Affordable Care Act

[Andylusion]

That can't be! Greed should drive up the cost of technology, making food super expensive! Doesn't matter what the climate is, greed should drive up the cost no matter how much is produced.... right? Greed is the only answer.

Greed should drive up the cost of a rental, regardless... right?

So you are saying that greed isn't the dominating factor in the market?

Oh but you are wrong..... sorry you are wrong. There are co-pays and co-insurance, and there are out-of-pocket expenses in nearly all "universal" care systems.

But wouldn't greed keep the prices up? Are you saying ISIS isn't greedy? Iran isn't Greedy? Doesn't greed drive up prices on everyone? Or is greed not the defining factor of a market?

Nobody says that running a business does not mean not earning a profit. I'm specifically saying healthcare shouldn't be profit driven. You deflected by bringing in a slew of other 'reasons' that has zero to do with healthcare. Any business will mark up their product or service to get as much as they can without tipping it past affordability & staying competitive in any demographic or they will go bankrupt. That's economics 101. But to profit off of healthcare is morally wrong.

Obamacare is not universal healthcare. Any other so called copays etc in a real universal plan drops that out of pocket expense to nearly zero in comparison to what it costs in this country. & the healthcare corps are as greedy as they can get away with. if the status quo were still in effect, people would STILL lose their homes for no other reason but for the misfortune of getting cancer or through no fault of their own, got involved in a bad car crash... why would that be ok with you? And if the ins companies thought that theirs was the best system, why did they fight tooth & nail... spending millions of dollars for their lobbyists to get rid of the public option? because they knew they would not be able to compete & their greed would not survive.

So much for the capitalistic free market system.

Listen, if health care was not driven by profit, then you would have no health care. No one spends billions to come up with a new technology to help people, if there's no profit. Zero profit... zero care.

That's life dude. Get over it.

All of those reasons DO have to do with health care. There is nothing 'special' about health care that makes it exempt from the fundamentals of economics. Nothing. And every system that denies that, ends up with no health care. Before the current reforms in Cuba, the average Cuban couldn't even get Aspirin in Cuba. Aspirin. You know, that space age technology.

There is nothing morally wrong with profiting off of health care. That's mindless babbling.

I didn't say Obama Care is universal health care. I said universal health care does have co-pays and out of pocket expenses. You are wrong.

Patient co-payments - Help with NHS health costs in England - NHS Choices

UK Co-pays.

What's the cost of beating NHS waiting lists?

And if you want to not wait a year for some treatments, you have to pay a massive fee to be treated sooner.

See a doctor in France: hospitals, emergencies and the EHIC card
The impact of Hollande's healthcare reforms in France - PMLiVE

Now it used to be that all the fees and co-pays in France were reimbursed. But they were going broke. Now they are not reimbursed. And it looks like reimbursements will be cut in the future.

Most of the "universal health care" countries you think have free health care, all have co-pays and fees.

But even those that don't..... Like France before, everyone said "well isn't this great", but in reality they were going broke the whole time, and eventually the system had to be reformed.

If they had not reformed their system, they would have ended up like Greece. Greece's health care was free.... now it barely even exists. Well done. They followed your plan to the letter... and look where it got them.

No system under 'universal healthcare' is perfect & I never said it was. I also said, if I had my druthers, I'd rather have zero copays etc... I suggest you watch this sometime. 5 countries compare their healthcare systems to ours at the time was completely in the hands of the healthcare corps. Are their systems perfect? No. Did any claim they were? No. Is there room for improvements? Always. But not one person interviewed... when asked if they would trade their healthcare system with that of Americans/United States- not one said they would.

In Sick Around the World, FRONTLINE teams up with veteran Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid to find out how five other capitalist democracies -- the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- deliver health care, and what the United States might learn from their successes and their failures.

Watch The Full Program | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

Each has a health care system that delivers health care for everyone -- but with remarkable differences.

United Kingdom

An interview with an expert on the UK's system +
Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health care: 8.3

Average family premium: None; funded by taxation.

Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays.

What is it? The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients.

How does it work? Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low; there are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a "medical home" in their GP, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system; patients must see their GP before going to a specialist. GPs, who are paid extra for keeping their patients healthy, are instrumental in preventive care, an area in which Britain is a world leader.

What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited choice -- still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.

Japan

An interview with an expert on Japan's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 8

Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half.

Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income.

What is it? Japan uses a "social insurance" system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can't afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector.

