Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2016, 12:12 PM
 
3,796 posts, read 4,638,195 times
Reputation: 3307

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kool Krab View Post

If the current healthcare system was so great, it wouldn't trigger such recurring debate. Think about it. No other civilized nation is so divided on this issue. What does that tell you about the United States?

I could be wrong here but don't people from Canada come down to the US for better healthcare? I.e. Surgeries etc.

Also, as I stated prior it seems like if we had Universial Healthcare it would be less incentive for companies to develop better drugs because they know the government would have there hands tied in making the most profit from it.

Now, it's sad that companies have to try and get the most profit from a drug. But at the same time the ability make millions/billions off a drug is also sometimes the reason why certain drugs are created.

Not as many people/companies dedicate years of research/testing for a drug that isn't going to pay dividends for years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2016, 12:17 PM
 
79,899 posts, read 43,855,613 times
Reputation: 17179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Statz2k10 View Post
I could be wrong here but don't people from Canada come down to the US for better healthcare? I.e. Surgeries etc.
People also leave the U.S. to get treatment not available here. That said, we do have some great health care IF you can afford it.

Quote:
Also, as I stated prior it seems like if we had Universial Healthcare it would be less incentive for companies to develop better drugs because they know the government would have there hands tied in making the most profit from it.

Now, it's sad that companies have to try and get the most profit from a drug. But at the same time the ability make millions/billions off a drug is also sometimes the reason why certain drugs are created.

Not as many people/companies dedicate years of research/testing for a drug that isn't going to pay dividends for years.
The government is actually providing much of the funding that leads to the discoveries of new medicines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 12:18 PM
 
311 posts, read 473,497 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Sen. Sander's plan would save money by elimination the health insurance company's administrative overhead, executive salaries and owner's profits. Applying those savings to actual healthcare pays for a lot of medicine. Controlling charges, fees and pharmaceutical company's monopoly profits would also lower costs.


In summary a single payer plan reduces the cost of health care by replacing the relatively helpless purchaser with a single payer that has real control over prices.
Honest question here: Most health insurance companies have a profit margin of well under 10 %. So how much good can really be done by "cutting out the middle man" and eliminating this?


As far as cutting administrative overhead, really? I'm pretty sure that a government run system would have at least as much bureaucratic overhead as a private insurance company.


I'm not looking to start a fight here, but I honestly wonder sometimes why people get so mad at pharmaceutical / insurance companies that, on a whole, earn a relatively small profit margin. I know the die-hard Sander's supporters will flip out at me for even daring to ask this question, but maybe a more reasonable poster can explain to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 12:24 PM
 
79,899 posts, read 43,855,613 times
Reputation: 17179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo_Urns View Post
Honest question here: Most health insurance companies have a profit margin of well under 10 %. So how much good can really be done by "cutting out the middle man" and eliminating this?
It's not the only area that would have to be addressed. 10% here, 5% there, 8% in another area........etc.

Quote:
As far as cutting administrative overhead, really? I'm pretty sure that a government run system would have at least as much bureaucratic overhead as a private insurance company.
Unfortunately this is a valid concern and one I've noted many times. Those that want Universal Health care by and large are their own worse enemy here.

Quote:
I'm not looking to start a fight here, but I honestly wonder sometimes why people get so mad at pharmaceutical / insurance companies that, on a whole, earn a relatively small profit margin. I know the die-hard Sander's supporters will flip out at me for even daring to ask this question, but maybe a more reasonable poster can explain to me.
Health insurers watch profits soar as they dump small business customers | Center for Public Integrity

Drug Company Profits Soar as Taxpayers Foot the Bill | The Fiscal Times

This is what Obamacare brought us. I'm voting Sanders, but the mess that is Obamacare is one of the few legitimate arguments about the government getting involved. As I stated, I understand your argument and I'm as upset with those who like myself want to see everyone covered but yet still defend Obamacare for one reason. Politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 12:28 PM
 
4,078 posts, read 2,311,097 times
Reputation: 1395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Statz2k10 View Post
I watched the town hall event last night with Hillary and Bernie. For the record I do think Bernie probably is one of the more honest politicians running. Probably cares more for the average American than most too. I just can't agree with his policies as they seem to extreme.

Case and point healthcare. A gentlemen asked about being middle class and having his taxes raised to pay for healthcare. Bernie responded how yes his taxes would rise but he'd save money with his health care plan overall.

So by that logic it seems like if you're somebody who eats healthy, stays active, avoids dangerous foods or activities statistically you will not go to the doctor as much. That's a fact. People who take care of themselves go to the doctor less.

