Kraut783
SOF Support
I can say this....at the field level, business as usual....but with a hint of the unknown and uneasiness
The Trump Presidency 2.0
- Thread starter Box
- Start date
Devildoc
Verified Military
The Quartermaster
Verified Military
- Joined
- May 3, 2020
- Messages
- 1,694
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
More winning for Americans: White House announces more deals to bring down prescription drug prices
Man, wouldn't it be awesome if there was some sort of Healthcare system that did this for all citizens? To bad it doesn’t exist.
Devildoc
Verified Military
What system would that be?
Pretty much every single-payer or Bismarck* styled healthcare system does.
It's been pretty consistent that our Frankensteined model gives us overall higher costs with comparatively worse outcomes (per capita).
*The German model is what I'd emulate if I could wave a magic wand.
Hard disagree here.
Every time the government gets involved in something, prices rise to take advantage of "free money". It happened in health care with ACA and federal subsidies driving premiums and health care costs up. It happens regularly with college tuition and increases in student loan caps where every time the cap jumps so does the tuition... by the same amount as the increase. It happened in the Auto industry with EV credits which immediately raised the sticker price of EV's the exact $7,500 that the government credit provided, literally on the day the subsidy went into effect. It keeps happening and won't ever stop.
The kicker? Someone is still paying for it and that person is the tax payer. That's why tax burdens go up, which drives the gap between the people who pay taxes and the ones who don't. The people paying for it aren't the ultra-wealthy, they have loopholes, trusts, corporate and international strategies that they can use to end up with no tax bills. The people that pay for government programs and the increase in government spending is the middle class. And today's middle class extends all the way from the $60k a year blue collar worker to the $200k a year engineer. And the final straw? The increases in prices driven by subsidies effect EVERYONE disproportionately. Companies raise prices to cover the added expense of benefits. There's a whole set of second order effects that go with the tax problem caused by Government overhead in these programs. The people that are hurt the most? The people without the wealth to afford the increases. The very people that single payer is meant to help.
That's why the "Tax Freedom Day", the day when the US collectively has earned enough money to pay for the federal taxes has moved all the way out to mid April, roughly 1/3 of the year. Your salary or wages from January 1st until about April 15th are now 100% going to pay for these kinds of programs (and the national debt). How does it feel working for free for 3 1/2 months out of the year and knowing that (unless you are receiving the benefit) you are paying for the rest of the country while trying to eke out a living under the increased burden? How much would it add to the burden to change from subsidies to Government run healthcare?
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
One of the reasons our "system" is expensive is because of how many free-loaders there are. People want medical debt to be clearable in bankruptcy...no thanks, you people cost the tax payer money. However, I will say, things get interesting when you don't have insurance and have to pay cash. The prices come down significantly.
Also consider how many foreigners come here for procedures that they wouldn't do in their home country. Our system at times kinda sucks, but it's the best in the world. Yeah, I know Americans go to Turkey or South America for dental and hair work, but would you really go there for cancer treatment? No you wouldn't.
Also consider how many foreigners come here for procedures that they wouldn't do in their home country. Our system at times kinda sucks, but it's the best in the world. Yeah, I know Americans go to Turkey or South America for dental and hair work, but would you really go there for cancer treatment? No you wouldn't.
The Quartermaster
Verified Military
- Joined
- May 3, 2020
- Messages
- 1,694
The UK's healthcare system is free, so free that no one in the critical areas wants to work there like dentists. They don't want to be slaves with piss poor earnings.
Workers also have a basic human right not to be anyone's slaves who demand the work for free and our taxes used to pay for the "free" things.
I at least, do not want this over here.
Workers also have a basic human right not to be anyone's slaves who demand the work for free and our taxes used to pay for the "free" things.
I at least, do not want this over here.
I prefer capitalism. Sure europe and some other places are healthier, but they're not eating the junk we are. ~60% of health-care spending goes towards preventable chronic illness such as obesity, diabetes, alcohol related diseases and tobacco related cancers.
The good ol' US of A produces 66% of the worlds novel pharmaceutical patents. All of Europe is responsible for about 25%, with China and India responsible for the rest. Thats a lot of medicine compared to these places that are supposed to be much smarter and better than us.
I could go on about how our pharmaceutical industry subsidizes Europe's cheap healthcare, but looks like that problem is getting fixed.
Devildoc
Verified Military
You really need to apply game theory to understand how the larger medical system works. With providers, pharmaceutical industry, hospital industry, insurance, ancillary and support, just to name a few. No one is going to make a serious move unless others make a serious move. They are all linked.
I do like Germany's system, and France's system is similar. They do have single payer which is there for people who need it, but there is also private insurance. With private insurance you get better providers, better rooms, better care, etc. A lot of the tax burden is offset private pay.
