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.
I wouldn't object either. Although I don't want government to take over healthcare or be too intrusive, I do believe they have a role in it.
I believe that such a law would be effective and a good compromise. It wouldn't set drug prices, but it would reduce our drug costs, in theory.
First of all, that NYT article is 24 years old. There are obviously 100's, if not 1000's of different opinions on why drugs cost more here. The bottom line is that the US is not the only nation with pharmaceutical firms. Not ALL drugs are researched and produced here. In fact, Europe is home to HALF of the TOP firms. So why is it that Europe has half of the top pharma companies in the world, but drugs cost so much less there?
"According to PhRMA, the pharmaceutical trade group, high prices are a reflection of the research and development costs it takes to bring a drug to market. PhRMA cites that on average, it takes more than 10 years and $2.6 billion dollars to bring a drug to market. They also point out that for every successful drug, there are handfuls of drugs that never make it to market.
But, Dr. Peter B. Bach, director of Director of Memorial Sloan Kettering's Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, says that pharmaceutical companies charge high prices simply "because they can." Bach added. "We have no rational system in the U.S. for managing prices of drugs."
Drugs cost more here because nothing is stopping drug companies from charging what they want (unless you're in the VA or Medicare - then miraculously, it costs less), particularly when Big Pharma spends record amounts of $$$$ on lobbying.
wow, so you're going with a blog from huff post as your defense. excellent
Worse still; written by a "senior fellow" of the Fraser Institute. The most right wing conservative OWNED lock stock and barrel by guys like these two:
if you really want to start controlling medical costs, then start by reducing the number of regulations dealing with health care paperwork in this country. doctors in this country have large staffs just to handle the paperwork the government requires, let alone what the insurance companies require.
Name a few examples of 'healthcare paperwork' you would eliminate. What you are talking about is the documentation required before medicare will pay a provider, would you prefer they just write "$16,000" on a slip of paper and get reimbursed for that?
First of all, that NYT article is 24 years old. There are obviously 100's, if not 1000's of different opinions on why drugs cost more here. The bottom line is that the US is not the only nation with pharmaceutical firms. Not ALL drugs are researched and produced here. In fact, Europe is home to HALF of the TOP firms. So why is it that Europe has half of the top pharma companies in the world, but drugs cost so much less there?
"According to PhRMA, the pharmaceutical trade group, high prices are a reflection of the research and development costs it takes to bring a drug to market. PhRMA cites that on average, it takes more than 10 years and $2.6 billion dollars to bring a drug to market. They also point out that for every successful drug, there are handfuls of drugs that never make it to market.
But, Dr. Peter B. Bach, director of Director of Memorial Sloan Kettering's Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, says that pharmaceutical companies charge high prices simply "because they can." Bach added. "We have no rational system in the U.S. for managing prices of drugs."
Drugs cost more here because nothing is stopping drug companies from charging what they want (unless you're in the VA or Medicare - then miraculously, it costs less), particularly when Big Pharma spends record amounts of $$$$ on lobbying.
And what in there counters the claim that the US is subsidizing the profits of drugs sold in other countries? I'm not seeing anything in there that counters that.
Let me ask you a question. Is it bad for a manufacturing company to sell something for less than what it costs to make?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Worse still; written by a "senior fellow" of the Fraser Institute. The most right wing conservative OWNED lock stock and barrel by guys like these two.
Does this mean you can only critique the messenger and can't counter the message?
Name a few examples of 'healthcare paperwork' you would eliminate. What you are talking about is the documentation required before medicare will pay a provider, would you prefer they just write "$16,000" on a slip of paper and get reimbursed for that?
Examples imposed by for profit insurance:
Regularly, my daughter who has CF, has to (well, we as parents have to) get doctors to sign all sorts of forms to say that the treatment is necessary. I'm not talking about contraversial stuff. I'm talking about the standard medicines used by practially ALL CF patients, as is recommended by CFF.ORG and CF Centers around the globe as standard best practices. The ONLY reason they do this is to slow down the consumption, and to put roadblocks in the way so they can save a few bucks in payouts.
I can also point to countless cases where medical errors are made due to the insurance industry putting huge burdens on actual medical doctors.
I can't count the number of times insurance has tried to substitute cheaper medicines (which I would be all for if they work) that don't treat the actual symptom, but are just cheaper.
I could go on forever. As another poster said, capitalism is good in most cases, but it's in direct oposition to the the goals of good health.
The answer lies in this: If you want to control costs, do so by promoting more preventive programs, not by denying people coverage (which would be less needed if you supported preventive medicine.)
Examples imposed by for profit insurance:
Regularly, my daughter who has CF, has to (well, we as parents have to) get doctors to sign all sorts of forms to say that the treatment is necessary. I'm not talking about contraversial stuff. I'm talking about the standard medicines used by practially ALL CF patients, as is recommended by CFF.ORG and CF Centers around the globe as standard best practices. The ONLY reason they do this is to slow down the consumption, and to put roadblocks in the way so they can save a few bucks in payouts.
I can also point to countless cases where medical errors are made due to the insurance industry putting huge burdens on actual medical doctors.
I can't count the number of times insurance has tried to substitute cheaper medicines (which I would be all for if they work) that don't treat the actual symptom, but are just cheaper.
