Bernie Sanders Joins the 2020 Presidential Race

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

What I mean is that price caps are just that, caps, and often times they do not capture the actual cost of the item (in this case the room), so services or other things get cut so the financial loss is not so bad.  I never said there were not global drug companies, but the US is the one industrialized country with little price controls or artificial price caps on those drugs.  So where do you think these companies (from around the world) turn to make back their R&D costs? 

 

  Actually if you look at a country like Canada, the Canadian government is a single payer. They negotiate the price for each drug that that will be sold in Canada and they have a lot of power to determine what that price will be. What they can't do is force pharmaceutical companies to sell those drugs. If companies were not making a profit selling in that market, they wouldn't be there. Simple as that.

 

  I think you have it a little backwards in your analysis. Pharmaceutical companies take advantage of a fractured health care system and limited regulation to charge US consumers whatever prices they can dream up. As a country, we are often too obsessed with the limited philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans to actually take notice of important things like that.

  

[millefleur 5,038]

29 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

How close is this to the actual price?  In economics, price fixing is generally detrimental to an overall economy.  What would be really interesting is if the US stopped subsidizing the cost of pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world.  I am all for equalizing everyone there.  

The problem with the health care industry in the US is that nobody knows what actual prices even are because they are kept secret most of the time until you get the bill. How easy is it to find a price list anywhere for basic medical procedures for a person without insurance, or even with insurance?

 

In Russia, by contrast, there is a truly open "free market" private medical industry. Every private hospital has a fixed price list for the majority of procedures (with some estimates for more complex ones). You can just browse online and compare prices and then choose accordingly, just like shopping for a car or anything else. This creates competitive pricing for consumers. That literally does not exist here in the US. People are at the mercy of "the system" when it comes to health care here, it's just that the system is insurance companies and doctors who agree to keep prices confusing and secretive. Medicaid/medicare thrown in just makes it even more complicated than it needs to be.

 

A relevant read regarding how price fixing also exists in the US system thanks to orgs like the American Medical Association: How the AMA Engages in Government-Sanctioned Price Fixing

[Unidentified 2,930]

3 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

I heard about it a good 1-2 years ago when I read a article detailing the issues with it. It's primarily due to how rural and spread out the country is. If there are problems with a mother before or during childbirth then a fair number of times they will have to be sent 1-2 counties away for proper medical attention beyond a simple country clinic. 

Not primarily but one of the many factors yes. Including how poor people don't always have access to care during or even before the pregnancy so they don't catch health issues that can put the mother at risk for, for example, preeclampsia. There is also the fact that POC is more likely to be ignored by doctors than others. 

 

According to Berkley the US does not have a national protocol for conditions that are most likely to kill women in the peripartum period (the period preceding and after childbirth) such as postpartum hemorrhage)

5 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

it's not irrelevant when it directly correlates. 

How? 

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

8 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Actually if you look at a country like Canada, the Canadian government is a single payer. They negotiate the price for each drug that that will be sold in Canada and they have a lot of power to determine what that price will be. What they can't do is force pharmaceutical companies to sell those drugs. If companies were not making a profit selling in that market, they wouldn't be there. Simple as that.

 

  I think you have it a little backwards in your analysis. Pharmaceutical companies take advantage of a fractured health care system and limited regulation to charge US consumers whatever prices they can dream up. As a country, we are often too obsessed with the limited philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans to actually take notice of important things like that.

  

 

8 minutes ago, millefleur said:

The problem with the health care industry in the US is that nobody knows what actual prices even are because they are kept secret most of the time until you get the bill. How easy is it to find a price list anywhere for basic medical procedures for a person without insurance, or even with insurance?

 

In Russia, by contrast, there is a truly open "free market" private medical industry. Every private hospital has a fixed price list for the majority of procedures (with some estimates for more complex ones). You can just browse online and compare prices and then choose accordingly, just like shopping for a car or anything else. This creates competitive pricing for consumers. That literally does not exist here in the US. People are at the mercy of "the system" when it comes to health care here, it's just that the system is insurance companies and doctors who agree to keep prices confusing and secretive. Medicaid/medicare thrown in just makes it even more complicated than it needs to be.

