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.
There were many solutions to fix cost issues.
But no-one wanted to listen.
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.
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?
They could partner with government and eventually have government take over everything, but for a few years, they could maintain their profits.
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.
A few years ago, healthcare industries had a choice. They could either reduce costs, reduce profits and sustain themselves long-term.
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?
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.
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.
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!