for the wage earner, isn't this the source of funds for almost all of the employee's purchases? why treat health insurance any differently that any other commodity?an employer could provide funds for the purchase of health insurance,
isn't this part of the Obama plan?and the employee would buy the policy on an exchange.
why would such effect be the expected outcome?also on this exchange will be a competitively priced option to buy into medicare early, which is needed to place downward pressure on skyrocketing private plans.
could not agree more. would suggest that we have medical academies like military academies where the students would leave with credentials and a multi-year obligation to serve the publicthe cost problem needs to be addressed. we need more doctors, and we need to make it simpler and more economical for students to go to medical school.
by expanding the supply of medical practitioners, we would diminish the demand on each
there are many today who are qualified to go to medical school but are without the means to do so. such a waste of talent. talent our nation desperately needs
why? a cure for cancer or a cure for aids for $1 billion. that would be a bargain in my opinionfinally, we need to remove some excuses that the pharmaceutical companies have for charging outlandish amounts of money for medications. first, it shouldn't cost a billion dollars to bring a drug to market.
we already do. listen to the disclaimers being spoken on the tv ads for new drugs. it amazes me that people even take them knowing the potential dire consequencesi'm not entirely convinced aspirin would reach the market if it were developed today. the consumer is going to have to accept that there is some degree of risk with any medication.
seems to me like you are seeking the drugs be made available faster at the expense of some problems not being foundthis doesn't mean releasing prescription pharmaceuticals into the market untested, but there is certainly some middle ground that we could explore.
i was a member of the thalidomide generation. my Mom actually took it for morning sickness while carrying me. fortunately, i was not one of the (directly) afflicted but here is a cite to see images of that tragic outcome. one which resulted because we allowed that drug to proceed to market too fast (warning, these images may be shocking):
thalidomide babies - Google Search
we already do this. it's one good reason why the research triangle is one of the leading biotech centers in the world. we coordinated federal and state funds to advance such researchif that's not enough to bring costs down, then there are other a few other nuclear options we could try. we could develop some pharmaceuticals publicly, funding direct research and development as we currently fund basic research through the grant system.
if they must relinquish the unique ability to manufacture and profit from what they have developed then what incentive will the pharm company have to engage in private researchwe wouldn't have to do much of that to give pharmaceutical companies additional competition. the manufacture of publicly developed medicines could be sold to private industry, or that could be public, as well. perhaps we should consider re-examining patents as well.
is it other than supply and demand? if so, what alternate pricing mechanism is being employedthe novel nature of any medicine would play a role, as would the proposed pricing structure.
how does single payer coverage cause cost/price to come down?and if none of the above works, we move to single payer public health insurance and force the prices down.
on this we agree. trouble is, there seem to be few realistic ways to address this growing problemour current system is rising in cost at an unsustainable rate. something is going to have to be done.