So isn't that penalizing the people who live life taking care of themselves etc..? A lot of people take care of themselves because they see first hand from family members how certain activities and poor nutrition results in bad health.
Dont kid yourself. Your sky high insurance rates don't come from people who don't take care of themselves. They come from illegals who get treated and just walk away without paying a dime, that drives our rates up. You can thank Obama and the liberals for that and I hope you consider it come election time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 12:39 PM
 
311 posts, read 473,497 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
It's not the only area that would have to be addressed. 10% here, 5% there, 8% in another area........etc.



Unfortunately this is a valid concern and one I've noted many times. Those that want Universal Health care by and large are their own worse enemy here.



Health insurers watch profits soar as they dump small business customers | Center for Public Integrity

Drug Company Profits Soar as Taxpayers Foot the Bill | The Fiscal Times

This is what Obamacare brought us. I'm voting Sanders, but the mess that is Obamacare is one of the few legitimate arguments about the government getting involved. As I stated, I understand your argument and I'm as upset with those who like myself want to see everyone covered but yet still defend Obamacare for one reason. Politics.
Well, that was more painless then expected . Thanks for a reasonable argument...


I think the bottom line to my position here is this: Providing good healthcare is expensive, and those miracle medicines that we rely on don't just invent themselves. Rather, they require thousands of highly trained and skilled scientists / biochemists who need to be paid salaries and benefits, and this doesn't come cheap. Yeah, some of the biotech companies mentioned in that article are raking it in pretty well, but if that gives them the incentive they need to find the next life-saving medicine, I'm not sure that this is a bad thing.


There is a loooong R & D pipeline associated with developing drugs. If you kill the incentive to put something into the pipeline (and nurse it through), you wont have many new medicines coming out years later....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Keosauqua, Iowa
9,611 posts, read 21,135,113 times
Reputation: 13662
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Health care shouldn't be an investment vehicle.
First of all, I said health insurance, not health care. If you don't understand the difference I would recommend not engaging in the discussion.

As to investment in the health care industry: I know many people want to see this function move from the private sector to the government. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. I wouldn't be fully opposed to the idea as long as a comprehensive plan were put together that doesn't create more problems than it solves, and could be administered more efficiently than it could by the private sector.

But from today dating back to the time "sickness coverage" first appeared in the 19th century, health insurance has been a private business. Any kind of insurance company requires a significant amount of startup capital; if a client files a claim the first day of operation you can't really expect him to wait for the settlement until the company has collected enough premiums to cover it.

So if the founder of the company doesn't have the assets to fill the coffers himself, or just doesn't want to put all of his money at risk, he sells ownership shares of the company to investors. over time the value of these shares will rise and fall based on the demand created by the performance of the company, and the shares will be sold by the original investors to new investors. And in spite of what you've been led to believe, there is nothing inherently evil about this process, and not all of these investors are obscenely wealthy.

So I will reiterate that any plan to move the health insurance industry from the private sector to the government must include a plan to compensate the investors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,786,440 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
I think you misunderstood my argument. For one, few companies offer subsidized insurance any longer so a large percentage of those working can not afford to go to the doctor.
I have never had any difficulty, even before I worked my way through college, finding a job with subsidized health insurance. Fewer companies offer jobs exactly due to government actions. To paraphrase Harry Browne government is great at breaking both your legs then handing you a pair of crutches and claiming you can't get by without them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 01:26 PM
 
79,899 posts, read 43,855,613 times
Reputation: 17179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo_Urns View Post
Well, that was more painless then expected . Thanks for a reasonable argument...


I think the bottom line to my position here is this: Providing good healthcare is expensive, and those miracle medicines that we rely on don't just invent themselves. Rather, they require thousands of highly trained and skilled scientists / biochemists who need to be paid salaries and benefits, and this doesn't come cheap. Yeah, some of the biotech companies mentioned in that article are raking it in pretty well, but if that gives them the incentive they need to find the next life-saving medicine, I'm not sure that this is a bad thing.
Bad thing? I would argue that many are a bad thing. We are researching and spending billions learning how to help people live to 120 while those who get diseases at 50 are still dying from those diseases. Our priorities are wrong. Now granted, this is simply my opinion.

Quote:
There is a loooong R & D pipeline associated with developing drugs. If you kill the incentive to put something into the pipeline (and nurse it through), you wont have many new medicines coming out years later....
We are subsidizing these drugs for other countries. It can still be done and done for less here. Yes, other countries will pay more. Seems fair, no?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 01:27 PM
 
11,409 posts, read 7,719,851 times
Reputation: 21906
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
But no 90% less like bernie claimed..

he said taxes would go up $500, but costs would drop $5,000...

not a chance, one would have to be an idiot to believe that, but given many believed ACA would drop premiums $2500, there are lots of idiots around..

Yeah, that's some very fuzzy math. The 5K figure assumes everyone is maxing out their deductible every single year. Given the choice of possibly paying the maximum deductible in any given year with the 100% certainty that the government is going to collect higher taxes every year, I'll take my chances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top