Death panel is here

[Armand]

When I went back to school, my math professor was a retired chemist for a company called Upjohn they did cancer research, he said doing the math was very important in creating the drugs and the materials were very expensive, so i think the final price is based on the amount of time and money they spend creating the drugs but you would think the price would drop after a while for people without insurance. I do know for a fact that insurance companies get them cheaper they do a horse trade almost and get the price dropped significantly. Having insurance when going to the pharmacy is like going to court with or with out a lawyer.

Back in the 90's i had a decent job and didn't use my insurance much but it was good insurance with no co-pays and blah blah but to get that kind of insurance now would cost me 4 or 5 hundred bucks a month. Not really sure what happened but I'm guessing people were abusing it and it just dropped off. Hell, I had a 500k life insurance policy at that time and I dont remember any huge chunks of money coming out of my check for any of it.

 

[Ronin]

As it happens, I did research on the subject this year. I am going to copy and paste a post I made elsewhere, then put in an afterword.


-------------------------------

Ok, so let's adopt the Canadian model. We'll completely ignore the startup costs and just look at ongoing expenses.

What's Canada's per capita cost? About $4000
What's the US population? About 327,000,000
That's 1.3 trillion annually, or about 31% of the US budget.

That looks like a lot, until you look over here, and see that we're already spending 1.191 trillion on Medicare/medicaid. In this vein, it looks as though single payer isn't a huge financial stretch for the US.

BUT, from the same source, our overall spend on health care in 2015 was 3.2 trillion. There is no way in hell that 2 trillion in spending is just going to go *poof* because you change the spending model. Either it's physically impossible and we're going to have to quintuple (or more) taxes to cover the sudden government expenditure, or we're going to force 25%+ of our economy into a depression from which it might never recover.

Then there's a reality most people just don't want to face. You're going to turn over health care to the same people who brought you the TSA, serving a citizenry who sue over anything they don't like. Sitting here in Tennessee, where we got HillaryCare, the litigation has finally started to peter out after over 20 years. (few examples from a Google search).

In short, this isn't a simple issue. Philosophically, I'd love single payer for a number of reasons, not least of which is worker rights. But practically, I don't know if we can afford to implement it. My brother-in-law is mentally disabled and has Tenncare. I instead opted to pay for his health care directly, as most facilities that take Tenncare in the Nashville area - where we have more health care facilities per capita than just about anyone - are abysmal.

I don't have an answer. Wish I did.

---------------------------------


I would have to pay an additional $16,000 in taxes per year just to cover my family, 3 of whom do not have full time jobs (stay at home mother and 2 kids). The working population is about 154 million on a population of roughly 320 million. To be generous, we'll say that under-the-table employment and the black market raises the figure enough to be 50% of the population working to support themselves and the non-working half of the population. That means each working individual must contribute $8,000 in taxes for health care to cover themselves and one other person. As the median income is ~$31,000, it can be seen that this is not affordable at the individual level for at least 50% of the population.


Before going any further into any other area, I've already had to make so many assumptions that it's nearing the point of absurdity to talk about this. First, to think we're not going to pay more than $4,000 per person is a fantasy. For one thing, the Canadian model doesn't include prescription drugs, dentistry, vision care, rehabilitative service or home health care. For another, we would need to talk tax rates for the wealthy, businesses, and the political fallout from favoritism, discrimination, exemptions, etc (as an example, unions being exempt from Obamacare taxation and limitation). And again we'd need to talk about the significant percentage of the work force that would suddenly be out of a job (medical billing, insurance workers, etc) and impacting our economy.


This is not an simple subject to deal with. There is no easy fix. I'm not certain economies of scale would enable the US to have a universal health care system and maintain high quality. Some things just don't scale from small to large. I'd certainly love for it to, if only for the selfish reason of having my health care completely divorced from my employer, making my skill set more valuable and portable now that it is more affordable to employers.


Note: I was forced to stop paying for my brother-in-law's health care. Legally, I mean. By law, I MUST take him to TennCare-accepting facilities or he will lose not only those benefits, but other government programs.

 

[ozentity]

It comes down to overpopulation and the cost of that.We have fairly good medical care here but its starting to be a waitjng game in Sydney.Where I live now in Western NSW they roll out the red carpet for you due to the small number of patients and the personal care is great.

 

[Debi]

It comes down to overpopulation and the cost of that.We have fairly good medical care here but its starting to be a waitjng game in Sydney.Where I live now in Western NSW they roll out the red carpet for you due to the small number of patients and the personal care is great.

I disagree. It comes down to greed when it comes to medication costs. There is no way in the world 30 tiny doses of a powder substance in a plastic container should cost anywhere near $300 a month. (Advair) The bigger dosage is an extra hundred. I realize they want to get their money back for the R&D, but they got that back within the first 2 years of that drug on the market and then some. It's only gone higher in cost, not down. Big pharma can charge whatever the heck they want. There is no control on it. The drug Narcan, used to revive those who are overdosing, just went up 600%. Yes, that much. Why? Because they can.

