It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obamacare will lower your premiums! Wait, oops...

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Except that cost controls aren't always a good option. The government tried cost controls with the flu vaccine.

Making a flu vaccine is a fiddly, twitchy process that involves whole chicken eggs. The process hasn't changed much and has to be done the way it's done. There isn't much that can be changed. It costs what it costs.

They decided that it cost too much for the flu vaccine and imposed price control. Most of the manufacturers of the vaccine then decided it was more trouble than it was worth to try producing the vaccine. It takes up a lot of space with all those racks of whole eggs and a lot can go wrong.

That year, there was a vaccine shortage as only three manufacturers bothered making the vaccine. You have to allow some return on investment or it's not worth the time and effort to make.




posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




There were many solutions to fix cost issues.
But no-one wanted to listen.


Who is the cost issues effecting?

Who is taking the financial burden and who is benefiting from the cost issues? That could explain who and why they didn't want to listen?
edit on 43630America/ChicagoTue, 02 Jun 2015 11:43:37 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I would agree with you, except that's not what's happened in real world scenarios. Countries who have National Health Care, don't have these problems.

Sure it's expensive, but that's the cost of doing business. Science and technology have also contributed to the rise in healthcare costs. It's mostly greed mind you. Which is why countries like mine, do just fine covering ALL of it's citizens.


So the entity making the price has NO incentive to hold costs down. Why should they? It's the government's dime. Pretty soon, only the government can pay, and all the other competitors are driven out of the market.


Not really, cause the difference here in Canada is that we have quasi-hybrid model. For example, eyesight and denistry are not covered by my Medicare ( That's what we call our system). I have to get private insurance for that, or pay full price.

Same thing with prescriptions. If I don't have coverage for that, I have to pay the costs of my drugs, unless administered at the hospital, then it's free. Such is that case for Chemo etc.

And the Government sure does have an incentive to keep costs low. They are using OUR tax money for it. I would flip if we consistently seen an increase in taxes, going TOWARDS healthcare, while the quality of care declines.

The fact remains that all these horror stories about National Health Care systems are just that, stories, they don't translate to what the 99% of people will experience. Which is nothing but benefits.

~Tenth
edit on 6/2/2015 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

And how many of them would have cut into the profit that the health care industry currently enjoys?



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

And how many of them would have cut into the profit that the health care industry currently enjoys?


Probably quite a bit. Look, I work in the healthcare industry.

But I can see the writing on the walls.

A few years ago, healthcare industries had a choice. They could either reduce costs, reduce profits and sustain themselves long-term.

or

They could partner with government and eventually have government take over everything, but for a few years, they could maintain their profits.

We can all see the short-sighted results.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




They could partner with government and eventually have government take over everything, but for a few years, they could maintain their profits.


Having seen how gov't and oligopoly relationships typically work, I can only imagine that the government would only take over the cost of doing business, while the insurance and other Oligopolies enjoy the profits on the tax payers dime.

Not saying that you are wrong, but I have a hard time believing that the gov't would take the role of insurance companies when there are big profits to be made in that industry.




edit on 32630America/ChicagoTue, 02 Jun 2015 12:32:05 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

As a citizen of Canada, I can tell you I haven't had that issue... Nor has anyone else I'm aware of.

The closest I've ever come is being handed a sheet and being told, "If you want to diet effectively, I would recommend you avoid the items listed here"... and that's a far cry from what you're suggesting.

You're insurance system is literally draining your wallets. I'd suggest you look into the Canadian system and how it works. It's not perfect - I'll never say that, but it is cheaper for everyone.

edit on 2-6-2015 by gspat because: Added stuff



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

One of the reasons why our drugs are so expensive in the US is because we are helping subsidize drugs for the rest of the world.

Countries with socialized medicine buy their drugs in bulk from the companies at a deep discount, basically pennies on the dollar, and the rest of the cost is passed on to those who pay market cost. This is the same that happens with Medicare and Medicaid. Government pays pennies on the dollar and the rest of us absorb the cost.

Basically, no one pays their fair share, so it gets that much more expensive for the rest.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: gspat
a reply to: beezzer

As a citizen of Canada, I can tell you I haven't had that issue... Nor has anyone else I'm aware of.

The closest I've ever come is being handed a sheet and being told, "If you want to diet effectively, I would recommend you avoid the items listed here"... and that's a far cry from what you're suggesting.

You're insurance system is literally draining your wallets. I'd suggest you look into the Canadian system and how it works. It's not perfect - I'll never say that, but it is cheaper for everyone.


It's cheaper for you, but it still costs basically the same. To have a Canadian-style system, we'd have to restructure our tax code, restructure how we pay doctors, nurses, support staff and revamp our entire system.

Not something that can be easily done.

