So that Texas judge overruled parts of Obamacare
Obviously headed to the supreme court
I would think this is bigly
Thoughts
It's an interesting turn of events. The mandate would never have passed congress as a tax, even with all the begging, borrowing, stealing and arm twisting that took place resulting in a 100% division along party lines with 100% dem support and 100% pub opposition. So, they called it a "mandate". But, it was well known that a mandate forcing citizens to enter into an agreement with a private firm was well outside the confines of the constitution. And that was the argument used in the original supreme court case.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the ruling. A majority of the justices, including Roberts, allowed the defense to change the mandate back to a tax, and we all know the federal government is well within it's rights to levy taxes. So, it could not get through congress as a tax and could not get through the court as a mandate. Will wonders never cease!!!
Now comes a new challenge using the original word "Mandate" and the Texas justice rightly called it unconstitutional.
I feel as though I must be missing something because this Texas justice is ignoring a serious precedent set in the prior ruling of the superior supreme court. Will this challenge face the same fate or will this be a do over for Roberts where he gets to right a previous wrong and rule accordingly? . I don't see a new angle to the old argument.
It will be interesting to watch.
I've said many times the entire healthcare system needs to be audited from top to bottom to determine what and why it costs so much. It is pointless to keep throwing money at something if costs are not fully known.
Exactly right cliff.
No system can ever work until the costs are brought down..............the massive corruption of the FDA and medical community...........being bought off by big pharma so that they can price gouge us. This is just one part of it.
"The analysis of payments, made public through disclosures in scientific publications,found that, of 107 physicians who advised the FDA on 28 drugs that were approved between 2008 and 2014, the majority of them later received financial support — including direct payments for consulting, reimbursements for travel expenses, or other support for research — from the companies whose drugs they voted on.
That includes seven physicians who received over $1m (£750,000) in such financial support from the companies, 19 who received between $100,000 (£76,500) and $1m, 14 who received between $10,000 (£7,500) and $100,000, and another 26 who received between $1,000 (£756) and $10,000 in financial support. Forty-one physicians or advisers received no payments or financial support from the companies they voted on."
And you can find dozens of stories like this on the internet:
https://www.wanttoknow.info/pharmaceuticalcorruptionnewsstories
You are both laboring under the misconception that there are no audits of the health care system in the US. There are plenty of audits. The government scrutinizes every aspect in expense and quality and of course, compliance. I work in healthcare. I've spent hundreds of hours supplying data to the government on all aspect from HIPPA and PECOS compliance to assorted financial disclosures. The 4 billion dollar company I work for spends millions every year on these audits you think we need. It's one more example of the massive success of government "audit". Darn good thing those millions are not actually going to providing healthcare, right?
The real problem is that the consumer has been removed from the equation. Most of us have no idea what we pay for medical care. We go to the doctor, they bill the insurance company, and we get billed for whatever the deductible may be. The insurance company and the provider and the government all get together and decide what it will cost. And we take whatever they give us.
As I've said more than a few times, look at Lasik surgery. Not covered by insurance and not heavily regulated. It costs a fraction of what it did 10-20 years ago while the process has been improved and continues to get cheaper.. That's because people get to shop for the best and most affordable service.
And that's what's missing today from healthcare.
Tim, well put with your antidotal facts.
Tim,
Clearly you know quite a bit about the system(and I don't). I'm not saying that we need audits to cut costs. I don't even understand anything about the auditing system..............just that we need to cut costs.
Obviously entities that get audited that you describe, are able to justify the costs............which you admit are too high.
The expenses that we pay for health care and especially drugs in this country are astronomical compared to every other country. Our FDA is in cahoots with big pharma.
It's impossible to have affordable health care until this is reigned in..........and its been going the other way.
How do you suggest the consumer get involved in the equation?
Lasik eye surgery is an elective procedure that a consumer can shop around for. Plan for. It's not like an emergency room visit or like when people are sick and MUST have treatment or they will get sicker or die. A drug/med they must take to treat a serious condition.