I am no fan, as in zero, of single-payer healthcare/ socialized medicine.
I do like Germany's system, and France's system is similar. They do have single payer which is there for people who need it, but there is also private insurance. With private insurance you get better providers, better rooms, better care, etc. A lot of the tax burden is offset private pay.
I am no fan, as in zero, of single-payer healthcare/ socialized medicine.
So the overwhelming opinion is we don't like the government getting involved in negotiating healthcare costs, but the Trump administration negotiating pharmaceutical prices is somehow different and good?
Somebody explain it to me.
Last I saw, the Bismarck model (or something similar) is the most widely used across the developed world. It does a good job of blending the "net" of social systems while allowing and encouraging private insurers. I have no fucking idea why nobody ever mentions it when it comes to healthcare reform.
IIRC, the German model is about a 7% tax on pay (matched by employer) for healthcare insurance. For comparison, the average American spends about 11% of pay on healthcare costs. A distinction is that 7% rate applies to dependants as well, so there isn't an increased cost like there is here.
For anyone who doesn't know, German law basically dictates the minimum requirements that an insurance plan must provide to get federal money, as well as dictates that only non-profits can operate in the system. This covers something like 90% of the country. It's basically tricare select, for something most people here are familiar with.
Private insurance exist, which is where the for-profit industry lives. This is comparable to what most of us deal with on the civilian side; only difference is you have to meet opt-in categories to get it, such as being self-employed, making over ~80k, etc.
Somebody explain it to me.
Last I saw, the Bismarck model (or something similar) is the most widely used across the developed world. It does a good job of blending the "net" of social systems while allowing and encouraging private insurers. I have no fucking idea why nobody ever mentions it when it comes to healthcare reform.
IIRC, the German model is about a 7% tax on pay (matched by employer) for healthcare insurance. For comparison, the average American spends about 11% of pay on healthcare costs. A distinction is that 7% rate applies to dependants as well, so there isn't an increased cost like there is here.
For anyone who doesn't know, German law basically dictates the minimum requirements that an insurance plan must provide to get federal money, as well as dictates that only non-profits can operate in the system. This covers something like 90% of the country. It's basically tricare select, for something most people here are familiar with.
Private insurance exist, which is where the for-profit industry lives. This is comparable to what most of us deal with on the civilian side; only difference is you have to meet opt-in categories to get it, such as being self-employed, making over ~80k, etc.
Devildoc
Verified Military
I worked with a nurse who was on vacation in France, and was in a car wreck. She was in a ward with several other patients and the provider was a mid-level resident. When they found out she had insurance she got a private room and an attending physician. Money talks.
Kraut783
SOF Support
One problem with the German health insurance, is the long wait times for getting procedures scheduled, and the decisions made for you....like, due to your age, we will not allow a hip replacement...etc. Private insurance is the way to go.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
France kinda sucks, love the place, but the people riot when they don't get free shit. The Firefighters riot against the Police. There are massive areas of major cities that are no go zones. Almost like it is here, if anything Camden and Compton at least during the day are far safer than some of the various Banlieues. Branded a no-go zone: a trip inside the 93, France's most notorious banlieue
I know we're talking about healthcare...but have you guys seen the taxes in France? Oh boy.
Ok, too much to go into here, but I can point you in the right direction if you want to look it up. So the main thing is U.S. pharmaceutical companies get a lot of the base research of new drugs from universities, which have large PhD level research power in the form of grad students and researchers who can do most of the ground work that usually turns out to be meaningless. Sometimes companies can pay universities for both research and the patents on promising drugs discovered in the course of research. Since universities aren't set up to produce drugs, they get the $$$ and prestige of being involved. Companies get the rest.
Where people get in a tizzy, is the fact that as a whole, the industry spends over $100 B/yr. on R&D, most of which goes to experimental or unapproved drugs that don't go anywhere. Then there's the cost of actually producing these chemicals in a safe manner. The deal allows companies to cover these costs by charging high prices, and patents that last several years giving a company the sole rights to produce a drug. That's where most of the friction comes in. Profits.
Nobody can predict if a drug or treatment will be successful until it has gone through full FDA approval lasting years. There isn't really a more reliable system other than testing drugs on the public and watching people die etc.
I forgot to add the main point. The U.S. companies have been selling our drugs at around cost to foreign countries for years... You may remember the stories of elderly people taking trips to Canada to get their meds. We are subsidizing cheap medicine for the rest of the world.
My German cousin waited years to get orthodontic jaw surgery that would of taken months in the U.S.
Last edited:
Same in Canuckistan. I need to see an ortho for my knees but I'm too young (47) and it's a minimum 2 year wait for a consult. Meanwhile someone in their 60-80's will be seen and have it done in less than a year.
A 2 year wait for a consult is wild.
Similar threads
