Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 27, 2010, at 3:23 PM:
Republicans learn from some mistakes better than democrats.
Replies (19)
Romney was a mistake too.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 27, 2010, at 3:37 PM
So ... James, Is MA now more financially stable? It's been perhaps a year since I read that the state's health care plan was creating large deficits in the budget.
I admire Romney, though, and might have voted for him if he'd been the presidential candidate. Not sure of course if the health plan was all or mostly Romney's bill, or the states' lawmakers ... Just as this federal bill isn't neessarily Obama's plan ... Know what I mean?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Mar 27, 2010, at 4:54 PM
"There is no way that a government compulsory system will work better than a free market system."
100% agree with that, James! But ... evidently most people just can't seem to see it.
I feel that way about many (most?) government programs ... they'd be run better, more sensibly, and be more financially sound if they were private. I guess the thing is ... government programs are as much (or more) geared to bringing in votes than anything else ... and **** the consequences.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Mar 27, 2010, at 6:24 PM
guru, the free market doesn't operate the same in a non-elastic good/service like healthcare. There is no driver for low cost when people will pay any amount. There HAS to be an outside force that drives price down. Name 1 country that successfully has a free market healthcare? None, ours is the closest to it, and hot ****, it is also the most expensive.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 7:33 AM
futile_rant,
In a free market economy, the marketplace drives the price and availability of goods and services. Unlike a government regulated economy that places limits on the price and availability of goods and services.
Even in a choked down heavily government regulated industry like health care, the market will adapt. The central government may not approve of the adaption, but as it has been proven time and time again in the 20th/early 21st centuries; with the endless cycles of booms, immediately followed by a period of bust where the malinvestment and finacial bubbles created by the central banks, the "favored" corporations / financial institutions, and the Legislature are corrected - the market is always more powerful than the government.
The reason that this country's health care prices are so inflated is because there is a lack of a genuine free market to determine the price and availabilty of this service. Past government regulation has inflated the health care price. The new government regulation will effectivly distort the availability of health care.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 8:58 AM
James, What is the elasticity of healthcare then? When I did research on it a couple years ago it was pretty **** inelastic. More inelastic than cigerettes or oil. So you are wrong on that.
Free market in health care hasn't worked for anyone. That is why EVERY major country in the world went away from it, even heavy capitalistic countries like Japan and switzerland. And wow, their insurance is cheaper than ours.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 9:11 AM
Just looked up a few studies on price elasticity of health care.
.2
.3
.2
.78
meaning even on the most elastic one, that if they raise their prices by 1% only .78% of their consumers will drop coverage. Using .2, say they have 10,000,000 insured charging on average $7500 a year, so they make $75,000,000,000 in premiums, they decide to increase prices by 1%.
So say for example they want to Charge $8000 a year in premiums, 139,162 people would drop their coverage but the total revenue would still go up by $9,000,000,000.
It isnt just the insurance companies fault, the example just shows how in a free market their is NO driver to keep health care costs down because people are going to pay regardless. They could charge double, and less than half of people would drop coverage and they would still make more money, which is where we were headed.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 9:23 AM
Futile, Did you research this on an "official" elastic website?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 9:29 AM
James,
I believe that futile_rant is confusing American style capitalism (corporatism / fascism, or as we like to refer to it - the welfare/warfare state) with a free market.
The Big Government Party has distorted the definition of "capitalism" into something that is actually the complete opposite of the word's real meaning so that individuals (through no fault of their own) demand an end to the practice.
I refuse to play their game. They can have "capitalism", much like I gave them "liberal" a few years ago.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 10:17 AM
"Name 1 country that successfully has a free market healthcare?" Thanks for answering the question, futile ... I was going to refer you to James because, really, I think he is the expert on such things around here.
Why is ours 'the most expensive?' Because we have more people in the doctors office and ER's that should have stayed home and used Vicks & taken aspirin for their sniffles, or put a bandaid on their little cut?
Why are our own pharmaceuticals more expensive here than they are in, say, Canada--where everything else costs more than here? That's been a puzzle that hasn't ever been explained logically (to me). People I know in Canada and Great Britain often wait inordinate lengths of time for their care ... Would Americans accept that? Oh! Wait! We may have to in the near future now.