How does it work? Japan boasts some of the best health statistics in the world, no doubt due in part to the Japanese diet and lifestyle. Unlike the U.K., there are no gatekeepers; the Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down.

What are the concerns? In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there's no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home.

Germany

An interview with an expert on Germany's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 10.7

Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients' income.

Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt.

What is it? Germany, like Japan, uses a social insurance model. In fact, Germany is the birthplace of social insurance, which dates back to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. But unlike the Japanese, who get insurance from work or are assigned to a community fund, Germans are free to buy their insurance from one of more than 200 private, nonprofit "sickness funds." As in Japan, the poor receive public assistance to pay their premiums.

How does it work? Sickness funds are nonprofit and cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions; they compete with each other for members, and fund managers are paid based on the size of their enrollments. Like Japan, Germany is a single-payment system, but instead of the government negotiating the prices, the sickness funds bargain with doctors as a group. Germans can go straight to a specialist without first seeing a gatekeeper doctor, but they may pay a higher co-pay if they do.

What are the concerns? The single-payment system leaves some German doctors feeling underpaid. A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. (Then again, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free.) Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds.

Taiwan

An interview with an expert on Taiwan's system +
Percentage GDP spent on health care: 6.3

Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four.

Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children.

What is it? Taiwan adopted a "National Health Insurance" model in 1995 after studying other countries' systems. Like Japan and Germany, all citizens must have insurance, but there is only one, government-run insurer. Working people pay premiums split with their employers; others pay flat rates with government help; and some groups, like the poor and veterans, are fully subsidized. The resulting system is similar to Canada's -- and the U.S. Medicare program.

How does it work? Taiwan's new health system extended insurance to the 40 percent of the population that lacked it while actually decreasing the growth of health care spending. The Taiwanese can see any doctor without a referral. Every citizen has a smart card, which is used to store his or her medical history and bill the national insurer. The system also helps public health officials monitor standards and effect policy changes nationwide. Thanks to this use of technology and the country's single insurer, Taiwan's health care system has the lowest administrative costs in the world.

What are the concerns? Like Japan, Taiwan's system is not taking in enough money to cover the medical care it provides. The problem is compounded by politics, because it is up to Taiwan's parliament to approve an increase in insurance premiums, which it has only done once since the program was enacted.

Switzerland

An interview with an expert on Switzerland's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 11.6

Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens.

Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year.

What is it? The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany, voted in by a national referendum in 1994. Switzerland didn't have far to go to achieve universal coverage; 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. All citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can't afford the premiums.

How does it work? The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government.

What are the concerns? The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's still far cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are still slightly higher than in other European nations, and even then the discounts may be subsidized by the more expensive U.S. market, where some Swiss drug companies make one-third of their profits. In general, the Swiss do not have gatekeeper doctors, although some insurance plans require them or give a discount to consumers who use them.

Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

So you just proved my entire point. Thanks.

The idea that Universal Health Care, involves no out of pocket expenses, is false. I provided evidence, now you provided evidence.

So we can clearly state with certainty, that this idea of "government will provide us with free health care" is false.

Please continue.

Of course nothing is free, but it's a hell of a lot better then our current healthcare system, even though they pay higher taxes, and they're ok with it.

Then why do hundreds of thousands leave the country every year for care?

 

[playtime]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

You & I & the smuck down the street already were paying (thru higher premiums) for people who were not insured. All those trips to the ER people have made, for silly things like a cold all help drive the costs up. It's common sense that preventative medicine now saves a whole lot of dollars in the long run. Something the status quo was not mandated to do. A covered yearly mammogram now that might catch an early cancer now & treatment is less costly with a better outcome is a lot better than it not being a covered expense.... so it's ignored ( because a mammogram is expensive enough & may not be affordable) by a low income woman until that cancer spreads & costs a lot more to the taxpayer. I really don't give a God damn whether *you* believe me or not & I say exactly what I think with no worries about the opinions of posters such as yourself. 'Moral superiority'? LOL. naw... just being humane. Try it sometime.

 

[playtime]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

You claim that not helping someone is immoral. You're not helping millions right now. Why not?

I voted for Obama. I personally would have liked a public option. The status quo would have kept millions uninsured. The attempt by the right to repeal the ACA some 50+ times cost the taxpayer how many millions of $$$ ? And it's STILL the law. So much for fiscal responsibility & compassionate conservatism.

