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.
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.
No.
It only means the profits are slower to come.
Beyer made more money on aspirin than any ever drug ever invented, and though its patents are long expired, Beyer still makes more money on its aspirin than any competitor. It's still the backbone of their corporate wealth.
Goes to show just how profitable a good drug really is.
Medicare and Medicaid serve expensive groups to care for.
And they would be included in Medicare for All. What you're also failing to realize is that the newly insured under a Medicare for All system would also be an expensive group to care for as they have gone without health care all this time.
Quote:
Alabama has very high sales taxes and taxes on the poor. And very low wages for the poor.
So does the city of Chicago. You have no point. /shrug
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.
So you think it is impossible for America to create an efficient single payer system like every other developed country in the world has? You buy into Clinton supporting think tanks that push Obamacare/Romneycare as the solution?
And they would be included in Medicare for All. What you're also failing to realize is that the newly insured under a Medicare for All system would also be an expensive group to care for as they have gone without health care all this time.
So does the city of Chicago. You have no point. /shrug
The elderly is the most expensive group to care for. Thats why we have a single payer system already in place for them. Because you would be denied health care if you went free market for this group. The amount of waste and inefficiencies in the current system is what causes America's health care spending to be 18% of GDP, twice that of other developed countries. And all those countries have a single payer system.
Does the city of Chicago have ultra low wages for the poor combined with a sales tax on all groceries? Thats the Alabama system you want to see on a national scale. Alabama is a social darwinian disaster. Just like your agenda.
The elderly is the most expensive group to care for. Thats why we have a single payer system already in place for them. Because you would be denied health care if you went free market for this group. The amount of waste and inefficiencies in the current system is what causes America's health care spending to be 18% of GDP, twice that of other developed countries. And all those countries have a single payer system.
As Obamacare has already proven, the newly insured drive up costs exponentially as they access health care they haven't had for years. And Obamacare didn't even insure everyone as Medicare for All would.
Both Medicare and Medicaid, the single payer systems we already have, are extremely costly given the small percentage of the population they serve, and that's even with the government paying insufficient, low reimbursements for medical services rendered to the point where many medical practices won't even take Medicare or Medicaid patients.
Deceptive. The average sales tax is the one people actually pay and Alabama has a higher average rate than Illinois and food and groceries are taxed at the same high rates as everything else. And wages are much lower in Alabama than in Chicago. So low wages and high taxes on the poor. This is what you think is great.
This system leads to nothing but crime, poverty and social problems.
As Obamacare has already proven, the newly insured drive up costs exponentially as they access health care they haven't had for years. And Obamacare didn't even insure everyone as Medicare for All would.
Both Medicare and Medicaid, the single payer systems we already have, are extremely costly given the small percentage of the population they serve, and that's even with the government paying insufficient, low reimbursements for medical services rendered to the point where many medical practices won't even take Medicare or Medicaid patients.
Romneycare/Obamacare cost growth is lower than it was prior to Romneycare/Obamacare being implemented. Why are you so against Obamacare when you use Obamacare fan sites like Urban Institute to argue against single payer?
Medicare is not extremely costly given the group they serve. Take into account that Medicare doesnt even negotiate drug prices and allow the industry to get away with ripping people off at every level, its still far better than a for-profit system for all groups like you would like to see.
Deceptive. The average sales tax is the one people actually pay and Alabama has a higher average rate than Illinois and food and groceries are taxed at the same high rates as everything else. And wages are much lower in Alabama than in Chicago. So low wages and high taxes on the poor. This is what you think is great.
Cost of living, property taxes, etc., are FAR higher in Chicago.
Chicago sales tax: 10.25%.
The poor in Europe and Scandinavia pay a 25% VAT tax. They can pay that in the US, as well, if it means they get single payer health care.
How would true Single-Payer curb the problem of over-consumption of medical services?
How would true Single-Payer cause humans to eat less and move more?
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.