I'm normally one who doesn't like rules and regs on things, but this is one area we have GOT to get some regs on. My grandson is a Type 1 diabetic. That means if he doesn't have his insulin, he dies. The family's out of pocket cost for everything he needs (because there are test strips, syringes, pumps, 3 types of insulin, etc) is about $1,000 a month....that's WITH insurance. The cost keeps going up, not because the companies have a need, but simply because they can raise it.

My father in law, when he was alive, worked for Eli Lilly. He used to come home and shake his head at the things that were paid for out of that money we pay for the drugs we need. They give out grants hand over fist, including those for people to take cushy vacations. There's a grant for that..honest.

And those programs to help you get your drugs cheaper? Anyone on a governement program may not use them. I pay for my prescription coverage on Medicare, but I can't use a coupon or get help for paying for them. Nope. Not allowed. And the grant programs out there to supposedly help are extremely limited as wel for those needing some help. Never met anyone who got help from one.

I worked in the medical field for 30+ years. I've seen behind the scenes. Drug companies need to be called on the carpet and they need a new mindset. I'm willing to pay a fair amount for meds. As it stands, imo, it's robbery. Hand over the big bucks or die.

OK, stepping off my rant crate for the moment but I reserve the right to return!

 

[Ronin]

I disagree. It comes down to greed when it comes to medication costs. There is no way in the world 30 tiny doses of a powder substance in a plastic container should cost anywhere near $300 a month. (Advair) The bigger dosage is an extra hundred. I realize they want to get their money back for the R&D, but they got that back within the first 2 years of that drug on the market and then some. It's only gone higher in cost, not down. Big pharma can charge whatever the heck they want. There is no control on it. The drug Narcan, used to revive those who are overdosing, just went up 600%. Yes, that much. Why? Because they can.

I'm normally one who doesn't like rules and regs on things, but this is one area we have GOT to get some regs on. My grandson is a Type 1 diabetic. That means if he doesn't have his insulin, he dies. The family's out of pocket cost for everything he needs (because there are test strips, syringes, pumps, 3 types of insulin, etc) is about $1,000 a month....that's WITH insurance. The cost keeps going up, not because the companies have a need, but simply because they can raise it.

My father in law, when he was alive, worked for Eli Lilly. He used to come home and shake his head at the things that were paid for out of that money we pay for the drugs we need. They give out grants hand over fist, including those for people to take cushy vacations. There's a grant for that..honest.

And those programs to help you get your drugs cheaper? Anyone on a governement program may not use them. I pay for my prescription coverage on Medicare, but I can't use a coupon or get help for paying for them. Nope. Not allowed. And the grant programs out there to supposedly help are extremely limited as wel for those needing some help. Never met anyone who got help from one.

I worked in the medical field for 30+ years. I've seen behind the scenes. Drug companies need to be called on the carpet and they need a new mindset. I'm willing to pay a fair amount for meds. As it stands, imo, it's robbery. Hand over the big bucks or die.

OK, stepping off my rant crate for the moment but I reserve the right to return!

If you're allowing politics in here, then let me add something.

The US drug market is what largely unfettered capitalism looks like (there are actually far better examples, but this is one most people are familiar with); the reason regulation is needed is because greed will ultimately win control of a corporation. The US is also subsidizing nations that regulate drug prices. They are, for example, artificially low in Canada, and since they aren't throttled here, we are paying for Canadians to have cheap pharmaceuticals. This industry, in particular, made me re-evaluate my stance on wages and taxation. Our highest marginal tax rate was in the 1960s and 70's at 90%. You will notice that at no point did we suffer a shortage of millionaires or venture capital.

France sets a boundary on wages, which - IIRC - is where the highest paid employee of a company cannot make more than 80 times that of the lowest paid employee, and you don't see them suffering from a lack of rich people or capital investment, either.

Ideally, both of those concepts would be laughed right out of the public arena. However, concentration of wealth - which is horribly, horribly bad for a society - is something that occurs periodically and requires an outside force to even things out. This is preferably done peaceably by civil administration (see: Unions and regulation of working conditions), but if not done that way will inevitably be done in a violent and chaotic mess (see: any revolution in Europe the past 200 years).

Again, I'm not going to offer solutions here. There's a whole debate to be had just around the window for reform in both the near-term and long-term based on our population demographics. I simply wanted to bring some points up for consideration.

 

[Debi]

If you're allowing politics in here, then let me add something.

The US drug market is what largely unfettered capitalism looks like (there are actually far better examples, but this is one most people are familiar with); the reason regulation is needed is because greed will ultimately win control of a corporation. The US is also subsidizing nations that regulate drug prices. They are, for example, artificially low in Canada, and since they aren't throttled here, we are paying for Canadians to have cheap pharmaceuticals. This industry, in particular, made me re-evaluate my stance on wages and taxation. Our highest marginal tax rate was in the 1960s and 70's at 90%. You will notice that at no point did we suffer a shortage of millionaires or venture capital.