 

[playtime]

Food is 'cheaper' here for a variety of reasons. Climate that is conducive for native crops & subsidies.

Technology, as it is mass produced naturally brings cost down.

Who is going to rent an apartment for a million dollars as an avg going price when most people can't naturally afford that?
The avg landlord would not be in business very long. Demographics & location dictate the mkt. Housing in Bumfuck, Iowa will not be the same going rate as the exact same square footage of a dwelling in NYC.

Transportation is cheaper, yes.... but that is because a lot of taxes are built into gas & mass transit costs where there's a universal healthcare system... so the 'cost' is shared. I'd rather pay $10 for a gallon of gas if that meant no premiums, no copays, no co insurance, no out of pocket expenses ever again. Oil, right NOW is cheaper because ISIS is pumping it & selling it on the open market, Iran will also be dumping more for consumption that will help keep the glut going. And greed certainly factors in on the oil companies... BP is still fighting the decision to pay for causing the Gulf disaster.

Those are real facts.

That can't be! Greed should drive up the cost of technology, making food super expensive! Doesn't matter what the climate is, greed should drive up the cost no matter how much is produced.... right? Greed is the only answer.

Greed should drive up the cost of a rental, regardless... right?

So you are saying that greed isn't the dominating factor in the market?

Oh but you are wrong..... sorry you are wrong. There are co-pays and co-insurance, and there are out-of-pocket expenses in nearly all "universal" care systems.

But wouldn't greed keep the prices up? Are you saying ISIS isn't greedy? Iran isn't Greedy? Doesn't greed drive up prices on everyone? Or is greed not the defining factor of a market?

Nobody says that running a business does not mean not earning a profit. I'm specifically saying healthcare shouldn't be profit driven. You deflected by bringing in a slew of other 'reasons' that has zero to do with healthcare. Any business will mark up their product or service to get as much as they can without tipping it past affordability & staying competitive in any demographic or they will go bankrupt. That's economics 101. But to profit off of healthcare is morally wrong.

Obamacare is not universal healthcare. Any other so called copays etc in a real universal plan drops that out of pocket expense to nearly zero in comparison to what it costs in this country. & the healthcare corps are as greedy as they can get away with. if the status quo were still in effect, people would STILL lose their homes for no other reason but for the misfortune of getting cancer or through no fault of their own, got involved in a bad car crash... why would that be ok with you? And if the ins companies thought that theirs was the best system, why did they fight tooth & nail... spending millions of dollars for their lobbyists to get rid of the public option? because they knew they would not be able to compete & their greed would not survive.

So much for the capitalistic free market system.

Listen, if health care was not driven by profit, then you would have no health care. No one spends billions to come up with a new technology to help people, if there's no profit. Zero profit... zero care.

That's life dude. Get over it.

All of those reasons DO have to do with health care. There is nothing 'special' about health care that makes it exempt from the fundamentals of economics. Nothing. And every system that denies that, ends up with no health care. Before the current reforms in Cuba, the average Cuban couldn't even get Aspirin in Cuba. Aspirin. You know, that space age technology.

There is nothing morally wrong with profiting off of health care. That's mindless babbling.

I didn't say Obama Care is universal health care. I said universal health care does have co-pays and out of pocket expenses. You are wrong.

Patient co-payments - Help with NHS health costs in England - NHS Choices

UK Co-pays.

What's the cost of beating NHS waiting lists?

And if you want to not wait a year for some treatments, you have to pay a massive fee to be treated sooner.

See a doctor in France: hospitals, emergencies and the EHIC card
The impact of Hollande's healthcare reforms in France - PMLiVE

Now it used to be that all the fees and co-pays in France were reimbursed. But they were going broke. Now they are not reimbursed. And it looks like reimbursements will be cut in the future.

Most of the "universal health care" countries you think have free health care, all have co-pays and fees.

But even those that don't..... Like France before, everyone said "well isn't this great", but in reality they were going broke the whole time, and eventually the system had to be reformed.

If they had not reformed their system, they would have ended up like Greece. Greece's health care was free.... now it barely even exists. Well done. They followed your plan to the letter... and look where it got them.

No system under 'universal healthcare' is perfect & I never said it was. I also said, if I had my druthers, I'd rather have zero copays etc... I suggest you watch this sometime. 5 countries compare their healthcare systems to ours at the time was completely in the hands of the healthcare corps. Are their systems perfect? No. Did any claim they were? No. Is there room for improvements? Always. But not one person interviewed... when asked if they would trade their healthcare system with that of Americans/United States- not one said they would.

