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 get the feeling LeaveWI was more than happy to let the rest of the taxpayers in Austrlia pay for the $600 medication that he paid less than $80 for. I'd guess we have plenty of people here with the same mentality. Healthcare for all, paid for by OPM (other people's money.)
You need to dig further there bub!
His drugs are cheaper down there because the Universal systems control costs to an extent that you would not be paying the exorbitant costs associated with your nonsensical system.
His system has removed the multi-level overlapping administration costs with a plethora of people having their hands in the till who are not providers but merely Klingon paper shufflers.
Are you people content to keep getting raped by your big pharma or what?
It makes no sense to me to read all this crap on here about how if you pay a reasonable tax to support a system of universal application across the board; that's having money stolen from you but if you pay an exorbitant amount of money to some greedy bastard sitting in a CEO's chair somewhere or those aforementioned Klingons, raping the crap out of you, that's a laudable concept; something to be encouraged?
His drugs are cheaper down there because the Universal systems control costs to an extent that you would not be paying the exorbitant costs associated with your nonsensical system.
His system has removed the multi-level overlapping administration costs with a plethora of people having their hands in the till who are not providers but merely Klingon paper shufflers.
Are you people content to keep getting raped by your big pharma or what?
It makes no sense to me to read all this crap on here about how if you pay a reasonable tax to support a system of universal application across the board; that's having money stolen from you but if you pay an exorbitant amount of money to some greedy bastard sitting in a CEO's chair somewhere or those aforementioned Klingons, raping the crap out of you, that's a laudable concept; something to be encouraged?
Whaaaa?
How is that even remotely possible when nearly half the country pays no federal income tax ?
My position is we need to get back to "cash and carry" for routine care needs, and insurance only for bankrupting emergencies.
These days, nearly everything medical-related is bankrupting to the average citizen. Nearly every visit for our baby to the pediatrician results in several hundred dollars after the various shots and whatnot. Insurance covers most of it. But even making in the upper five figures, doling out $450 for every pediatrician visit would not be easy. For those making half of that, that's HUGE.
After the birth of our baby, my wife had some issues which she needed to have checked out. The doctor sent her to the ER for tests. She literally sat there for almost 7 hours, being seen by a few people over the course of that time, and had some very basic tests. No surgeries, no procedures...nothing, Just some tests. The billed cost? $8,000!! After insurance, it was over $1,000. Still not easy to come by. And this was just for tests.
Quote:
I think if we went back to cash and carry for routine care, the cost would drop to 25% of its current level as all the "air" was pumped out by market forces being applied. Those forces always result in the best product at the best price, but you have to use your own money or it doesn't work.
Your celebrated market forces might bring it down a little bit, but I don't think we'd be seeing easily affordable care under a free-market system. No way is the medical industry giving up that gravy train.
I think that if we went to universal healthcare, the overall cost would be dramatically less. When I had an individual plan for my family, it cost over $15,000 per year, with payments on top of that. In 2012, I paid over $23,000 for medical costs. I think the tax would be a fraction of that.
Now...let's look at another scenario. When we were in Australia, by wife got called by her doctor in America who was looking at some test results. The doctor told her she needed to go see a doctor right away for whatever this predicament was. My wife found a doctor, made an appointment for just an hour later, got seen, got a prescription, filled that prescription at a pharmacy, and made it back to work within four hours of the original phone call. Her grand total cost? $70 US, and they apologized for it being so high because she was not covered by insurance there. What would that have cost in the US? Several hundred, no doubt. And they don't have market forces bringing their costs down.
Our system plain-ass sucks. We are not number one, as much as you like to keep spouting that. Our health system is a profit machine, and little else.
Poll: Should the United States have universal health care?
Where is the poll entry for "It already does - anyone can go to any emergency room and get care, whether they can pay for it or not"
??
As another poster has already pointed out, an ER does not provide health care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman
I wish people would get it through their little pin heads that ERs DO NOT PROVIDE HEALTHCARE THEY PROVIDE ACUTE EMERGENCY CARE. ER professionals can pull your ass back from death or deal with blunt force trauma, fire arms discharges or dealing with what is left after a motor vehicle accident. They do not treat cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabettes ,renal disease, auto immune disorders, orthopaedic reconstruction, COPD, recovering from strokes or neurological issues. If it is obvious what the problem is they will do is gives you a piece of paper included in discharge papers that gives a list of doctors mostly specialists to get real health care doctors or their gate keepers who will ask you right off the bat do you have insurance the practice accepts and if not can you pay up front.
For most low income Americans the answer is usually no so that ends the course of treatment until the problem mushrooms into another life threatening crisis and we do this all over again.
Once something is subsidized the cost skyrockets.
And you can never go back to the good ole days.
Paying for your doctor visits/medicine was all out of pocket once.
Insurance was used for hospital care and even that only paid 80%.
One also paid for their own college education out of pocket.
Lots of changes over the years where subsidies came along to "help the little guy".
And now you are a slave to it because that "affordable cost" is long gone thanks to subsidies.
You cannot even pay for medicare. What makes you think you can pay for anything else.
What are you even talking about?
What you need to ask is, compared to what?
Here’s the raw fact, from the National Health Expenditure data: since 1970 Medicare costs per beneficiary have risen at an annual rate of 8.8% -- but insurance premiums have risen at an annual rate of 9.9%. The rise in Medicare costs is just part of the overall rise in health care spending. And in fact Medicare spending has lagged private spending: if insurance premiums had risen “only” as much as Medicare spending, they’d be 1/3 lower than they are.
We don’t have a Medicare problem -- we have a health care problem.
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.
