Just Me 2

Do you believe that this could work here?
Why do you think health care costs are so high?
How do you pay for universal health care?


My answers:


Do you believe that this could work here, please explain answer? No, I think we are a "sue" happy society and hospitals and doctors will no longer be able to afford the health insurance cost. (already happening in my state, we have lost 1/3 of our OBGYN's).

Why do you think health care costs are so high? Two reasons, one people sue and win ridiculous law suits and two, insurance fraud.

How do you pay for universal health care? N/A in my case I think we need to focus more on people and attorney's that sue hospitals and doctors for non-sense. If an person sues a doctor and loses they should be required to pay all of the costs associated with the case.



Ok so what are your thoughts?

__________________

BWG

Your view of rising medical costs is rather myopic, or maybe you know that it is a much more complex issue than tort reform, but prefer to address only that aspect.
Either way, here is some information from different sources that try to dispel the myth that tort reform is a magic cure all.


Here are some quotes from insurance company representatives and the President and the General Counsel of the American Tort Reform Association.

Source


Insurance companies' investment yields have been lower for the past few years, putting pressure on premiums to make up the difference.

Malpractice insurers who buy reinsurance to protect themselves from large losses have seen that part of their underwriting costs rise significantly over the past decade. (Those increases are not related solely to medical malpractice but reflect a general tightening of the reinsurance market in the wake of such catastrophic events as hurricanes, earthquakes, even 9/11)


The Congressional Budget Office concludes

"In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency."

Source


Previous rounds of tort reform that followed the malpractice insurance crises of the 1970s and 1980s have not succeeded in preventing periodic and dramatic rises in insurance premiums.
And tort reform does not address the important and related issues of patient safety and medical errors.

While some reports indicate an alarming increase, others maintain that frequency of claims has remained steady or even shown a slight decline.
What is not disputed is that the percentage of patients injured by medical negligence who actually bring suit is very small. Estimates range from one-in-eight to one-in-ten.
Of those who do sue, only one in three receive any compensation.

During times of high interest rates or a strong stock market, insurance companies keep their premiums low in order to remain competitive, increase their market share, and acquire revenue to invest. This is possible because their income is augmented from the high rate of return on investments. A downturn in the stock market or a drop in interest rates results in a lower rate of return on investments and leads to an increase in premiums.

Source

__________________
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

rathi

Insurance costs are also high because of insane drug costs. Universal healthcare is possible, given that most other western nations have it, and still manage to spend less than we do.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

BWG

And we (taxpayers) help pay for it.



First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies

Only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Source


Industry R&D risks and costs are often significantly reduced by taxpayer-funded research, which has helped launch the most medically important drugs in recent years and many of the best-selling drugs, including all of the top five sellers in one recent year surveyed (1995).

An internal National Institutes of Health (NIH) document, obtained by Public Citizen through the Freedom of Information Act, shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995.

The Fortune 500 drug companies dedicated 30 percent of their revenues to marketing and administration in the year 2000, and just 12 percent to R&D.

Source


The pharmaceutical and health products industry lobbying and campaign contributions is topped only by the insurance industry.

The U.S. government contributes more money to the development of new drugs—in the form of tax breaks and subsidies—than any other government. Of the 20 largest pharmaceutical corporations, nine are based in the United States. Yet drugs are more expensive in the United States than in any other part of the world, and global drug companies make the bulk of their profits in the United States.

Source

PeteEU

Well something is wrong in the US.

The US spends 15.1% of its GDP on healthcare and only what 60% have insurance?

European countries spend less between 6 to 10% of thier GDP on healthcare and they have 100% coverage...

Can Universal healthcare work in the US? Would require some big changes, both economically but also more important poltitically. And the latter wount happen overnight as too many people are making billions on the US "healthcare" system.

One of the claims by the right over the years, has been that the US had so high costs because most Pharma companies were US and did all the R&D. (the good old, we paying for your pills argument). Well that is not true as 3 of the top 5 are non US companies and the top R&D spender is non US and 3 of the top 5 are non US. Add to that, that quite a bit of R&D is done on goverment money, both in the US and in Europe.

The problem in the US, is its laws on the area. For example I belive its illegal for Medicare to negotiate prices for drugs. So the free market ideas of the present US administration, and of the right, go out the window when it comes big pharma? It is also illegal to import drugs from other countries. Now I would understand having a ban on importing drugs from Mexico or 3rd world countries, but from Canada and Europe? Most countries have stricter controls on quality of drugs than the US! yet their "drugs" are unsafe?... even though they are exactly the same as the ones sold in the US at much higher prices?

So what does the US have to show for its present healthcare system? Highest cost in the world for the lowest coverage in the industrialised world, lower life expantancy, and higher infant mortality rates and so on. Tell me most americans are not happy about that?

__________________
PeteEU

hereyago

i lived in a country where there was universal health care and I thought it was nice

__________________
http://houseofpolitics.com - political forum

ARealConservative

Limited universal health care can work.

It won't work very well, but it can work.

Basic health care could be provided to all people. Expensive organ transplants and other procedures will also be too costly to give to everybody.

The reason it won't work well however is it removes another level of personal responsibility from the unwashed masses. If the costs of health care are fully subsidized, the incentive to live a fit life is reduced and overall health care costs will skyrocket as a result.


People need to put their childish illusions of utopia to rest.

ARealConservative

~sigh

The US has high costs because we recognize IP, including the IP of those top 3 companies you alluded to.

Are you so dense to not see that European Pharma companies sell products here at these marked up prices which does help pay for this R&D? Our lack of socialization makes your plans work at all. You might want to keep that front and center when you tell a sovereign nation how they should run things.

Korimyr the Rat

Yes, I do, provided that it wasn't universal health insurance; all of the flaws of our current private health insurance would be retained in a national health insurance program... and would have the unique disadvantage of being able to simply deny coverage.

We need a national healthcare service. As shown in countries that have adopted such a model, it is more efficient than private medicine and has the additional benefit of making the lower end of the workforce more productive-- fewer sick days and fewer disability pensions.

Also, considering how much effort the government is putting into making us afraid of biological terrorism, it surprises me that reform of our healthcare system isn't being treated as a national security issue-- which is exactly what it is.

Artificial limit on the supply of doctors and the exorbitant cost of medical training. Combined, of course, with the fact that noone actually pays for their medical care directly-- they're either insured or indigent. There's no market force working to keep costs down.

Drug prices are a problem as well; why are we using taxpayer money to subsidize the creation of "intellectual property" that the taxpayers are then forced to pay 1000% markups for? How, exactly, does that benefit the public?

Same way you pay for "universal" anything: taxation. There's no way of getting around that.

What people are missing is that, by reducing the overall cost of healthcare, the increase in tax would be smaller than what people are already paying for medicine-- even the people in the higher tax brackets.

Not to mention, of course, that taking the burden of healthcare off of employers would be a tremendous benefit in and of itself.

We praise fuzzy-headed nonsense like raising the minimum wage as "moderate" and "compassionate"... and yet somehow, trying to do something about this-- which as an American I find inexcusable-- is considered left-fringe.

__________________

rathi

Your are entirely incorrect. European or Canadian drugs often aren't even allowed to be sold here. On average, they would severely undercut our own prices.

I'd agree. Minimum wage is far less important than this.