In Sick Around the World, FRONTLINE teams up with veteran Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid to find out how five other capitalist democracies -- the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- deliver health care, and what the United States might learn from their successes and their failures.

Watch The Full Program | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

Each has a health care system that delivers health care for everyone -- but with remarkable differences.

United Kingdom

An interview with an expert on the UK's system +
Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health care: 8.3

Average family premium: None; funded by taxation.

Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays.

What is it? The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients.

How does it work? Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low; there are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a "medical home" in their GP, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system; patients must see their GP before going to a specialist. GPs, who are paid extra for keeping their patients healthy, are instrumental in preventive care, an area in which Britain is a world leader.

What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited choice -- still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.

Japan

An interview with an expert on Japan's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 8

Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half.

Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income.

What is it? Japan uses a "social insurance" system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can't afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector.

How does it work? Japan boasts some of the best health statistics in the world, no doubt due in part to the Japanese diet and lifestyle. Unlike the U.K., there are no gatekeepers; the Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down.

What are the concerns? In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there's no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home.

Germany

An interview with an expert on Germany's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 10.7

Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients' income.

Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt.

What is it? Germany, like Japan, uses a social insurance model. In fact, Germany is the birthplace of social insurance, which dates back to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. But unlike the Japanese, who get insurance from work or are assigned to a community fund, Germans are free to buy their insurance from one of more than 200 private, nonprofit "sickness funds." As in Japan, the poor receive public assistance to pay their premiums.

How does it work? Sickness funds are nonprofit and cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions; they compete with each other for members, and fund managers are paid based on the size of their enrollments. Like Japan, Germany is a single-payment system, but instead of the government negotiating the prices, the sickness funds bargain with doctors as a group. Germans can go straight to a specialist without first seeing a gatekeeper doctor, but they may pay a higher co-pay if they do.

What are the concerns? The single-payment system leaves some German doctors feeling underpaid. A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. (Then again, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free.) Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds.

Taiwan

An interview with an expert on Taiwan's system +
Percentage GDP spent on health care: 6.3

Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four.

Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children.

What is it? Taiwan adopted a "National Health Insurance" model in 1995 after studying other countries' systems. Like Japan and Germany, all citizens must have insurance, but there is only one, government-run insurer. Working people pay premiums split with their employers; others pay flat rates with government help; and some groups, like the poor and veterans, are fully subsidized. The resulting system is similar to Canada's -- and the U.S. Medicare program.

How does it work? Taiwan's new health system extended insurance to the 40 percent of the population that lacked it while actually decreasing the growth of health care spending. The Taiwanese can see any doctor without a referral. Every citizen has a smart card, which is used to store his or her medical history and bill the national insurer. The system also helps public health officials monitor standards and effect policy changes nationwide. Thanks to this use of technology and the country's single insurer, Taiwan's health care system has the lowest administrative costs in the world.

What are the concerns? Like Japan, Taiwan's system is not taking in enough money to cover the medical care it provides. The problem is compounded by politics, because it is up to Taiwan's parliament to approve an increase in insurance premiums, which it has only done once since the program was enacted.

Switzerland

An interview with an expert on Switzerland's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 11.6

Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens.

Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year.

What is it? The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany, voted in by a national referendum in 1994. Switzerland didn't have far to go to achieve universal coverage; 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. All citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can't afford the premiums.

How does it work? The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government.

What are the concerns? The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's still far cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are still slightly higher than in other European nations, and even then the discounts may be subsidized by the more expensive U.S. market, where some Swiss drug companies make one-third of their profits. In general, the Swiss do not have gatekeeper doctors, although some insurance plans require them or give a discount to consumers who use them.

Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

So you just proved my entire point. Thanks.

The idea that Universal Health Care, involves no out of pocket expenses, is false. I provided evidence, now you provided evidence.

So we can clearly state with certainty, that this idea of "government will provide us with free health care" is false.

Please continue.

I didn't say free.... or if I did, I didn't mean to say that. I said I ( I as in me ) would pay $10 a gallon of gas to never have copays, co ins ,premiums... I did say taxes on gas & public transportation spreads the cost & I also said that that copays etc, are nothing compared to this country.

 

[playtime]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.

We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.

 

[playtime]

I'm still wondering how the anti-profit folks think health care is any different than any of the other necessities of life. If you don't think doctors should be allowed to make a profit, why should farmers?

