Obamacare was compared to a “huge train wreck”

[erynaught 43]

I can answer that question for you. This is because government in other countries are not letting themselves be ripped off by big pharma. Here, it is a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. That is why meds are insanely expensive here - because big pharma has bought and paid for the legislation to make that happen. And they're reaping sweet dividends on that expense.

Kind of. We are a free market system here, that is why pharma companies can charge what they want in the US. Their pricing is limited by the availability of generics and/or the influence of prescription insurance plans who can decide what drugs are on their formularies and what tiers they occupy. It gets extremely complicated because even in the US people almost always pay the different amounts for the same drug. Sometimes it is even cheaper to get the drug without the insurance plan.

The other thing to consider is that the lower costs of drugs in other countries does not necessarily reflect the true cost of the drugs. Global pharma companies essentially depend on profits from the US to subsidize global development costs. And pharmaceuticals is a very risky business (risks) and should be compensated by larger profits (rewards) than something less risky like manufacturing and selling toys or cotton balls or some other commodity.

Even after considering all of this, the cost of drugs is a very, very small part of the overall cost of healthcare.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Normal Child birth no complication is $11337 with complication $27377 as usual you would inflate all the number but 100% inflation is little bit too much.

I saw the bills. The birth alone was $30K. That of course did not include all the charges that piled up for pre-natal care. Add those in and you get awefully close to the $50K I quoted. And while a c-section, there was no complication during the pregnancy or delivery. The amounts were the regular charges, not the insurance negotiated rates that were actually paid to the providers. But those are irrelevant in a world without insurance.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Obamacare just bought me and the wife lunch today. We just got a refund for something else we didn't have to pay for.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Obamacare just bought me and the wife lunch today. We just got a refund for something else we didn't have to pay for.

So you got your free Obama stuff?

[erynaught 43]

healthcare should be available to whomever needs it, no matter their ability to pay.

Yeah, within limits though. Health care is not a right, much like food to eat is not a right. However, there are social safety nets in place to ensure people have food to eat. A basic nationalized health care plan to provide this social net should be available; in many cases it already exists. Nationalized health care also needs to consider the impact of the limited funds available to spend. It's called health care rationing and all nationalized plans practice it; indeed, insurance companies practice it too.

However, for those who want and can afford better quality care, then they should be able to do so.

[erynaught 43]

But those are irrelevant in a world without insurance.

Not really. Hardly anyone pays the 'rack rates'; I'd say no one but I don't have access to the data for that, but I'd be willing to bet it is very, very low. The real cost is likely somewhere between the rack rate and the lowest negotiated insurance rate, likely closer to the insurance rate. So, in the hypothetical world without insurance the cost would be less than the rack rate, likely much less. This is why it is relevant.

Edited April 19, 2013 by erynaught

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So you got your free Obama stuff?

It was just a refund for a $20 copay. I don't know whether it was because we already hit our deductible last year, or it was because of a prescription we paid for that should having been covered, like birth control. $20 bought a tasty lunch at the local drive-in.

[Harsh_77 718]

I am not from the UK, but I have experienced the NHS first have and found it to be very good.

You could, I have heard both some ppl love it and some do not.

I know 2 incidents related to my co-wrokers family they did not have very good experience.

[Harsh_77 718]

It was just a refund for a $20 copay. I don't know whether it was because we already hit our deductible last year, or it was because of a prescription we paid for that should having been covered, like birth control. $20 bought a tasty lunch at the local drive-in.

Yep the BC are not charge anymore ... prob it was your own $20 that you got back....lol

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not really. Hardly anyone pays the 'rack rates'; I'd say no one but I don't have access to the data for that, but I'd be willing to bet it is very, very low. The real cost is likely somewhere between the rack rate and the lowest negotiated insurance rate, likely closer to the insurance rate. So, in the hypothetical world without insurance the cost would be less than the rack rate, likely much less. This is why it is relevant.

Without insurance, hospitals would take a hit on more bills than they are today. Someone would have to pay for those that don't. Today, it's the insured that pay for it. Without the insured, who picks up that tab? Yeah, that's what I thought. Nobody.

[duraaraa 203]

http://www.workplacebullying.org/2013/01/25/le/

If you're rich, you can afford the best healthcare. The richest Americans live to be 79.2 years old on average, the poorest live to be 74.7. Sounds pretty good, eh?

Now let's look at Cuba. It's a 'poor' country, isn't it? The life expectancy, on average, is higher than the U.S., and nearly as high as the wealthiest in the U.S. (78.5).

What do you reckon the difference is?

Let's look at Iceland. Universal health care, 81.2 year-old life expectancy. There are barely any Japanese without health insurance, because it's a law that everyone must have it. Smoking rates in Japan are much, much higher than in the U.S., and yet, somehow, they live to be 82.7 years old on average.

Canada? 80.5 years.

I don't know enough about Obama care to know if it's any good or not, but we need medical aid to be accessible to everyone for free. That should be a basic right.

There's no reason doctors need to make so much money, in my opinion. Those who become doctors should be motivated by helping people, not by raking in hundreds of thousands per year. If education is supplied by the government, healthcare should also be.

[Póg mo 1,749]

You could, I have heard both some ppl love it and some do not.

I know 2 incidents related to my co-wrokers family they did not have very good experience.

Sure but I don't know many Brits willing to swap their health care system for something similar to the USA's. The NHS would be a whole lot better if the conservatives in the UL didn't try to "fix" it!

[erynaught 43]

Yes, insurance spreads the costs. However, since every insurance plan has different negotiated rates for the same service/provider, not everyone is sharing the burden of the uninsured costs equally. It is entirely dependent on the underwriter's negotiating power and not on the capacity of individuals to shoulder the extra costs.

However, the ealier implication was that negotiated rates were irrelevant in a world without insurance and the regular/rack charges were extortionately high. However, in a world without insurance the regular/rack charges would also be different. This is why they are both relevant in understanding where the true cost lies.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes, insurance spreads the costs. However, since every insurance plan has different negotiated rates for the same service/provider, not everyone is sharing the burden of the uninsured costs equally. It is entirely dependent on the underwriter's negotiating power and not on the capacity of individuals to shoulder the extra costs.

However, the ealier implication was that negotiated rates were irrelevant in a world without insurance and the regular/rack charges were extortionately high. However, in a world without insurance the regular/rack charges would also be different. This is why they are both relevant in understanding where the true cost lies.

In a world without insurance, more hospital bills would go unpaid. The fewer people that would actually pay their bills would have to shoulder a larger burden. Only the free riders win in that world unless we're consequent and deny medical treatment to those that cannot pay in full, in cash up front. Obviously, we're not going to do that no matter how much the Ayn Randian fanbois would love that - only until they're the one's on the chopping block like their idol. So we'd then increase medical cost because we would move even more medical services into the ERs and we would have a smaller portion of the population pick up that higher tab. We'd be done.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What do you reckon the difference is?

Less drug abuse and fewer guns.