They can't shop around for prices.
I think one solution would be for the government to step in and rachet down prices enormously.
"I think one solution would be for the government to step in and rachet down prices enormously."
In the words of Charlie Brown Arrrrrggghhhhhh
You really think the government can solve the problems it has caused? Arrrrggghhhhhh!!!!!
There are lots of solutions, and none of them involve the government.
The simplest one.. We get to chose a policy and keep it for our whole life. No matter who we work for. And we get to chose it from any state. Competition is the best price control/audit there is. Right now, the government refuses to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. Weird Huh? There are thousands of rules the government has insisted upon to make costs higher. Can you imagine why? Could it be they want to control our healthcare? What would happen if they did? Would that give them some sort of control over us? Nahhh <G>
Anyway, after we get to choose an insurance plan and pay for it with pre-tax ( which we can't do now, go figger outside of the one our employer chooses, weird huh?) , we get a health savings plan that we contribute a few 100, maybe a thousand or so a year from the time we start working. Tax free interest bearing. For most of us, for most of our lives, we won't need most of it. By the time we are old and in need, it would be a substantial sum.
The insurance policy is an actual insurance policy.. It pays for unexpected expense. Your wife has a baby, with no complications, you pay out of the HSA. Complications, if there are any, are paid by insurance.
We choose who we pay in 95% of our health decisions.
Honestly answer this. How many times a year, in your life, have you been rushed to the hospital for an emergency? It's pretty rare and has little/nothing to do with the decisions we should be making for ourselves on a day to day/year to year basis.
Most of the choices we make can/should be based on our choices on who we trust and how we want top be treated. In that case, providers will compete and prices/services will improve.
And dammit Carl, this is not anecdotal. It's the system.
To remind folks, the mandate, itself, is ironically a GOP idea:
“The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart Butler at Heritage in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans".[43] This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation
The idea of the mandate is actuarially supported as it reduces the % of the pool who are unhealthy and thus reduces premiums. That was deemed to be necessary since preexisting conditions exclusions were being eliminated. But many Republicans are thinking of the mandate as a liberal Democrat idea and are against it only because they think that! Utter ignorance and partisanship! The taking away of the mandate in 2019 is likely going to lead to even higher premium increases than would otherwise be the case.
I abhor partisan politics in general as partisans blindly follow one side or the other often without thinking even if it makes them hypocrites or makes them look stupid. This is a great example. And by the way, what Senator Hatch said the other day was also a great example though he took it back after very heavy criticism.
I really don't give a fig who's idea the mandate was. It's a bad idea to have the government penalize private citizens for not entering an agreement with a private company. Extremely dangerous precedent. What's to stop the government from implementing the "Affordable Car Act" where you will be charged a mandate if you don't buy a new car every 2 years. It has to be an American made vehicle and of course, the government will subsidize the purchase based on means testing. Imagine all the unintended consequences. Higher auto prices over all. In 20 years, the average citizen would not be able to afford a car without government help. The quality of the vehicles would likely drop. Who needs innovation when you are going to sell vehicles anyway?
And btw, have you noticed an improvement in cost and/or quality of healthcare in the last 10 years?
And btw, it's absolutely unconstitutional. And the constitution is not partisan
Tim I meant no dig. If you believe the source, anecdotal is fine.
Tim,
Thanks for the reply. No, I think the ACA has lead to an acceleration in costs of those already insured because that was bound to happen when folks with preexisting conditions became insured. Therefore, the “A” in “ACA” is a true misnomer to say the least for those already insured! However, not having the mandate will make it even worse imo.
The ACA makes it more affordable (or outright insurable) than would otherwise be the case for those with preexisting conditions while making it less affordable for those who had already been insured. The general idea is that society is making a sacrifice for those with preexisting conditions. Then one needs to ask if this sacrifice is a good idea for society. I think it is a good sacrifice for those with preexisting conditions that date back to before adulthood/before a person was old enough to need their own health insurance. It is no fault of these folks to have been unlucky enough to have been born with health problems or develop them early on before getting to their time to insure themselves. Any of us could have been in the same boat with plain old bad luck. Call this group #1.
