Yep. And that study is full of shit. Got it.
I donât know who âtheyâ are. Did you look at Bauberâs healthcare plan? His taxes will be way more than he would ever spend out of pocket on medical costs. He doesnât want to pay for your healthcare. Why should he?
2 Likes
I generally buy the cheapest option for health insurance. I am on the hook for smaller stuff I can afford to pay out of pocket. But, I am on the hook for like $6K a year max if something terrible happens to me. I am kinda okay with that system. If I get cancer or something, I can come up with 6K. If I need to pay out 6K total in a year of a bunch of small health issues that is okay too. Neither the former or the latter has happened to me yet. I have saved a ton in deductibles with this approach. I could pay for a few 6K total years in the deductibles saved over my insurance buying years.
It is kinda what I think insurance should be. Not to cover small things, but to pool risk for large events that are unlikely. I take this approach for more than just health insurance as well. House and Car have the âcheaperâ or high deductible plans.
I believe this to be true for @Bauber. While single payer does have the potential to be more efficient and cost overall less per person, it is a form of wealth re-distribution if we are being honest. High income / higher taxed individuals will be paying for health care for lower income / lower tax individuals.
I think if we go to single payer, having the plans be more in line with what I described above would make them the most efficient. I donât think we should necessarily cover everything. But in the event someone needs health care for a major event it would be covered. It would also keep the hospital / clinics from being overwhelmed with people wanting a med for everything that ails them.
1 Like
You are learning. I am impressed.
1 Like
I was more referring to the quality of care in a single payer system. These articles that talk about the US being the lowest in terms of quality are bullshit.
I have been in hospitals in Canada, Germany, Greece, Italy, UK, and France. The conditions were appalling as well as the wait times. But, if you had cash you could skip everyone to the front of the line of somewhere between 14 hours and a 2 day wait. Or you could pay an on call physician to take you to a private clinic, which was nicer but expensive obviously.
This notion that âfreeâ things run by the government are better is laughable. The government canât even run a post office efficiently or in the black. Look no further than the VA for healthcare run by government. I wouldnât let my dog be operated on by the VA. Funny enough that is the exact quote from a doctor I handed $1,000 in cash to in Rome at the biggest and best hospital in the country.
He said, âYou are American. We will run do the scan quickly, but if surgery is required call the embassy and have them med flight her to the nearest carrier because I wouldnât operate on my dog here.â
But, yes @castoli it is great.
What is obtained for higher taxes vs. what you have to pay in the âfree marketâ?
Yes, if someone wants to pay more then that is their choice.
According to you,
Look no further than the U.K., oh wait all those studies are bullshit. Any people taking surveys are lying. And all those people in the U.S. who are dissatisfied with the âhealthcareâ and want to change the system to what most of the industrialized world does are just being unreasonable. If it doesnât fit your narrative then it doesnât exist. What works is a âhealthcareâ system whoâs primary concern is profit, not health. Sounds awesome! Why wouldnât people love spending twice as much as everyone else?
Guess what takes money? Medical innovation.
Though The U.S. Is Healthcareâs World Leader, Its Innovative Culture Is Threatened (forbes.com)
All of these single payer systems are also benefitting from the USâ innovation medically. Guess what is eroding this? Taxes and regulatory bullshit from our government - imagine that.
So tell me how we are on the cutting edge of medicine and innovation, but have worse care than all of these single payer systems. That does not compute. More expensive? Yes and with good reason.
All medical is expensive in reality. It is just a matter of who pays.
You literally have zero experience in this realm, but think you know everything. You are the exact type that always champions single payer nonsense.
Iâd be interested in what health insurance @castoli has.
So, Iâll explain my health insurance choice. The only health insurance I have ever had was a group insurance through my work. I retired after 41 years and was offered insurance as a retiree, but I paid the premium instead of my employer.
My employer had offered a pension program that took advantage. But in doing so I failed to meet 40 quarters paid in Social Security taxes. I paid pension dues. So, because I didnât contribute sufficiently to receive the benefit, I refuse to use what I didnât pay. At 73 years old I am still on my (former) employerâs group health insurance. My wife has just turned 65, and her Medicare is very lacking in comparison of the group health insurance of her former employer.
I believe if you didnât pay, you have no integrity if you take the benefit.
1 Like
In regards to new medication(trash) guess who comes up with the lionâs share of the money. Not pharma, like they use as an excuse to charge the highest prices but the government, imagine that. After it has become more well known that the government does most of the funding, then allowing pharma to swoop in and take the patents so then they can price gouge the public and make gigantic profits, people are getting fucking tired of it. But donât look for the corporate politicians to do anything about it. As they get rich off of the suffering of others. So what is the need for pharma? There is no need. They exist to be a price gouging middleman. They ought to be dismantled immediately and prosecuted for their crimes against the people of this country. Along with their cohorts in the government and the government agencies who allow this to go on.
Of course it is. It is government run.
This is exactly where most single payer advocates would fall.
Explain.
This is not true. I donât know where you are getting this nonsense. The majority of the money for R&D of new pharmaceuticals come from the pharma company researching it.
Again, you spout what you have heard from talking points.
Basic research is typically funded through government grants and is conducted by academics. Basic research, there are no clear commercial objectives, and the people who do it are driven to publish their results and make them as widely known as possible.
Applied research is usually paid for by private interests and builds off of the initial basic research.
Depending on the drug, 67-97 percent of drug development is conducted by the private sector.
I did GC - mainly contract review - work for a large conglomerate that worked closely with Johnson and Johnson for drug R&D and medical device R&D. In fact, the biopharmaceutical sectors spend more on R&D than the entire National Institutes of Health operating budget, with all biopharmaceutical companies investing more than $70 billion in R&D. And this was in 2015 and has gone up since.
Yes it is. But because fit doesnât fit your propagandized narrative it canât be true.
Here is fauxgressive A.O.C. questioning pharma murderer Mr. OâDay as to why Gilead pharma charges so much for Truvada when they had very little to do with itâs development.
]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHR1DkVffok
And who are these grants funded by,? Opps government!!
The only thing I disagree with in this article that it is taxpayer funded. I know federal taxes pay for nothing.
Pppfffftttt⊠goes your jingoist view of the U.S. "healthcareâ system.
Did you even read the article or did you just use Google? The article coincides with exactly what I said. Some portion or underlying portion of the science of new drugs is funded by the government via grants, but not the majority of it.
The brunt of the cost is still provided by the private sector for the R&D and risks associated with a new drug on the market.
Are you purposely trying to be dense? Or are you just blinded by emotional idiocy?
1 Like
You donât have to pay prices charged for free market services. You have no choice when it comes to taxes(without facing punishment).
Yeah, or you can just die. Some choice.
I didnât say you had a choice when it comes to eating, or drinking water.
Yes and thatâs what gives a fiat currency value. You must have it to pay a tax liability. Go ahead and try to pay it with gold or Bitcoin. Good luck!
I do apologize for assuming, because we all know what happens when you assume. And I forgot that truism.
But my assertion of the need for the pharma industry still stands. Are they even needed?
An alternative. PUBLICLY FUNDED DRUGS: An alternative to Big Pharma? - YouTube
Here this woman speaks specifically talking about Celiac Disease with regards to research and funding.
âwell here in the U.S. the backbone of R&D that enables advances in diseases is government funding, specifically the NIH and we are extremely lucky this funding existsâ
So is pharma even needed since the government are investor of first resort?