 

A relevant read regarding how price fixing also exists in the US system thanks to orgs like the American Medical Association: How the AMA Engages in Government-Sanctioned Price Fixing

That's because the US market is where the drug companies recoup all of their investment from the drugs they sell. Hence the reason why it a pill will cost $50 in the US and $1 in a different country. 

[Unidentified 2,930]

6 minutes ago, millefleur said:

The problem with the health care industry in the US is that nobody knows what actual prices even are because they are kept secret most of the time until you get the bill. How easy is it to find a price list anywhere for basic medical procedures for a person without insurance, or even with insurance?

 

In Russia, by contrast, there is a truly open "free market" private medical industry. Every private hospital has a fixed price list for the majority of procedures (with some estimates for more complex ones). You can just browse online and compare prices and then choose accordingly, just like shopping for a car or anything else. This creates competitive pricing for consumers. That literally does not exist here in the US. People are at the mercy of "the system" when it comes to health care here, it's just that the system is insurance companies and doctors who agree to keep prices confusing and secretive. Medicaid/medicare thrown in just makes it even more complicated than it needs to be.

 

A relevant read regarding how price fixing also exists in the US system thanks to orgs like the American Medical Association: How the AMA Engages in Government-Sanctioned Price Fixing

Absolutely true. Here they can have weird fantasy sums for going to the ER based on nothing and you don't know until the bill comes. Whereas I can, with a quick google search, know that I would have to pay $43 to go see a doctor at the ER where I used to live in Sweden. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

it's not irrelevant when it directly correlates. 

 

8 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

 

How? 

The short answer is that US military spending is greater than Sweden's GDP by roughly $100 Billion.

[Unidentified 2,930]

2 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

 

That's because the US market is where the drug companies recoup all of their investment from the drugs they sell. Hence the reason why it a pill will cost $50 in the US and $1 in a different country. 

Because of greed. 

Just now, ALFKAD said:

 

The short answer is that US military spending is greater than Sweden's GDP by roughly $100 Billion.

That does not explain the correlation between military spending and social welfare. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

6 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

Not primarily but one of the many factors yes. Including how poor people don't always have access to care during or even before the pregnancy so they don't catch health issues that can put the mother at risk for, for example, preeclampsia. There is also the fact that POC is more likely to be ignored by doctors than others. 

According to Berkley the US does not have a national protocol for conditions that are most likely to kill women in the peripartum period (the period preceding and after childbirth) such as postpartum hemorrhage)

How? 

Because if we spent an increased $600 billion on healthcare across the board instead of defense then it would be a lot better. But we currently spend $700 billion a year in Defense spending. 

[millefleur 5,038]

2 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

That's because the US market is where the drug companies recoup all of their investment from the drugs they sell. Hence the reason why it a pill will cost $50 in the US and $1 in a different country.  

I'm referring to broadly to medical services, not just pharmaceuticals. Therefore the R&D argument simply can't apply to why pricing for basic doctor visits and procedures here are kept in the dark.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Unidentified said:

Because of greed. 

That does not explain the correlation between military spending and social welfare. 

No, but it explains why other countries have more "free" stuff.  We could too, if we underfunded our military and lost our dominance on that front.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

1 minute ago, Unidentified said:

Because of greed. 

That does not explain the correlation between military spending and social welfare. 

If you do not see the direct correlation then I can't help you any further. 

[Unidentified 2,930]

2 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Because if we spent an increased $600 billion on healthcare across the board instead of defense then it would be a lot better. But we currently spend $700 billion a year in Defense spending. 

Then we need to reduce military spending. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

3 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

Then we need to reduce military spending. 

Sweden spends $6 Billion on defense FYI. 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Cyberfx1024

[Unidentified 2,930]

2 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

No, but it explains why other countries have more "free" stuff.  We could too, if we underfunded our military and lost our dominance on that front.

Because of greed. They want to profit from people's illnesses. Frederick Banting won the Nobel prize for discovering insulin. He wanted everyone to have access to it and therefore he gave the patent away for free. And look at what happened... And yes, I know Banting was Canadian. But the US is charging money for it while other countries are not. 

 

I think you'd still be dominating even if you slightly reduced funding. 

[Unidentified 2,930]

4 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Sweden spends $6 Billion on defense FYI. 

The 2019 proposed budget says 56.2 million according to the government website.