Farmers are subsidized by the government so they can survive.

 

[playtime]

Also, Andy, having healthcare be profit driven in a place like INDIA is horrible.

Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.

Because it's cheaper & a lot of Americans can afford procedures there that couldn't afford it here even with the cost of air travel factored in. If an untouchable becomes ill, they cannot afford the same level of healthcare as a Brahman. Sound familiar? Plus given the wages & cost of living there, the same procedures there will naturally cost less than here.

 

[Andylusion]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

You & I & the smuck down the street already were paying (thru higher premiums) for people who were not insured. All those trips to the ER people have made, for silly things like a cold all help drive the costs up. It's common sense that preventative medicine now saves a whole lot of dollars in the long run. Something the status quo was not mandated to do. A covered yearly mammogram now that might catch an early cancer now & treatment is less costly with a better outcome is a lot better than it not being a covered expense.... so it's ignored ( because a mammogram is expensive enough & may not be affordable) by a low income woman until that cancer spreads & costs a lot more to the taxpayer. I really don't give a God damn whether *you* believe me or not & I say exactly what I think with no worries about the opinions of posters such as yourself. 'Moral superiority'? LOL. naw... just being humane. Try it sometime.

First off, preventative medicine is more widely used in America, than anywhere else in the world. You go to Canada, UK, and elsewhere, preventative medicine is a fraction of what it is here.

Second, preventative medicine is not an automatic win. In fact, it's generally a money loser. When you add up the costs to provide preventive medicine to 310 Million people, compared to the cost of simply giving care to the people who get sick, the cost for preventative medicine is billions of dollars more expensive.

If *YOU* are paying for preventative care, then yes, it makes sense. Take the average flu season. The cost for a flu shot is $30. Compare that to the cost of being treated by a severe flu illness, it makes sense.

But the cost of providing flu shots to the entire country, would be over $9 Billion dollars. The cost of treating flu patients every years, is only about $300 Million dollars.

Spending $9 Billion, to save $300 Million, is not a wise or "common sense that preventative medicine now saves a whole lot of dollars in the long run". It's not. It does not save money in the long run.

Same is true of breast cancer. To provide every single female of age, with breast cancer screening, would cost more than $30 Billion dollars. We only spend $16 Billion on treatment for Breast Cancer now.

Over and over, there are actually very few "preventative care" treatments that are cost effective.

Which goes back to my first point. The whole reason preventative care is uncommon in the UK and Canada, is because..... the government knows it's not cost effective, and can't afford it. Here in the US, the majority of preventative care is paid for by private individuals.

What was the first thing that happened after Obama care was passed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html?_r=0

See, when government pushed to expand Medicare and Medicaid, knowing they'd have to foot the bill for more of these preventative care expenses...... they suddenly "oh, you only need to screen at age 50".

Oddly I fully expected the move, and wasn't surprised at all. All the media leftists were screaming "how could they possibly recommend less care?!?".... um... because when you have someone else pay for your services, they tend to say you don't need as much? You know, like all the other gov-care countries in the world?

And lastly, you are not being more humane.

You think you are. You pretend you are. But your system has failed every single time it's tried. Tell those people in Greece, that your ideology is more "humane".

Greek Socialized Health Care is Pushing Amputations for Diabetics to Cut Costs

Greece has had a socialized medical system since the early 1980's, and it is likewise struggling in the current economic depression. Thus, it is going to use a similar tactic. It is denying diabetic shoes to patients, a service that would allow patients to keep their legs for several more years at least, and perhaps even avoid amputations completely. The Greek Department of Social Security maintains that diabetic patients will eventually lose their limbs anyway, and it is a waste of money to delay the inevitable.
​

"... not avoid amputation of the leg, just delayed for a couple years and the expected benefit would be less than the estimated cost."
— Benefits Division of the Greek Department of Social Security

That's your "Humane" system. Tax the hell out of people, so they are impoverished, and then deny them health care because it's too expensive. Let the rest of society suffer to cover the cost.

Brilliant move. That's the future of America, if you have your "humane" way here.

 

[Andylusion]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

You claim that not helping someone is immoral. You're not helping millions right now. Why not?

I voted for Obama. I personally would have liked a public option. The status quo would have kept millions uninsured. The attempt by the right to repeal the ACA some 50+ times cost the taxpayer how many millions of $$$ ? And it's STILL the law. So much for fiscal responsibility & compassionate conservatism.