Van, are you saying that part of it could be due to ... What? The fact that programs like Medicare and Medicaid only pay a percentage (always wonder who comes up with those 'approved' fees) of the charges ... so the prices for others with private insurance are raised to balance things out?
I know Americans spend more than any major country on health care ... and that we are way down the line in life expectancy despite that. But what would be as interesting is to know something like ... the average number of doctor visits per population, compared to those other countries. Does anyone know? I believe, too, that we are at the top of the list of obesity in the world ... Could that be considered relevant in some way?
I'm sorry, futile, but ... other countries' health insurance costs may be less than ours, but there are reasons for that. Look a little further into it.
James! Competition? Heaven forbid! That's what made Walmart great, isn't it?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 1:47 AM
Guru, go do some homework, your post shows how little you know.
1) People in Japan go to the doctor 3x as often as we do. Yes medical overuse is a problem, but doesn't explain it
2) Canada WANTS to have long wait times. They voted on it, sure not everyone is happy but it is a sign their system is working as intended. UKs wait times were fairly long but they decided to increase spending a bit and reduced wait times significantly. Btw, they still spend A LOT less.
Of course obesity is a factor, but you'd be surprised at how fast some of the western European countries are gaining.
I have done plenty of research on health care around the world, apparently you have not since all you seem to know is "Canada waits longer" like every other conservative who doesn't know squat says.
James, how many hospitals are there, insurance companies, doctors, CT scans etc... Yet how many people can actually CHOOSE which one they want. Most can't. You go to which ever doctors and hospitals your insurer chooses, in which your employer usually chooses. Competition doesn't exist when you take the end consumer out. Even if you allowed competition among state lines, the old system was broke.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 6:28 AM
I'm curious how vanity medical procedures figure into this equation? Boob jobs, face lifts, tummy tucks, botox injections, butt enhancement just to name a few; are those included in our "health care" costs?
It's pretty obvious that the British don't put braces on their kid's like U.S. parents do? How about those pricey little teeth straighteners? Are those figured in our "healthcare costs"?
-- Posted by John in Jackson on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 7:11 AM
"Even if you allowed competition among state lines, the old system was broke."
-- Posted by futile_rant on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 6:28 AM
That is a true statement.
I would welcome true free market reform that allowed and encouraged individuals to purchase their own health care plans. The third party provider system provides no incentive to keep costs low.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 8:00 AM
I have worked in the pharmaceutical field for 20 years so I think I have the background to explain why drugs cost so much more here. It goes like this:
For every drug that actually makes it to market, something like 14 never do. Many of them get far enough along that they actually only fail after the very expensive drug trials have commenced. Drug companies spend millions of dollars on these trials.
When a drug makes it to market, it has to be approved by the FDA. This takes about a decade on average.
The drug maker gets 14 years of patent protection in the US. They can basically charge whatever they think the market will allow them to get away with in order to make up for all those costs on not only the one drug, but all the failed ones as well. This is the jackpot of patents. If you come up with a new idea, you get a monopoly for a few years to let you get rewarded for your idea. The drug company is really happy if they have a drug that treats something that was basically untreatable before and especially if it is a common problem for lots of folks.
Now we hear the sound of Canada and other countries entering the room. They say that the drug company cannot charge what they want to or Canada et al will not allow the company to sell their new drug at all in their countries. Instead they want a 40-50 percent discount in order to sell this drug in their countries. If it is someplace like India, they just buy the drug once and replicate it without honoring the patent at all.
The company quickly capitulates with the understanding that they will limit how many cases that they will sell at that price in these countries.
This means that the drug companies now have to raise the prices in other countries who have a "free" market in order to pay all those costs we talked about before.
So to answer your question, the US bears an unfair burden of the cost of getting new drugs to market because of the noncompetitive practices of Canada and many other countries.
If we do it too in the US the drug companies cannot make a profit in those same 14 years. That means when the generics come the drug company who made the drug originally will still be on the hook for the costs. The response of the drug companies will be to just stop making nonprofitable drugs.
That means only the derivatives of current drugs that seem less likely to need long and expensive trials will be made so that they can limit their exposure.
Don't count on new significant breakthroughs if this happens, although it will take several years for the drugs currently in the pipeline to go through before you will really notice it too much.
-- Posted by jcwill on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 12:42 PM
Thanks for your post John.