However, the folks who were initially healthy in early adulthood and chose to not get insured but then became sick and were unable to get insured/beat the system became the big problem. This is called antiselection in the insurance biz. This is where preexisting condition exclusions can be considered warranted. In this case, they were there to prevent these cheaters of sorts. Call this group #2.
The ACA taking on the group #2 is the downside of taking on group #1. But that’s where the mandate comes into play. By having the mandate, you reduce the size of group #2 while still taking on the entire group #1. However, the mandate has to be large enough to be effective enough to reduce the size of group #2 enough to make the ACA overall good for society by helping group #1.
Does what I’m saying make sense? Do you want to help group #1? Do you know anyone in group #1? I do and assume most folks know someone in group #1.
Do you want to both help group #1 but also minimize the size of group #2? If so, you need the mandate and it has to be large enough.
Let's skip over the fact that the mandate is unconstitutional. In my mind, there is no debate.
The true measure of a society is in how it treats it's weakest members. We have an obligation as a society.
But, we already had a safety net. It's called MEDICAID and it was not nearly as disruptive to the majority of the population. If it was inadequate, it would have been far more cost effective to fix/update MEDICADE than it was to screw up healthcare for everyone else.
But we are putting the cart before the horse, or at least debating the wrong issue. The main problem with US healthcare is cost and no level of government intrusion will fix that. It's not what the can or should do, and the evidence is pretty conclusive that they have made the problem far worse with their meddling.
To fix cost, you have to put consumers back into the equation as I discussed above.
Tim,
The problem with Medicaid is that one has to be in bad enough financial shape to qualify for it as you know. So, for someone in group #1 who’s not yet poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, is it fair to them that they couldn’t get insured before the ACA? So, someone in group #1 has to become poor before becoming insurable (by Medicaid)? Is that fair to them? I don’t think so.
Yes, the underlying costs of especially RXs and hospitals need to be reduced drastically. No doubt about it! But in the meantime, is it fair that folks in group #1 need to be poor to be able to get insurance? Do you not feel bad about that? Are you not in and not have loved ones in group #1 and therefore don’t care?
As I said, we could expand Medicaid. I also believe that a lot of people who could not "afford" insurance were making the choices. I knew a guy with 2 cars who took his family on vacation every year who claimed he could not afford insurance, and I'll wager there is/was no small number in the same boat. He/they are free to make that choice, but I don't know why I should be forced to supplement that behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
"Medicaid recipients must be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, and may include low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities. Poverty alone does not necessarily qualify someone for Medicaid ...
states do not have to agree to this expansion (ACA) in order to continue to receive previously established levels of Medicaid funding, and many states have chosen to continue with pre-ACA funding levels and eligibility standards."
Tim,
It sounds like this guy and those similar are in group #2, who are gaming the system. That’s the bad side of ACA but the mandate minimizes group #2 continuing to be able to game the system while helping group #1 immensely.
This is a great discussion and I wish I could be more part of it but we had a 90 foot oak tree uprooted in the front yard to cleap this week.
"How many times a year, in your life, have you been rushed to the hospital for an emergency? It's pretty rare"
I'm the wrong person to comment on this because my situation is unique but how about 5 times in the last 20 years.
On 2 of those occasions, I lost over 4 units of blood and was unconscious. On one in particular, it was amazing that I lived.
I've had 18 surgeries in my life. Last year, I got messed up by Obamacare. I had the best doctor in Indiana lined up to do a strabismus surgery on both eyes. My insurance would not authorize it and insisted that I use the local one in our network. She messed up the right eye and had to go back in to do that one over and the right eye is messed up permanently.
I'm not stating these things other than to let you know that I have a bit of experience with the health care system in unique ways.
I take numerous medications too. Considering these things, there is a good chance that I would be denied health care because of pre existing condition.....if it were allowed.