Well... yeah, the ACA is fiscally irresponsible. I don't understand your dumber than forest gump comment.

We are trying to repeal a bad fiscally irresponsible law... and then you say 'so much for fiscal responsibility conservatism? Are you so oblivious that you don't even realize what danger you have placed the future fiscal state of the country?

You have screwed us. We have to undo this. There is no other option. You people made the country worse off. Not better off.

 

[Andylusion]

Also, Andy, having healthcare be profit driven in a place like INDIA is horrible.

Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.

Because it's cheaper & a lot of Americans can afford procedures there that couldn't afford it here even with the cost of air travel factored in. If an untouchable becomes ill, they cannot afford the same level of healthcare as a Brahman. Sound familiar? Plus given the wages & cost of living there, the same procedures there will naturally cost less than here.

Nah, the care they get in India is good high quality care. If it wasn't, they wouldn't take a trip to risk dying.

And I wasn't talking about Americans either. Americans go to India for health care, because they are engaging in free-market capitalism. It's the same reason I drive into town when I buy computer equipment. The store in town has better products, at a lower price, than the mom&pop shop where I live.

I posted why people go to India for health care. It isn't because of the price generally. It's faster service, and better quality service.

http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/16193/sumanthreddy2013.pdf?sequence=1

Number one reason for going to India- Quality.

Research got this response from a patient who traveled to India for care:

“I feel that the treatment I received in India will allow me to lead a much
fuller life than I would have been able to had I gotten an FDA approved device in
the US.”​

There you go. The socialized aspect of our own health care system, is hindering good care even in the US. But you can't deregulate can you? Can't let the public control their own lives. Gotta have the FDA "Protecting" us from good health care. Have to fly to India for that. Sad.....

But the primary reason 200,000 UK patients go abroad, is not because they are looking at the market, and finding a better alternative.... it's because if they don't, they'll die on a waiting list.

The scandal of the patients condemned to die by waiting list shambles: Day 3 of the Mail's expose of the Labour-run Welsh NHS

Hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment

Year long wait for necessary treatment. Hundreds dying on waiting lists.

This is why people in other countries go to India and other medical tourism locations.

And they have to save up the money and pay for it.... even while paying the taxes and fees, for a system they are leaving the country to escape from.

That's your system. That's how "humane" it is.

 

[David_42]

Also, Andy, having healthcare be profit driven in a place like INDIA is horrible.

Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.

Hey, genius, that was satire, the government in india makes sure drug prices are low. LOL.

 

[David_42]

Also, Andy, having healthcare be profit driven in a place like INDIA is horrible.

Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.

Because it's cheaper & a lot of Americans can afford procedures there that couldn't afford it here even with the cost of air travel factored in. If an untouchable becomes ill, they cannot afford the same level of healthcare as a Brahman. Sound familiar? Plus given the wages & cost of living there, the same procedures there will naturally cost less than here.

Nah, the care they get in India is good high quality care. If it wasn't, they wouldn't take a trip to risk dying.

And I wasn't talking about Americans either. Americans go to India for health care, because they are engaging in free-market capitalism. It's the same reason I drive into town when I buy computer equipment. The store in town has better products, at a lower price, than the mom&pop shop where I live.

I posted why people go to India for health care. It isn't because of the price generally. It's faster service, and better quality service.

http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/16193/sumanthreddy2013.pdf?sequence=1

Number one reason for going to India- Quality.

Research got this response from a patient who traveled to India for care:

“I feel that the treatment I received in India will allow me to lead a much
fuller life than I would have been able to had I gotten an FDA approved device in
the US.”​

There you go. The socialized aspect of our own health care system, is hindering good care even in the US. But you can't deregulate can you? Can't let the public control their own lives. Gotta have the FDA "Protecting" us from good health care. Have to fly to India for that. Sad.....

But the primary reason 200,000 UK patients go abroad, is not because they are looking at the market, and finding a better alternative.... it's because if they don't, they'll die on a waiting list.

The scandal of the patients condemned to die by waiting list shambles: Day 3 of the Mail's expose of the Labour-run Welsh NHS

Hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment

Year long wait for necessary treatment. Hundreds dying on waiting lists.

This is why people in other countries go to India and other medical tourism locations.

And they have to save up the money and pay for it.... even while paying the taxes and fees, for a system they are leaving the country to escape from.