And it would also have to pass Constitutional muster.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The biggest reason prescriptions cost so much more is because for some reason there is a weird (cultural?) taboo on generics.

In Canada, it's mandated in law that the drug companies have 7 years exclusive rights with a new drug, but then it is allowed to be manufactured by generic companies.

An example I can cite personally is Concerta. My son was on it before the 7 years were up and I was paying 380.00 a month for his prescription.

Once the generics came out, the price dropped to 40 dollars a month. A huge difference!



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Absolutely, illnesses can be expensive. Costs are definitely costs no matter what.

The biggest difference is that huge costs don't come from your pocket, they are spread out.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
and if you can't afford it ( very few can) you get boned by the IRS in the butt.




posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

The underlying math of the financial costs has never added up, especially with young having to pay their "fair share, ie more" (sound familar). Seems people don't like paying more than others do for the same services. Without all that extra premiums from them, the whole house of cards gets very unstable.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




A few years ago, healthcare industries had a choice. They could either reduce costs, reduce profits and sustain themselves long-term.


Which they would never do, because they have an obligation to share holders to turn a profit.

Now if the gov decided to go ahead and accomplish that, do you agree there would be outrage over it?



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer




A few years ago, healthcare industries had a choice. They could either reduce costs, reduce profits and sustain themselves long-term.


Which they would never do, because they have an obligation to share holders to turn a profit.

Now if the gov decided to go ahead and accomplish that, do you agree there would be outrage over it?




Yes. Because it is not the job of government to do so.

At least, in my humble opinion. I think government does too much as it is. I'd like to see government reduced to @ one fifth of what it is, and that is still probably too much.

But I'm a furry little anarchist.

Too many other people seem to think that government should be wiping their dirty bottoms and tucking them into bed every night.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

So why are we mad at the gov for the increase in cost when it is the companies that are the ones to decide to do it?

We say that the gov can't keep the cost down, but then get mad at them when the cost goes up.

Which I am sure the answer will be they should have just kept things the way they were, which is to leave a good number of people with no coverage.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

So why are we mad at the gov for the increase in cost when it is the companies that are the ones to decide to do it?

We say that the gov can't keep the cost down, but then get mad at them when the cost goes up.

Which I am sure the answer will be they should have just kept things the way they were, which is to leave a good number of people with no coverage.


The same number of people prior to Obamacare uncovered is roughly the same number now.

The only difference is that people who do have coverage are paying more for less.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Obama Lied. ~$heopleNation



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

So why are we mad at the gov for the increase in cost when it is the companies that are the ones to decide to do it?

We say that the gov can't keep the cost down, but then get mad at them when the cost goes up.

Which I am sure the answer will be they should have just kept things the way they were, which is to leave a good number of people with no coverage.


The government's actions increase cost. I don't get what is so freaking hard to understand about this... everytime government adds on a layer of regulation or bureaucracy it increases costs. It doesn't matter what industry, etc. The reason healthcare is so expensive now IS BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT.

The quickest way to lower costs is to get government out of the way.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: gspat
a reply to: ketsuko

The biggest reason prescriptions cost so much more is because for some reason there is a weird (cultural?) taboo on generics.

In Canada, it's mandated in law that the drug companies have 7 years exclusive rights with a new drug, but then it is allowed to be manufactured by generic companies.

An example I can cite personally is Concerta. My son was on it before the 7 years were up and I was paying 380.00 a month for his prescription.

Once the generics came out, the price dropped to 40 dollars a month. A huge difference!


It's not a weird taboo.

It takes years and lots of money for a company to find even one promising drug to put into the FDA test grinder. Then, it has to pass through decade or more of expensive clinical trials. It takes many such candidates to get just one that will pass that gauntlet. And of all those that pass through, very few will be mass market. Most will be drugs that will only treat a narrow range of people.

For all that time, it costs millions or more to get that one medication through to the market.

The patent protection gives the company a chance to attempt to recoup some of their investment on it so they can continue to investigate new drugs. And a company has to be careful too. Some countries do not respect patent rights. Place like India or Australia can deem a new drug too expensive, and if a company tries to sell there, they will remove the patent protection and basically steal the rights and put the drug out in the generic market early which can then create a situation where the company faces huge losses as the generic company who did none of the work and made none of the development cost, can now reap all the profit of selling the drug.

Oh, and sometimes, those generic companies are subsidiaries of your competitors. And sometimes, they make a cheap version that isn't very carefully formulated too because they may come out of a country with worse safety standards (like India). So your generic may not actually work for you as well.

This is not to say I have anything against generics. I don't. I'm taking a generic version of my daily med right now. But the reason why there seems to be a weird feeling against generics is because it can be like piracy on the high seas at times in the drug market.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join