Why does the Federal government have a monopoly not only on drug approval, but medical licensing also? How many of these FDA approved drugs have actually killed people?
The two times a month that I watch TV news broadcasts, the ads are full of law firms looking for participants in another class action lawsuit against manufacturers of FDA approved prescription drugs.
Is it even possible for the citizens of this country to imagine a solution to a problem that does not involve the central government?
-- Posted by Lumpy on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 1:21 PM
Thank you jewill, interesting.
And guru is also correct that it is due to the % that medicare/medicaid pays is why all offices have to jack up their prices.
I am on two medications every day for the rest of my life, and one of them is a "generic" that cost $689 for a 30 days supply. Now my insurance pays all but $45 of that.
I am amazed and when I receive the EOB's from BCBS that show my copay at a doctor's office is $30 per visit, yet they only pay the doctor $23 per visit and the rest of the doctors charge is written off as a provider discount. It seems a bit ridiculus.
And I do shop around for my medical care. My primary physician wanted me to see a specialist. When I saw the specialist and saw that he had billed $600 for one 5-minute office visit, well I never returned again!
And since some of you may wonder....I opted out of Medicare because I do have private insurance available. I read what Medicare covers and doesn't cover and realized I would be paying an additional $4000 per year out of pocket for my medical needs if I was on Medicare.
I am sure that amount would only increase with all the cuts to the Medicare program. I do feel sorry for those who can not opt out of it and I know how hard it is on the elderly to make ends meet and have to pay for so many out-of-pocket medical expenses. I still don't understand why the Medicare program is worse than the Medicaid program when they should be equal.... I would like to know what your thoughts are on this issue Vandeven.
-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 1:41 PM
Vandeven, Do the lawyers line up in Canada to go after the pill makers like they do in America? Could that be part of the reason they sell pills for less to Canadians?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 1:50 PM
Aw, futile ... "Guru, go do some homework, your post shows how little you know" ... First, I do know that there are a lot of things I don't know (perhaps that's why I ask questions--Did you notice how many question marks were in my comment?)
Second, do appreciate your information, since I wasn't going to 'do some homework,' but was waiting for someone else to do that. On that line ... if I don't save every single thing I find on websites or in publications, then I'm never postive I remember the 'numbers' in particular correctly. And doggone it, this room (and computer files) is already too full of 'saved stuff.'
So you know ... I'm NOT trying to argue with you or dispute your facts. Always appreciative of facts from people who know what they're talking about, and even appreciate opinions on various subjects.
Only knew a few things about Canadian and UK health things because of friends who live in those countries ... although a couple of years ago I did do some research on Canadian health care, to see how it was put together, etc.
James, I'd seen reference to that several times recently ... Is that really true? Our government limits medical students? Why?
Very interesting and informative, jcwill, especially about Canadian's prices for our pharmaceuticals. Some of that I knew ... which many don't realize ... the cost of developing a new drug has to be prohibitive.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 3:31 PM
John in J ... "...are those included in our "health care" costs?" Gosh, I hope so! I really need a face and full-body lift!
Reminds me of the Celebrex lawsuits, Van. In many cases I read, those who died with heart problems had the problems before taking the drug, lived very unhealthy lives, had family histories of heart disease. People don't seem to realize that those exorbitant lawsuit 'rewards' (with much of the amounts going to the lawyers) are perhaps one of the leading causes of higher-priced drugs. And they don't want to understand that insurance companies' (which yes, are in business to make money, just like any other business) premiums will always increase as long as health care costs rise.
Thanks, adidas! As always, a very good and informative post.
When Medicare 'approves' $2,564 for chemo treatments which are billed at $5,630, but only pays $2,051 of that ... then the slack has to be taken up by someone else. It does rather rankle many of us 'seniors': "... why the Medicare program is worse than the Medicaid program when they should be equal ..." It's almost like a punishment/reward system ... only illogically reversed, so that those who paid for/earned Medicare (and pay the difference in what Medicare pays vs its 'approved rate' either personally or through supplements) are in a way punished, while those who probably didn't pay for or earn in any way their Medicaid are rewarded, with little or no co-pays.
And yes, Pops and I are expecting some disappointing and frightening changes in our Medicare coverage, as well as expecting an even higher increase in our supplemental premiums.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 4:17 PM
Menu
Republicans learn from some mistakes better than democrats.
Replies (19)