That's your system. That's how "humane" it is.

The government of India helps to maintain low drug prices and is planning to roll out UHC.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm still wondering how the anti-profit folks think health care is any different than any of the other necessities of life. If you don't think doctors should be allowed to make a profit, why should farmers?

Farmers are subsidized by the government so they can survive.

This is one of those things I was mad that Republicans helped pass, was the Farm bill.

Members of Congress Get Millions in Farm Subsidies | AFP

The federal payments to the lawmakers—13 Republicans and two Democrats—ranged from $339 to Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R., Texas) to $70,574 to Rep. Stephen Fincher (R., Tenn.) [in 2012]. […] The payments to all but two of the lawmakers were well above the average of $604 paid to the lowest-subsidized 80% of farmers between 1995 and 2012, the group said.​

Yeah, you are helping farmers.... and those poor farmers in Congress, thank you.

‘The Bachelor,’ billionaires and the problem with farm subsidies for the rich

If you watch that idiotic show, The Bachelor, the star of the show is Chris Soules. Soules claims to be a 'small town Iowa farmer', but in reality (unlike the reality show), he's a multi-millionaire. Yet he collected $370 Million dollars from the government farm subsidies.......... to stay afloat.

Millionaire Chris Soules, would like to thank you for your tax money.... it's hard getting by on millions I'm sure.

Farm bill beneficiaries include urban dwellers

Cargill, with $60 Billion in assets, got $51 Million in farm subsidies.... to keep them afloat apparently.

Irwin Jacobs, co-founder of Qualcom, net worth $1.8 Billion, gets farm subsidies for not farming.... good thing too... who know if he could stay afloat without it.

There are over 50 Billionaires that collect large farm subsidies, from the Waltons, to the co-founders of Microsoft, the CEO of Cox Communications, and on and on.

At least they are afloat.

You people tend to talk a lot about corporate welfare, and making the poor poorer and rich richer.... and suddenly spin right around and support the very legislation that does that.

 

[Andylusion]

Also, Andy, having healthcare be profit driven in a place like INDIA is horrible.

Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.

Hey, genius, that was satire, the government in india makes sure drug prices are low. LOL.

As far as I know, they do not subsidize drug prices. The reason drugs are cheaper there, is simply free-market capitalism at work.

Again, people do not go to India's government run hospitals. Those suck terribly. They go to the pay-for-service, free-market Capitalist based hospitals.... which are fantastic.

 

[Andylusion]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.

We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.

Ranked by who exactly, and on what grounds? Tell me you are not citing the World Health Organization again? That whole ranking was absolute trash. They had Cuba on the list. Cuba.... where people can't even get Aspirin from their "free" gov-care system?

The fact Cuba was even on the list, proves that the whole ranking was invalid.

 

[David_42]

Also, Andy, having healthcare be profit driven in a place like INDIA is horrible.

Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.

Hey, genius, that was satire, the government in india makes sure drug prices are low. LOL.

As far as I know, they do not subsidize drug prices. The reason drugs are cheaper there, is simply free-market capitalism at work.

Again, people do not go to India's government run hospitals. Those suck terribly. They go to the pay-for-service, free-market Capitalist based hospitals.... which are fantastic.

LOL. Reduction in prices of 886 drugs from India | Medindia
National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority
India expands drug pricing with caps for two antibiotics

 

[David_42]

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.

We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.

Ranked by who exactly, and on what grounds? Tell me you are not citing the World Health Organization again? That whole ranking was absolute trash. They had Cuba on the list. Cuba.... where people can't even get Aspirin from their "free" gov-care system?

The fact Cuba was even on the list, proves that the whole ranking was invalid.

Oh dear lord, another self proclaimed genius who believes he knows more about healthcare then the world health organization, while sitting in central Ohio. Get out of here. Cuba is a horrible dictatorship, but they are praised for there healthcare, given the circumstances they are in. Do you think healthcare was better for the poor in cuba before the castro's? It wasn't. Hell, fuck the castro's, but cuba's healthcare system isn't something to laugh at.

 

[David_42]

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.

We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.

Ranked by who exactly, and on what grounds? Tell me you are not citing the World Health Organization again? That whole ranking was absolute trash. They had Cuba on the list. Cuba.... where people can't even get Aspirin from their "free" gov-care system?

The fact Cuba was even on the list, proves that the whole ranking was invalid.

Regardless, we have a self proclaimed "rational" capitalist who believes he knows more then the world health organization.

