usvi-on-line
Health care reform:
Soxfan I'm not sure, if I understand you right.soxfan22 wrote:Yes, Linne...And please tell me...What was the last great medical advancement that came out of Denmark?linne wrote:That also means that the government in a way have influence on the medical prices.
Linne
There has to be someplace in the world where pharma/biotech can carry out their research free from the shackles of price controls from the federal government.
I'm telling you, we are biting the hand that feeds us.
But I thought that you were the type who liked free competition? And there is free competition between the companies! What happens is that the doctor often write a prescription on medicine from a certain firm, perhaps because he knows the salesman, perhaps he has been invited to a congress by the firm, or perhaps because he don’t know that you can find the same type of medicine cheaper from another firm.
Now the government says that if the government shall pay a part of the price the pharmacy has to find the cheapest medicine. If you pay yourself, you can of course choose what you want.
I think it’s a good system. Perhaps you are a charming salesman who can convince the doctors
that what you sell is expensive, but it’s also the best. How will the medicine prices then be reasonable? Isn't that fair competition?
Linne
Last edited by linne on Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is some common sense, critical thinking from one of my favorites, Mr. Thomas Sowell. From his Friday column on health care:
The "Costs" of Medical Care: Part IV
by Thomas Sowell
What is so wrong with the current medical system in the United States that we are being urged to rush headlong into a new government system that we are not even supposed to understand, because this legislation is to be rushed through Congress before even the Senators and Representatives have a chance to read it?
Among the things that people complain about under the present medical care system are the costs, insurance company bureaucrats' denials of reimbursements for some treatments and the free loaders at hospital emergency rooms whose costs have to be paid by others.
Will a government-run medical system make these things better or worse? This very basic question seldom seems to get asked, much less answered.
If the government has some magic way of reducing costs-- rather than shifting them around, including shifting them to the next generation-- they have certainly not revealed that secret. The actual track record of government when it comes to costs-- of anything-- is more alarming than reassuring.
What about insurance companies denying reimbursements for treatments? Does anyone imagine that a government bureaucracy will not do that?
Moreover, the worst that an insurance company can do is refuse to pay for medication or treatment. In some countries with government-run medical systems, the government can prevent you from spending your own money to get the medication or treatment that their bureaucracy has denied you. Your choice is to leave the country or smuggle in what you need.
However appalling such a situation may be, it is perfectly consistent with elites wanting to control your life. As far as those elites are concerned, it would not be "social justice" to allow some people to get medical care that others are denied, just because some people "happen to have money."
But very few people just "happen to have money." Most people have earned money by producing something that other people wanted. But getting what you want by what you have earned, rather than by what elites will deign to allow you to have, is completely incompatible with the vision of an elite-controlled world, which they call "social justice" or other politically attractive phrases. The "uninsured" are another big talking point for government medical insurance. But the incomes of many of the uninsured indicate that many-- if not most-- of them choose to be uninsured. Poor people can get insurance through Medicaid.
Free loading at emergency rooms-- mandated by government-- makes being uninsured a viable option.
Within living memory, most Americans had no medical insurance. Even large medical bills were paid off over a period of months or years, just as we buy big-ticket items like cars or houses.
This is not ideal for everybody or every situation. But if we are ready to rush headlong into government control of our lives every time something is not ideal, then we are not going to remain a free people very long.
Ironically, it is politicians who have already made medical insurance so expensive that many people refuse to buy it. Insurance is designed to cover risk. But politicians have mandated that insurance cover things that are not risks and that neither the buyers nor the sellers of insurance want covered.
In various states, medical insurance must cover the costs of fertility treatments, annual checkups and other things that have nothing to do with risks. What many people most want is to be insured against the risk of having their life's savings wiped out by a catastrophic illness.
But you cannot get insurance just for catastrophic illnesses when politicians keep piling on mandates that drive up the cost of the insurance. These are usually state mandates but the federal government is already promising more mandates on insurance companies-- which means still higher costs and higher premiums.
All this makes a farce of the notion of a "public option" that will simply provide competition to keep private insurance companies honest. What politicians can and will do is continue to drive up the cost of private insurance until it is no longer viable. A "public option" is simply a path toward a "single payer" system, a euphemism for a government monopoly.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSo ... ?page=full
The "Costs" of Medical Care: Part IV
by Thomas Sowell
What is so wrong with the current medical system in the United States that we are being urged to rush headlong into a new government system that we are not even supposed to understand, because this legislation is to be rushed through Congress before even the Senators and Representatives have a chance to read it?