My wife and I actually went without health care for 5 years and got lucky that during those 5 years, neither of us had anything bad happen. We saved many tens of thousands of dollars in health insurance costs. We do not have a group plan available.
She had an emergency room visit this past June and spent several days in the hospital after that +tons of follow up visits and sleep clinic stuff for sleep apnea that we discovered...............so we are out the max out of pocket expense but that money +our premiums is actually close to the total bills we would have paid with no insurance.
Having no insurance, by a wide margin is the best choice for most people under the current environment because insurance premiums don't provide value. Unless you have a group plan and your employer pays part of the costs or you are pretty sick and will accumulate some huge medical bills.
It's not just the absolute cost to consider. From an actuarial standpoint, the consideration is..........am I getting value for the money I'm spending.
If you have a $2,000 car for instance, it doesn't make sense to pay $2,000/year for car insurance.
If you have a $50,000 car, that would make sense.
With health insurance, we are paying multiple times the rate of any other insurance types that would be considered "fair" value. Covering X amount of monetary risk for X amount of dollars.
Car and house(if the bank owns your house) insurance are mandatory. With Obamacare, so is health insurance........unless you want to pay the penalty.
However, car and house insurances are competitive and they provide decent value for your money..............based on the cost to fix cars(which is very high) and houses or pay for injuries.
The cost to fix people with drugs and medical treatments has been jacked up because the system has been used by some people/groups to get rich.
This is the biggest problem in the US. Other countries are providing the same drugs, for instance for much less. We hear that its because we have the best health care and treatments. My permanently damaged right eye(and I got charged for the 2nd surgery-at least my insurance paid it-to fix the botched first one) isn't exactly an example of the best doctors. I know of a couple of complete bufoon doctors that my wife went to this year..........where I knew more than them and I had to argue with them about their diagnosis and treatment and I turned out right.
I don't have the easy answer but in this case, think that its so waaaaay out of control and the path is going to quickly escalate into catastrophic territory financially for the country and its already devastating a large segment of the population.
Lucky guys like you, Tim, that have affordable group plans from your employer and are in good health are on the side that is enjoying value and affordable coverage.
You insist that the government got us into this mess and we need the government to step away so it can resolve on its own with competition and free market dynamics taking over.
Maybe that might help some and over time but I just can't see it making a big enough dent to a problem that needs immediate and aggressive/massive changes to reverse the awful dynamics at play.
Only the government is capable of stepping in to do whats really needed.
I think that the consumer is not engaged enough in the purchasing of medical procedures and medicines(they are completely reliant on doctors that are big players contributing to the problem).
You can't write your own prescriptions or decide what prescription drugs to take. You don't order your own medical tests and shop around. Consumers are totally controlled by whatever their doctors decide and the medical system that they operate within.
There is the issue of medical lawsuits that comes into play here also that is for another discussion but the point is, this can never be like car or house insurance.
Sure, a consumer can shop around for health insurance but rates will not come down very much from current rates as long as health insurance companies have to pay the massive, over inflated medical and drug costs. No matter how competitive they are, they still have to make money and they cant make much money charging much less than they do now.................with the current system.
Why do you folks insist on paying an insurer to take part of your premium as profit. Why not cut out the middle man and have a national non profit negotiate and come up with maybe 6 different plans, with the enduser [doctor, hospital drugs etc. and then have the non-profit pay directly to the enduser
A national non profit representing millions, should be able to negotiate very low drug costs etc.
No share holders also eliminates the need to generate profit for share holders as they do not exist
Over sight by a commite should be limited to not more than 12 members and 9 yrs service max.,with 1/3 being new members every 3 yrs. Any one with a financial interest in the health care industry over and above 250,000/yr is not eligible on the over sight commite
Oversight commite does not have any direct link with negotiations of plans or price but hires qualified employees to do the grunt work. Employees, who do the grunt work, can stay long term until retirement if so desired. Salary caps of employees enforced according to non union private industry wages and no payment alloed for severance of employment other than mandated vacation etc. Employee is free to sue in civil court situation, if a case for no cause of severance of employment, is justified, same as any other situation.
