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.
Yes and with strict price controls on pharmaceuticals.
Agreed. The pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be allowed to charge USA patients any more than they charge elsewhere. Right now, the US is being taken advantage of and being charged at least double what they charge anyone else in the world for the exact same thing.
I think even conservatives would favor this model, but if their political leaders say this is a bad model, then, like all dutiful servants who put their leaders wishes before their own, they will be forced to comply.
Must suck to be a Republican.
Must suck to use such a broad brush. I wouldn't get use to it.
A lot of republicans would like single payer, it makes sense and it's more affordable. It's difficult to change a system from for profit to small or no profit. Plus, people will lose or have to change jobs. It won't be easy and some companies will lobby to keep the old system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health...ystem_in_Japan
Japan has a model we could follow that might go over better. We could slowly change our system to it. Payment for personal medical services is offered by a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. All residents of Japan are required by the law to have health insurance coverage.
I believe that's were OBC was wanting to go but couldn't get there, and didn't know how to be forceful enough to do what it takes. I hope Trump is better at the game of politics simply because the rules aren't embedded in his brain. That's why people voted for him.
Now if everyone would relax and allow him to preside we might be better off.
Agreed. The pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be allowed to charge USA patients any more than they charge elsewhere. Right now, the US is being taken advantage of and being charged at least double what they charge anyone else in the world for the exact same thing.
We are consumers of health, and that needs to change. Once it does, they no longer will be able to do big business regarding our health. But, they really, really like making so much money off of us, so they are going to lobby their butts off to keep it like it is.
It's obvious by all polls I've seen that the majority is ready to change to single payer.
Agreed. The pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be allowed to charge USA patients any more than they charge elsewhere. Right now, the US is being taken advantage of and being charged at least double what they charge anyone else in the world for the exact same thing.
That means less drugs will be developed and more people will die. The solution is to reduce the fixed cost portiion of drug production i.e. the costs of brin ing a drug to market. The best way to do this is to repeal Kefauver-Harris.
The only thing I would support is a 25.6% HI Payroll Tax (12.8% for employer and employee) to generate the needed $2.5 TRILLION annually to cover Medicare-for-All.
Thats like saying Alabama has joined the 21st century because they have so high sales tax revenue and taxes on the poor. Its just meaningless nonsense.
European and Scandinavian countries have a 25% VAT tax and single payer health care. That's the comparison. Alabama has nothing to do with it. It has neither a 25% VAT nor single payer health care.
Quote:
Any single payer system is far cheaper than what we have today.
If that were actually true, Medicare and Medicaid would be far less costly to the federal government than they are, given the relatively small percentage of the population they serve.
That means less drugs will be developed and more people will die. The solution is to reduce the fixed cost portiion of drug production i.e. the costs of brin ing a drug to market. The best way to do this is to repeal Kefauver-Harris.
I don't see why they can't just slightly raise the prices they charge other countries to balance out not charging Americans exorbitant prices. Why must the US bear most of the burden?
What use is a developed drug if few can afford it?
That means less drugs will be developed and more people will die. The solution is to reduce the fixed cost portion of drug production i.e. the costs of bringing a drug to market.
What's that old adage?
You can have cheap drugs and safe drugs but you won't get any new drugs.
You can have cheap drugs and new drugs but they won't be safe drugs.
You can have safe drugs and new drugs but they won't come cheap.
I agree the cost to bring new drugs to market is enormous.
European and Scandinavian countries have a 25% VAT tax and single payer health care. That's the comparison. Alabama has nothing to do with it. It has neither a 25% VAT nor single payer health care.
If that were actually true, Medicare and Medicaid would be far less costly to the federal government than they are, given the relatively small percentage of the population they serve.
Medicare and Medicaid serve expensive groups to care for. European countries spend 10% of their GDP on health care. We spend 18% and we allow special interests to gobble up so much resources and rip us off that we pay for a national health care system already by spending more tax dollars on health care than almost any other country, but still dont get a national health care system.
Alabama has very high sales taxes and taxes on the poor. And very low wages for the poor. You have previously portrayed yourself as a proud social darwinist. Alabama is the closest we have to the 18th century system you would like to see.
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.