I could go on forever. As another poster said, capitalism is good in most cases, but it's in direct oposition to the the goals of good health.
The answer lies in this: If you want to control costs, do so by promoting more preventive programs, not by denying people coverage (which would be less needed if you supported preventive medicine.)
I completely agree, but the poster was talking about government regulations and except for medicare 'paperwork' you have correctly identified the problem as being created by (and for the benefit of) private insurance companies.
And what in there counters the claim that the US is subsidizing the profits of drugs sold in other countries? I'm not seeing anything in there that counters that.
Let me ask you a question. Is it bad for a manufacturing company to sell something for less than what it costs to make?
"According to PhRMA, the pharmaceutical trade group, high prices are a reflection of the research and development costs it takes to bring a drug to market. PhRMA cites that on average, it takes more than 10 years and $2.6 billion dollars to bring a drug to market. They also point out that for every successful drug, there are handfuls of drugs that never make it to market.
But, Dr. Peter B. Bach, director of Director of Memorial Sloan Kettering's Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, says that pharmaceutical companies charge high prices simply "because they can." Bach added. "We have no rational system in the U.S. for managing prices of drugs."
LIKE I SAID, there are varying opinions on why drugs cost more. And obviously, the one's saying we're subsidizing other nations' drugs costs are wrong, because not all of the top pharm companies are in the US.
Sorry, I thought I was pretty clear.
ETA: gov't controlling costs as they relate to medicare and VA works great. now make it applicable across the board, and pharma will still be rolling in their billions in profit.
Regularly, my daughter who has CF, has to (well, we as parents have to) get doctors to sign all sorts of forms to say that the treatment is necessary. I'm not talking about contraversial stuff. I'm talking about the standard medicines used by practially ALL CF patients, as is recommended by CFF.ORG and CF Centers around the globe as standard best practices. The ONLY reason they do this is to slow down the consumption, and to put roadblocks in the way so they can save a few bucks in payouts.
I can also point to countless cases where medical errors are made due to the insurance industry putting huge burdens on actual medical doctors.
I can't count the number of times insurance has tried to substitute cheaper medicines (which I would be all for if they work) that don't treat the actual symptom, but are just cheaper.
I could go on forever. As another poster said, capitalism is good in most cases, but it's in direct oposition to the the goals of good health.
The answer lies in this: If you want to control costs, do so by promoting more preventive programs, not by denying people coverage (which would be less needed if you supported preventive medicine.)
Personally, I don't see this changing under a single payer system. If you've dealt with the government you know how rigid they can be, how much unnecessary paperwork you can encounter and what crappy customer service you tend to receive.
Whenever you are forced to do business with an institution, the worse they can treat you.
Insurance companies are able to do this, because the vast majority of us get our health coverage through our employers which they subsidize. Are you going to leave them and give up that subsidy and discounted rate? Of course not.
This is why I'm not a fan of employer provided health insurance.
I've always had relatively good service from my car insurance company and my home owners insurance company. I believe much of that comes from their knowledge that at any time I could go somewhere else.
It's my BELIEF that if everybody was shopping for their health insurance and didn't have it essentially mandated by an employer, health insurance companies would be more responsive.
Right now, many of our healthcare choices aren't really choices. Most of us don't really have much of a choice of who we care health insurance with. The insurance companies dictate which doctors we can use. Doctors don't post prices or seem to have much concern as to how much we spend, and they dictate the drugs we take and the tests we receive (as do the insurance companies).
The system was, and remains, broken, but the actual problem is our lack of choices and options. Going to a single payer system doesn't give us more choices, it keeps us locked down.
"According to PhRMA, the pharmaceutical trade group, high prices are a reflection of the research and development costs it takes to bring a drug to market. PhRMA cites that on average, it takes more than 10 years and $2.6 billion dollars to bring a drug to market. They also point out that for every successful drug, there are handfuls of drugs that never make it to market.
But, Dr. Peter B. Bach, director of Director of Memorial Sloan Kettering's Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, says that pharmaceutical companies charge high prices simply "because they can." Bach added. "We have no rational system in the U.S. for managing prices of drugs."
LIKE I SAID, there are varying opinions on why drugs cost more. And obviously, the one's saying we're subsidizing other nations' drugs costs are wrong, because not all of the top pharm companies are in the US.
Sorry, I thought I was pretty clear.
Yes, I read it, did you?
In other countries people are getting cheaper drugs because their governments restrict prices which means the US, where it isn't restricted, makes up the difference.
It's quite clear.
If the US passes a law that doesn't allow pharmaceutical companies to charge more here than in any other country, it will result in our drug costs coming down and many of them in other countries going up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northeastah
ETA: gov't controlling costs as they relate to medicare and VA works great. now make it applicable across the board, and pharma will still be rolling in their billions in profit.
Medicare isn't a single payer system. Medicare is healthcare insurance.
The closest thing we have to a single payer system is the VA.
How can you refer to the VA as great? Did you go in the Biosphere project and miss all of the VA scandals?
How about a 25-year-old who was experiencing epilepsy severe epilepsy problems. He was scheduled for an appointment 70 days later, but died after a month. Then, four days after he died, the VA shows that he cancelled and rescheduled his appointment.
Last statistic I read, said that the US ranked I believe, 36th in quality of health care in the world and we pay near the most.
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.
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.