France sets a boundary on wages, which - IIRC - is where the highest paid employee of a company cannot make more than 80 times that of the lowest paid employee, and you don't see them suffering from a lack of rich people or capital investment, either.

Ideally, both of those concepts would be laughed right out of the public arena. However, concentration of wealth - which is horribly, horribly bad for a society - is something that occurs periodically and requires an outside force to even things out. This is preferably done peaceably by civil administration (see: Unions and regulation of working conditions), but if not done that way will inevitably be done in a violent and chaotic mess (see: any revolution in Europe the past 200 years).

Again, I'm not going to offer solutions here. There's a whole debate to be had just around the window for reform in both the near-term and long-term based on our population demographics. I simply wanted to bring some points up for consideration.

I hear you and I get that part of it as well. But you know, some self regulating can be done from within a company. It's greed at the base of it. Our local hospital recently did some cost cutting on their charges on their own. Brought them more business in the long run and they didn't even cut a job. It can be done. (I know, my head's in the clouds and I'm showing my peace sign off, but come on, people, now....(you can finish the song.)

 

[Duke]

I disagree. It comes down to greed when it comes to medication costs. There is no way in the world 30 tiny doses of a powder substance in a plastic container should cost anywhere near $300 a month. (Advair) The bigger dosage is an extra hundred. I realize they want to get their money back for the R&D, but they got that back within the first 2 years of that drug on the market and then some. It's only gone higher in cost, not down. Big pharma can charge whatever the heck they want. There is no control on it. The drug Narcan, used to revive those who are overdosing, just went up 600%. Yes, that much. Why? Because they can.

I'm normally one who doesn't like rules and regs on things, but this is one area we have GOT to get some regs on. My grandson is a Type 1 diabetic. That means if he doesn't have his insulin, he dies. The family's out of pocket cost for everything he needs (because there are test strips, syringes, pumps, 3 types of insulin, etc) is about $1,000 a month....that's WITH insurance. The cost keeps going up, not because the companies have a need, but simply because they can raise it.

My father in law, when he was alive, worked for Eli Lilly. He used to come home and shake his head at the things that were paid for out of that money we pay for the drugs we need. They give out grants hand over fist, including those for people to take cushy vacations. There's a grant for that..honest.

And those programs to help you get your drugs cheaper? Anyone on a governement program may not use them. I pay for my prescription coverage on Medicare, but I can't use a coupon or get help for paying for them. Nope. Not allowed. And the grant programs out there to supposedly help are extremely limited as wel for those needing some help. Never met anyone who got help from one.

I worked in the medical field for 30+ years. I've seen behind the scenes. Drug companies need to be called on the carpet and they need a new mindset. I'm willing to pay a fair amount for meds. As it stands, imo, it's robbery. Hand over the big bucks or die.

OK, stepping off my rant crate for the moment but I reserve the right to return!

Did you read the 2013 Time magazine issue dealing with the cost of all things medical in the US? The whole issue was one article. A real eye opener, at least on the surface. My daughter, who has spent her entire career in pharmaceutical and medical sales, said the article was accurate in the big picture but clearly had an agenda. Definitely worth reading, especially the part about challenging and negotiating hospital bills.

 

[Debi]

Did you read the 2013 Time magazine issue dealing with the cost of all things medical in the US? The whole issue was one article. A real eye opener, at least on the surface. My daughter, who has spent her entire career in pharmaceutical and medical sales, said the article was accurate in the big picture but clearly had an agenda. Definitely worth reading, especially the part about challenging and negotiating hospital bills.

I think I remember that one. Been awhile. And yes, I challenge a lot.

Sorry, that woman's story just hit home for me and it set off a Bird Attack! lol

 

[ozentity]

I generally blame over population for everything and still think its a big factor.I understand its greed from the drug companies,they have you over a barrel with the cost of drugs.Herbal drugs that you can grow yourself are good or better for a myriad of complaints than man made stuff but will land you in jail,for what?The worlds people need to unite against the drug companies and governments in this,for the right to treat yourself in a harmless and free or affordible way.They jail a kid and turn him into a criminal for selling a bit of weed when drug companies are making billions on dangerous and often useless poison and getting pat on the back from greedy governments.There's no love just $.

 

[Ronin]

I hear you and I get that part of it as well. But you know, some self regulating can be done from within a company. It's greed at the base of it. Our local hospital recently did some cost cutting on their charges on their own. Brought them more business in the long run and they didn't even cut a job. It can be done. (I know, my head's in the clouds and I'm showing my peace sign off, but come on, people, now....(you can finish the song.)

I'm very much center-right, so I understand and sympathize with your thoughts. I'd like businesses to police themselves, but it's evident that with the complete lack of personal liability for C-level executives, it does nothing more than lead to greed with no accountability. In the absence of self-discipline, I see it as no different than having to handle an unruly child: some external force must instead reign them in. The sooner it happens, the less likely it is that zealots will implement the measures taken and the less likely any serious societal upheaval will be.