I would put this under the supervision of HUD, dealing directly with the over sight commite.
"Why do you folks insist on paying an insurer to take part of your premium as profit?"
Wayne, because they use a good part of that profit to lobby and contribute to our congressional representatives.
Wayne, because they use a good part of that profit to lobby and contribute to our congressional representatives.
and furthermore our reps then take our tax dollars to create a special fund Wayne, to pay off prostitutes and then on top of everything else they try to run a President out of office for Paying for his prostitutes with his own money....go figure
choo … choo … here comes the one track train !
sure berky it is a real crime to point what a bunch hypocrites we have in office...lets all ignore it and it will just cure itself....let California lead the way with the reps you got.
"Why do you folks insist on paying an insurer to take part of your premium as profit?"
Wayne, because they use a good part of that profit to lobby and contribute to our congressional representatives.
Your statement is not completely inaccurate Carl. Quite close to the truth. And yet you seem to be holding on to a belief that these are the people who can/should fix the problem. The very problem they created and continue to create.
It boggles my mind.
" And yet you seem to be holding on to a belief that these are the people who can/should fix the problem."
Even if you know that the wheel is crocked, you still play if it's the only game in town.
sure berky .... let California lead the way with the reps you got.
More misinformation. I haven't lived in California for almost 30 years.
I will be the 1st to admit our system of health care in Canada isn't perfect. I don't think perfect is possible
But maybe, you could at least have an open mind and take a look at our system, before rejecting our system with out a fair examination
Obviously most of you don't like our system
But golly gee whiz
Is our system any worse than what you have currently
As your president elect said while in campaign mode
What have you got to lose
Just so you know
It makes no difference to me
But golly I sure do like you folks so if anything helps
Just so you know:
People get quality health care in Canada if it is urgent. We don't have a bunch of quacks pretending to be doctors. My wife and myself can both attest to that as fact. In fact I think I might have one of the best and most caring pain specialist in the biz. I make appointments, so she can monitor the medication, but if an emergency, she told me she doesn't go to bed until after 11 P:M so call if an emergency but don't abuse her generosity. She also loves singles boat cruises and her alcohol, when on holiday.
Best part is I get treated the same if I am worth millions or on social assisstance
Now if I want my knee fixed [which I don't] I will wait may be 6 months or a bit longer determined by greatest need. I would be on the low end of the totem pole for knee surgery but you know how things work. Some people simply demand to be 1st in line
I simply ask for assistance at the airport for my wife and myself, hang a handicap sign in the windshield of our car while in town and life is good. Why would I want it any different but if I did I could get the knee fixed, just not in a week or so.
Often if in a casino we ask for one wheel chair. One of us rides and the other pushes. When the pusher gets tired, we just change places and continue on. Sure get some strange looks, even have a few people that want to help, which leaves the pusher behind. After a while people get bored watching and we get along fine. But if we do need health care it is always available and doesn't cost us a fortune. We pay more at the gas pump, 5 dollars/gal of milk, extra for a 6 pack etc. but we can ration those expenses to some degree according to our wishes. Nobody sends us a bill for 10,000 premium for a family of 4, so life is good. Now if a new combine didn't cost so much [500,000 plus] life would be even better.
Tim,
Though I agree with you, that the government has caused much of the problem at this point in the game, I think that in the absence of the government stepping in and changing the rules in a way that nobody in government is suggesting they will ever do, the problem is never going to be fixed.
The cheapest health insurance plan is still going to be too high, no matter a free market and competition.
We have to stop the corruption first, which is behind alot of the price gouging, before prices can come down significantly.
The government has the capability to regulate and force prices lower but the people in government that know this and what it will take also include the gate keepers that are using the system to enrich themselves.
Those that have the ethical standards and some political clout, know that its almost impossible to try to change this situation because they would encounter astronomical resistance from the enriched gatekeepers.