Among the things that people complain about under the present medical care system are the costs, insurance company bureaucrats' denials of reimbursements for some treatments and the free loaders at hospital emergency rooms whose costs have to be paid by others.
Will a government-run medical system make these things better or worse? This very basic question seldom seems to get asked, much less answered.
If the government has some magic way of reducing costs-- rather than shifting them around, including shifting them to the next generation-- they have certainly not revealed that secret. The actual track record of government when it comes to costs-- of anything-- is more alarming than reassuring.
What about insurance companies denying reimbursements for treatments? Does anyone imagine that a government bureaucracy will not do that?
Moreover, the worst that an insurance company can do is refuse to pay for medication or treatment. In some countries with government-run medical systems, the government can prevent you from spending your own money to get the medication or treatment that their bureaucracy has denied you. Your choice is to leave the country or smuggle in what you need.
However appalling such a situation may be, it is perfectly consistent with elites wanting to control your life. As far as those elites are concerned, it would not be "social justice" to allow some people to get medical care that others are denied, just because some people "happen to have money."
But very few people just "happen to have money." Most people have earned money by producing something that other people wanted. But getting what you want by what you have earned, rather than by what elites will deign to allow you to have, is completely incompatible with the vision of an elite-controlled world, which they call "social justice" or other politically attractive phrases. The "uninsured" are another big talking point for government medical insurance. But the incomes of many of the uninsured indicate that many-- if not most-- of them choose to be uninsured. Poor people can get insurance through Medicaid.
Free loading at emergency rooms-- mandated by government-- makes being uninsured a viable option.
Within living memory, most Americans had no medical insurance. Even large medical bills were paid off over a period of months or years, just as we buy big-ticket items like cars or houses.
This is not ideal for everybody or every situation. But if we are ready to rush headlong into government control of our lives every time something is not ideal, then we are not going to remain a free people very long.
Ironically, it is politicians who have already made medical insurance so expensive that many people refuse to buy it. Insurance is designed to cover risk. But politicians have mandated that insurance cover things that are not risks and that neither the buyers nor the sellers of insurance want covered.
In various states, medical insurance must cover the costs of fertility treatments, annual checkups and other things that have nothing to do with risks. What many people most want is to be insured against the risk of having their life's savings wiped out by a catastrophic illness.
But you cannot get insurance just for catastrophic illnesses when politicians keep piling on mandates that drive up the cost of the insurance. These are usually state mandates but the federal government is already promising more mandates on insurance companies-- which means still higher costs and higher premiums.
All this makes a farce of the notion of a "public option" that will simply provide competition to keep private insurance companies honest. What politicians can and will do is continue to drive up the cost of private insurance until it is no longer viable. A "public option" is simply a path toward a "single payer" system, a euphemism for a government monopoly.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSo ... ?page=full
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
[quote="jmq"]XOXO - get your facts straight. That wasnt me - it was jimg20.
Linne – saw a TV commercial the other night produced by some .org lobby that was a rather effective and touching depiction of what shouldn’t be lost in all the shouting about healthcare reform.
I'm not clever enough to follow the discussion here with all the details and arguments. But I think that you should not forget the main purpose with the reform
- to prevent what the mentioned TV commercial tells.
Linne
Linne – saw a TV commercial the other night produced by some .org lobby that was a rather effective and touching depiction of what shouldn’t be lost in all the shouting about healthcare reform.
I'm not clever enough to follow the discussion here with all the details and arguments. But I think that you should not forget the main purpose with the reform
- to prevent what the mentioned TV commercial tells.
Linne
Quote Linne: What happens is that the doctor often write a prescription on medicine from a certain firm, perhaps because he knows the salesman, perhaps he has been invited to a congress by the firm, or perhaps because he don’t know that you can find the same type of medicine cheaper from another firm.
Linne: I don't know what happens in different areas but that isn't how it works here. When I get a precscription my Doctor asks me which pharmacy I use. I suppose we could shop around but we have a locally owned pharmacy that I like to support.
I haven't read everything so I will brb.
