--there is no free market system anywhere in the world or a country with UHC and a heterogeneous population, so it's not a fair comparison to make.

The government here also makes the situation worse by subsidizing unhealthy foods and other risk factors (like smoking).

You also pay for it in taxes (everyone puts into it, not just the rich) and it could never be financed by an increase in income taxes, so it would have to be paid for with an increase in FICA taxes, a VAT, or a real estate tax. That would hit the middle class the hardest, many of whom either have health insurance or can afford it but don't want it.

Even if UHC did give shorter wait times I wouldn't want it because it takes away choice. Government has no business making decisions.
 
Anarchist420 said:
Those countries with UHC have populations that have less risk factors. Like I said in my Original post, in addition to the Federal government increasing the costs, the people here who smoke and eat Micky Dicks every meal every day increase the demand which raises the cost. Having UHC here would exacerbate that issue and only the wealthiest people who could afford decent care would get it because the middle class would be paying most of the taxes that finance universal health care. Having a homogeneous population helps, but then if you have homogeneous population it doesn't really benefit anyone. That said, it's an illusion that UHC in other countries is better than a free market system--there is no free market system anywhere in the world or a country with UHC and a heterogeneous population, so it's not a fair comparison to make.

The government here also makes the situation worse by subsidizing unhealthy foods and other risk factors (like smoking).

You also pay for it in taxes (everyone puts into it, not just the rich) and it could never be financed by an increase in income taxes, so it would have to be paid for with an increase in FICA taxes, a VAT, or a real estate tax. That would hit the middle class the hardest, many of whom either have health insurance or can afford it but don't want it.

Even if UHC did give shorter wait times I wouldn't want it because it takes away choice. Government has no business making decisions.
Click to expand...

UHC doesn't take away choice. You can choose your physicians under most of those plans.

As for better health factors this is not always the case. I've lived in Germany up until 3.5 years ago and smoking was much more prevalent there than in in the States.
Sure that may have changed a little in 3 years but the change from in attitudes toward smoking in the states took a look time to change and I make a guess based on personal experience that they are about 20-30 years behind us.

Nice regurgitation of illusionary talking points. Nations with UHC do have better outcomes for their patients overall than our system and for less cost per capita. Populations in Europe are not as homogeneous as you would like to make them out to be. There is an amount of diversity, from what I have seen with my own eyes, that is about the same as what I have seen in the states.

There are not nearly as many bankruptcies from catastrophic illness in those countries as there are here. In fact those are practically unheard of. The costs do not hit the middle classes the hardest at all. In fact since the population feels better about going to seeing a physician earlier before they get too sick it contributes to the costs actually being less than in the States. It's a variation of that saying that "an ounce of prevented is worth a pound of cure".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top