In every other realm, the free market works well but in medicine, the consumer of doctor prescribed drugs and doctor prescribed medical procedures has very little power.
When you buy a car, tv, house, computer, cell phone, you name it, you are not forced to make an appointment with a tv, computer or cell phone expert, who writes you a prescription for the exact type of tv, computer or cell phone that you MUST buy...........and without that, you can't buy any of those things.
Your life or health doesn't depend on the type of car that you get based on a car doctors prescription.
So what if we change the rules about buying insurance across state lines?
That helps a little but is a band aid on a life threatening massive wound that is gushing blood.
The consumer is never going to force medical procedures and drug prices lower............NEVER because its not within their power to do so.
What can cause doctors, hospitals, medical providers and drug companies to accept lower prices for their services/drugs?
All of them charge as much as they can get, which is too much in too many cases.
Only governmental intervention with a widespread overhaul to drastically reduce the outrageous charges and price gouging will work.
Price gouging has been the accepted norm for decades in this field and I never hear about substantive plans to reign that part of it in...........so its going to get worse before enough people finally come to their senses and we take the right actions to make it better.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/22/the-real-reason-medical-care-costs-so-much-more-in-the-us.html
"The U.S. is famous for over-spending on health care. The nation spent 17.8 percent of its GDP on health care in 2016. Meanwhile, the average spending of 11 high-income countries assessed in a new report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association — Canada, Germany, Australia, the U.K,. Japan, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark and the U.S. — was only 11.5 percent."
Per capita, the U.S. spent $9,403. That's nearly double what the others spent.
"The real difference between the American health care system and systems abroad is pricing."
"And yet you seem to be holding on to a belief that these are the people who can/should fix the problem."
Just because they are not doing their jobs on this, doesn't mean we shouldn't use them. In this case, we must force them to do their jobs because we don't have an entity that is capable of accomplishing what they can if they do their jobs.
If your football team is getting clobbered in the first half because all the linemen are not applying their blocking assignments, you don't substitude in a bunch of baseball players in the 2nd half to do the job. You might change the strategies or substitute in a few other football players but the objective is to be using the experts being paid or trained for this specialized sport to get them to do their job better.
The government and its leaders/gatekeepers are not doing their jobs in overseeing this industry so that it doesn't price gouge. Whether its the FDA, politicians taking bribes(lobby money) or others. There is no substituting or passing the job on to others, like consumers because "others" don't have the ability/power and obligation to control prices for drugs and services.
We force the ones with the responsibility of protecting consumers to do their jobs. They allowed costs to escalate out of control. Only they can change that by doing their jobs.
Free market competition isn't going to work effectively in this particular realm.
Tim,
I would not be too hard on Carl regarding this. I think he's right. For me, the solution thru government intervention is one of those no brainer solutions, that people much smarter than me on many elements in the health care system(audits as you mentioned) somehow are missing because of what seems to be, just because they have such a strong aversion to govenmental intervention.
I am very open to other suggestions for how prices for procedures and meds will drop by close to 50% and be in the range of the rest of the world.
We know that insurance companies have sweet deals with medical entities in their network that save tons of money........but if you are a consumer, on your own you don't get the same deal. You can go to different pharmacies to price the same drug...........that helps a bit.
You won't be price shopping for an emergency room visit or for having a medical procedure done. Most people have the same doctors for decades and don't call around to see what doctor charges less for visits and procedures.....then switch to save money.
We are surrounded, bombarded actually, daily, with examples of the free market solving problems and lowering costs. We are also surrounded, bombarded actually, daily, with examples of government incompetence that often results in higher costs and/or disruption of service. I don't know why it should be necessary to explain.
In much of rural America hospital "merger mania" has gotten out of control which means we have less competition and fewer choices. And when a large hospital conglomerate takes over they immediately spend huge sums of money for unneeded remodeling or expanding the facility to make sure it remains in "not for profit" status. Meanwhile our ridiculously high insurance deductibles ( mine is $6600) are keeping people away which means less revenue which means higher costs for people who absolutely can't avoid going to the hospital or clinic.