GG
You know you really never had sold me on this in other "conversations" but I am really opening my eyes. This bill will kill research and innovation.Soxfan: There has to be someplace in the world where pharma/biotech can carry out their research free from the shackles of price controls from the federal government.
GG
I still haven't read everything, miss a morning, miss a lot. Brb
Sox: that was an interesting read.
Right. "Social justice". Whatever.
That bothers me. We have to get “qualified” coverage. They decide what we need. If we want to take our chances with catastrophic coverage knowing we are healthy and take care of ourselves, we can’t. I suppose that is in the interest of averaging costs--someone who is sick and needs care vs someone who is healthy and rarely needs care.
That is interesting. So is it a lack of responsibility or do they think they are healthy and take their chances??
GG
Right. "Social justice". Whatever.
But you cannot get insurance just for catastrophic illnesses. What many people most want is to be insured against the risk of having their life's savings wiped out by a catastrophic illness.
That bothers me. We have to get “qualified” coverage. They decide what we need. If we want to take our chances with catastrophic coverage knowing we are healthy and take care of ourselves, we can’t. I suppose that is in the interest of averaging costs--someone who is sick and needs care vs someone who is healthy and rarely needs care.
But the incomes of many of the uninsured indicate that many-- if not most-- of them choose to be uninsured. Poor people can get insurance through Medicaid.
That is interesting. So is it a lack of responsibility or do they think they are healthy and take their chances??
GG
These folks may not have insurance, just as the illegal immigrant may not have insurance, but if you think we are not ALREADY paying for them you are mistaken. We are. If they put of preventative care and instead end up with more serious illness they will get care, only at 10x or 100x the cost.SJfromNJ wrote:XOXO - Young people today would rather have the BMW than health insurance. Its thier choice.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 89,00.html
We have the same system here, but the pharmacies have the same prices on the same products.XOXO wrote:Quote Linne: What happens is that the doctor often write a prescription on medicine from a certain firm, perhaps because he knows the salesman, perhaps he has been invited to a congress by the firm, or perhaps because he don’t know that you can find the same type of medicine cheaper from another firm.
Linne: I don't know what happens in different areas but that isn't how it works here. When I get a precscription my Doctor asks me which pharmacy I use. I suppose we could shop around but we have a locally owned pharmacy that I like to support.
I haven't read everything so I will brb.
GG
I neither have read the whole topic. There are too many arguments, I don’t understand!
I can only focus on the most important thing for me, that every person should have the possibility to be treated, if they are sick, even though they perhaps don’t have a health insurance.
Linne
I think you are right.flip-flop wrote:These folks may not have insurance, just as the illegal immigrant may not have insurance, but if you think we are not ALREADY paying for them you are mistaken. We are. If they put of preventative care and instead end up with more serious illness they will get care, only at 10x or 100x the cost.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 89,00.html
I just wish it weren't going to cost me so much. I don't understand why I have to spend $15,000 for a policy that I really don't want because a few people have decided they don't want to buy insurance--even though they are financially able. What about personal responsibility?
There has to be another way to get the people who are driving their BMW's to the ER to buy insurance.
GG
SJfromNJ:
How could an illegal even get insurance? Can they go to--say BCBS--and get insurance? I doubt it but I don't know. If they cannot buy insurance maybe that is something that needs to change??? I would assume that they wouldn't consider asking for insurance for fear of being turned in. It "they" are part of the problem then maybe "we" need a better solution. Certainly we have made it very difficult for them--because well--the are here illegally. Instead of saying they should not be we should accept that they are here and do something about it. ???
I don't know. It appears that we are going to get this legislation so we will just have to figure out how to make it work. Want it or not.
I have wondered that also. And how many of the uninsured are American citizens? How many are illegal? Does anyone know?Under the House Bill, no illegal immigrants would be covered, so where will they go, back to the ER. That is part of the problem, the taxpayer will pay more to get less.
How could an illegal even get insurance? Can they go to--say BCBS--and get insurance? I doubt it but I don't know. If they cannot buy insurance maybe that is something that needs to change??? I would assume that they wouldn't consider asking for insurance for fear of being turned in. It "they" are part of the problem then maybe "we" need a better solution. Certainly we have made it very difficult for them--because well--the are here illegally. Instead of saying they should not be we should accept that they are here and do something about it. ???
I don't know. It appears that we are going to get this legislation so we will just have to figure out how to make it work. Want it or not.