Canada - Healthcare "Parasite"

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Toro, Jul 17, 2009.

  1. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,767
    Thanks Received:
    11,054
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,098
    I think the article is somewhat over the top but I thought this part was interesting.

    Zero Hedge: A "Criminally Insane" Cliff Asness Takes On Health Care Mythology And Pretty Much Everything Else
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. chanel
    Offline

    chanel Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    12,130
    Thanks Received:
    2,746
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    People's Republic of NJ
    Ratings:
    +2,749
    That was really interesting. Will that system change under Obamacare? Was that a dumb question?
     
  3. Political Junky
    Online

    Political Junky Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,557
    Thanks Received:
    2,948
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,538
    I wonder why Bush didn't fix that.
     
  4. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,767
    Thanks Received:
    11,054
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,098
    I don't know if it is true or not. The author does not cite any sources or provide any numbers.
     
  5. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,917
    Thanks Received:
    5,110
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,720
    The politicians are either unable or unwilling to fix the problems with Medicare. Most care providers that accept Medicare have not been paid in months for services they have rendered. This has been the situation for a great many years going back quite a few Presidents. We're talking both Democrats and Republicans here. They say Medicare is not affordable. Understanding that our government can't even run a single program like Medicare that provides the medical care for only a select group of Americans has me thinking that they will never in a million years be able to run a system that will provide medical care for all Americans. If you don't believe this is true, please, by all means prove me wrong. Have you ever heard of the term "cluster fuck"? That's what we're talking here. I've been involved first hand in what it's like to try and receive medical care in both Canada and in England. Sure, it's free but it's also one very big hastle. Trust me. You don't want this kind of medical care for America. A big cry from the Pro Choice folks is that the government has no business inside of a woman's body. Well, if that be true, why would you surrender your whole body to the government?
     
  6. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    This is exactly the way it works. The problem is that we are subsidizing not only Canada, but the rest of the world. And not only do we pay a little bit more, in many cases we pay double, triple, or even more than what they pay in other countries for those same drugs.

    As it is, these countries negotiate those prices with the drug companies, and it is the drug companies that accept those amounts. Because these drugs are not being sold in a free market situation, I think the US government needs to step in.

    I don't have an answer, but what do you think would happen if the US govenment told the drug companies that they could only charge 10% more in the US than the average price they sell the drugs for throughout the rest of the world? Do you think they would just stop making these drugs? Do you think they would stop R&D on new drugs? Or do you think they would tell the rest of these countries that they have to ante up and pay more or go without?
     
  7. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    It's okay for the rest of us, there are plenty of other options and I'm sure those companies would happily fill the gap if US companies stopped supplying.

    List of pharmaceutical companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    But I wouldn't like to see that happen.

    Here in Australia our federal government has a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which works fairly well - it's not without fault I hasten to add. If the writer think that's parastical, then, okay :lol:
     
  8. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    Medicare is underfunded. If you look at the cost per person for healthcare in the US, it now stands at $7900 per year per person. And those on Medicare are the ones who require the most dollars per year for healthcare because as you get older, you usually get sicker, and most people get sick before they die. I've read that as much as half of all healthcare costs come from the last year of life. But Medicare only brings in around $6000 per year per person, yet the cost of healthcare for the elderly is much higher.

    When Medicare was first enacted, people only lived to be 70 years old, so they didn't collect much in benefits. Now people live almost ten years longer and require much more medical care. So yes, the costs are out of control, but in the case of Medicare it is due to the fact that the money just isn't there. It has nothing to do with administrative costs as those in Medicare are much lower than in the private sector.

    No matter what we do, healthcare costs are not free nor will they ever be. And if the govenrment does eventually run the bulk of our healthcare system, it will cost money, but it is money that we are already spending, and in the private sector, the increase in spending is growing at a much faster rate.

    When you look at national systems such as Canada's system, keep this in mind. We know two facts. One is that they pay half of what we pay, and that is a great deal less in real dollars. The other thing we know is that they receive not so great service, and that wait times for many things are much longer than they should be. They also don't have all the equiptment they need.

    The thing that we should be questioning is how much more would it cost per person to bring their system up to our standards, and I don't have the answer for that. But here is what we can do; we can figure costs as actual healthcare costs, and then the cost of administration and also profits for the insurance companies. Now, we know in the Canadian system that administration costs only around 3% of all healthcare spending. This is comparable to administrative costs for Medicare. On the other hand, private insurance administrative costs run around 25% of healthcare costs with an added 5% for profit. So 30% of our healthcare spending in the private sector goes to costs other than healthcare spending.

    If we left spending on healthcare the same, but reduced the costs of administration to 3% and dropped the 5% profit margin, we would save around 27% of total healthcare costs, and we would do it without reducing quality of care.

    The problem in Canada and other countries with universal healthcare is that the people don't demand that they spend more which would mean taking more of their income. But the fact is, good healthcare costs money. If Canada kept their current system, but spent an extra $1500 to $2000 per person per year, they would almost certainly have everything we have, but they still would pay about 25% less than we do, and everyone would be covered.
     
  9. DiveCon
    Offline

    DiveCon gone

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    48,025
    Thanks Received:
    3,387
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +3,387
    i think they would raise prices everywhere
     
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,561
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,977
    You do not need numbers, it is essentially correct. Canada as a single source buyer gets medications cheaper then the numerous buyers in the States. Not because Canada is better but because Canada refuses to pay more and the medical companies still make a small profit. If they sold to every one at that price then just as the article states development and research into new medications would rapidly dry up.

    That is the entire point of preventing generics for I believe 7 years after a new medication is created. to give the Company time to recoup the huge expense in development and research costs.

    Some other Countries get cheap meds to by threatening to make their own generics illegally and ignoring the international community. Drug Companies then make deals with them to sell at a lower price to prevent the damage done by the generics before the company has recouped its costs.

    These companies are in a business and they MAKE money. So there is always profit involved at what ever load they can bring to bear on each market. It is not a HUGE profit on most medications. And most medications do not cost a lot to buy, BUT new meds always cost more for that period when the Generic is NOT allowed to be made.

    Cut that period out and only Governments could afford to research new medications.
     

Share This Page