The entire healthcare system is feeding on itself and desperately needs auditing and oversight.
"The entire healthcare system is feeding on itself and desperately needs auditing and oversight."
I guess you missed the part where I explained that there is plenty of auditing and oversight and that it's actually become part of the problem.
An example of a free market solution.
Humana is a massive insurance company. They want to expand into the Home Health Business, AKA post acute care. In doing so, they can get patients out of the hospital sooner and provide meaningful care at home. Not only will this save billions of dollars per year, it will also be an improvement in quality of life for the patients.
I am personally involved in the project and am happy with the early results.
This is wonderful and will help but is not the main problem. Even if health insurance can drop the amount of "mark up" or additional costs that we pay after the cost of the actual medicine, the cost of the medicine that we pay in this country is almost double what it is in other countries.
Health insurance companies MUST pass on the cost that they pay for the medicine, even with the absolute best and most competitive free market health insurance that is possible with the current dynamics.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/22/the-real-reason-medical-care-costs-so-much-more-in-the-us.html
Per capita, the U.S. spent $9,403. That's nearly double what the others spent.
I cited one example. There are several others that could be made, each making things a little better. That's how the market works. A few billion here, a few billion there and after a while, healthcare becomes more affordable.
BTW, that per capita cost that we pay, so far in excess of other countries, is a hidden benefit to the rest of the world. Take a look at the country of origin for most medical innovations. Advancements in treatment. We pay for the costs of development and the rest of the world gets to use them. But, R&D Can be cheaper.
The problem with prescriptions costs are two fold. First, the R&D costs are higher than necessary due to the unnecessary hoops the drug companies need to jump through due to the FDA's regulatory nightmare. Pills that cost pennies to manufacture are front loaded with billions in compliance costs. 2nd, patent laws give the producers too much control over the market for too long. But they need those protections to recoup the cost of compliance or no one will make new drugs. See the vicious cycle?
I see your good points Tim but there are some missing key issues regarding cost and corruption.
You believe over regulation by the FDA is a problem, I think its the opposite and them not properly enforcing the regulations on the books, as well as getting kickbacks for doing so from big pharma and others.
Why would these big "for profit" corporations not take massive advantage of every opportunity to maximize their profits?
They are not charities that are interested in providing good value and fair prices. #1 goal is to make as much money as possible for their company and them.
The free market, as I explained earlier, in the medical world does not include the power of the consumer to reign it in the way that all the other free markets do.
There are certain realms where we MUST have government intervention.
Laws that control behavior..............penalties for murder, rape, shop lifting, white collar crimes..........and for price gouging in industries that can't be controlled by the free markets.
I don't buy the justification that research has to be paid for by the US and so we have to pay higher prices so that other countries can get cheap meds on us.
So force the companies to pass on the costs more uniformly to the rest of the world.
Hey, this sounds like a job for Donald Trump!
Free market only works if you allow it to. 90% or more of our medical decisions are not an emergency. That means we can make informed decisions in our best interest.
And whether you buy it or not, innovation costs money. A doctor comes up with a new and improved technique to repair a heart valve. A lot of time and effort (read money) goes into that. Then he publishes in something like the New England Journal of Medicine, and doctors all over the world benefit from the knowledge. I guess you want Trump to tell them they can't use the technique without paying some sort of royalty? I think we are in some sketchy areas of ethics and enforcement on that one.
And in your article, they talk about how admin costs here in the states are 8-9% vs roughly 1% in the rest of the countries. Do you realize that 95% of admin function in US healthcare is made necessary by compliance with assorted government regs?
Then they go on to talk about how much more US medical training/education costs. How can that be when the government has been working very hard to make education more affordable since the 70's? BTW, they've been working on making healthcare more affordable with the same results. And the war on drugs and the war on poverty and.. and...
I am all for cutting wasteful spending.