 

[Care4all]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

You claim that not helping someone is immoral. You're not helping millions right now. Why not?

I voted for Obama. I personally would have liked a public option. The status quo would have kept millions uninsured. The attempt by the right to repeal the ACA some 50+ times cost the taxpayer how many millions of $$$ ? And it's STILL the law. So much for fiscal responsibility & compassionate conservatism.

Well... yeah, the ACA is fiscally irresponsible. I don't understand your dumber than forest gump comment.

We are trying to repeal a bad fiscally irresponsible law... and then you say 'so much for fiscal responsibility conservatism? Are you so oblivious that you don't even realize what danger you have placed the future fiscal state of the country?

View attachment 48815

You have screwed us. We have to undo this. There is no other option. You people made the country worse off. Not better off.

What are the Federal Health Care ProgramS, with an 's', as in more than one federal health care program, as in more or other programs, in addition to the ACA, that is in your charts figures and how does it break down....what federal health care program is adding the most to this number in the chart, do you know or have a link on where the numbers came from Andy?

I'm thinking the fed healthcare programS could be:

the ACA?
the VA?
Medicare?
Medicaid?
Childrens healthcare CHIP?
TRICARE for retired Military?

 

[Andylusion]

Also, Andy, having healthcare be profit driven in a place like INDIA is horrible.

Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.

Hey, genius, that was satire, the government in india makes sure drug prices are low. LOL.

As far as I know, they do not subsidize drug prices. The reason drugs are cheaper there, is simply free-market capitalism at work.

Again, people do not go to India's government run hospitals. Those suck terribly. They go to the pay-for-service, free-market Capitalist based hospitals.... which are fantastic.

LOL. Reduction in prices of 886 drugs from India | Medindia
National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority
India expands drug pricing with caps for two antibiotics

I was unaware of this. So I really didn't know.

That said, as soon as I read through the articles you posted, I imagined that price controls would likely cause drug companies to stop, or reduce roll-outs of new drugs.

Why invest the money to produce a drug for a market, if you can't make enough money off of that drug, to make it worth the effort?

Second, I predicted that the use of price controlled drugs would see a decline, because companies would naturally not have an incentive to keep up supplies of price controlled drugs, when they can't make as much profit as other drugs.

So I decided to determine if my theory was true, and started searching for "effects of India drug price controls".

Price Controls for Drugs in India Fail to Improve Access for Patients: Report

What do you know..... it's almost like I'm clairvoyant.

There was also a drop in R&D resulting in fewer new introductions of generic drugs and there has been reduced competition since India expanded its list of priced-controlled medicines two years ago. These trends can strengthen “oligopolistic behavior, which will result in reduced set of choices for the doctors and patients,” according to the report, which was conducted by IMS Health, the market research firm.​

So the regulation drove out competition, leading to oligopolies. Sounds like regulations on hospitals leading to only 3 major chains in Ohio. Fewer new drugs coming to market, because why invest money in new drugs, when profits will be reduced by price controls?

Oddly.... similar regulations, have similar effects. What a shock. Who thunk it?

Moreover, there was no significant penetration of price-controlled medicines in various markets.
For instance, usage of drugs with price controls declined 7% since 2013, when the Department of Pharmaceuticals published its Drug Price Control Order and boosted to more than 650 the number of drugs that are subject to a price ceiling. Similarly, there was “muted” growth for price-controlled medicines outside metropolitan areas compared with 5% growth for drugs not subject to price controls.​

Well fancy that.... while the price controls were supposed to lead to more people having access to those drugs, the result was that usage of price controlled drugs fell by 7%, while usage of non-price-controlled drugs increased by 5%.

Really? The companies spent their money investing in drugs that were not price controlled, instead of those that were, resulting in fewer people using them, as opposed to more people using the non-price-controlled drugs?

Wow... what a shock! This has been such a shocking discovered. How could I be more shocked without using wires, is beyond me!

Like I said before.... the Fundamentals of economics do not change, because you are a leftists, and you demand such and such.

Nor do they change because "it's health care! It's different!".

If you introduce price controls in the US, you will have the same effect here. It will reduce health care, not improve it.

By the way.... Massachusetts, under Mitt Romney, tried price controls. The drug companies started closing down shop under Mass Health. Funny how the fundamentals of economics are universal. Every time, Republican or Democrat, you try deny how the market works, you are the one who fails. Not the market.