Health care reform, necessary?

[Christopher]

Are you kidding? Sure, start at the public library and go to the section on biographies. They are usually a very good source of historical information and most are well annotated, linking to primary sources (letters, documents and such).

PBS- Healthcare Crisis: Healthcare Timeline
(a simple historical matrix)

A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US | Physicians for a National Health Program
(A doctor organization discussing national health cares history in our nation)

EH.Net Encyclopedia: Health Insurance in the United States
(an academic historical analysis

Notice the tone of these links, none are emotional, though number two above is clearly partisan in favor of national health insurance. And then think about the 'arguments' presented by McConnell/Boehner/Palin/Limbaugh/Hannity/et al of the RW, all are fear and ideologically based. It's really sad that many in our nation choose to listen to the sound bite, the fear mongering and the propaganda and are to lazy to spent the time researching issues.

Let me explain myself better. The original article you provided in this thread took some facts and figures and drew some conclusions about our health care system. There was no credible analysis provided that confirmed his/her conclusions. For instance, the author says we are getting poor results for the amount of money we spend on health care as compared to other nations. The author automatically assumes that the problem is entirely caused by the US health care system, which is not true. Many of our health problems are caused because we have many more people who live or have lived unhealthy lifestyles. Yet you claimed that historical evidence proves the author’s opinion correct.

Thank you for providing these links, however, they do not provide an analysis of WHY health care costs have increased. All they seem to do is show the history of things that happened, leaving out the WHY. If we are going to fix any problem we have to first understand why the problem is there, wouldn’t you agree?

I do agree we need to ask why. But the historical record provides a framwork for asking the intelligent/informed questions. Your point on unhealthy lifestyles is particualarly germain. Consider the Congress unwillingness to curtail the tobacco industry; or the efforts by many today to deny universal health care education and preventative care for all American citizens.
Both are the result of greed and self interest - need I explain the nexus?

Yet none of the links you provided are asking why and that is the problem. The assumption with the links you provide is that we need more government intervention into the health care market.

Here, you should read this from the CBO. It actually explains many of the reasons why health care costs have soared. Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

Also, there is a big link between unhealthy lifestyles and a country's overall health. You should read this study as well: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

We have made great strides in informing people of the risks of smoking, without even changing anything about the health care system.

 

[Subhumus]

When the government starts putting a price cap on what a new medical technology is worth, that is when we will start to see less medical technologies (including drugs) being developed. There is more to it than the development costs of these technologies. Just like any great invention, it should be worth money. If the government says that it is only worth the cost for development, what company incentive is there to create the next great medical technology?

No, capping prices is not the solution.

I totally disagree. What you are stating is that the market cannot regulate itself profitably unless they have an open ledger with which to proceed. That's ludicrous. In an industry based on the discovery of new medicines, typical competition doesn't come into play based on sales, compition exists on the basis of efficiency. He who discovers the new medicine first, has it approved by the FDA, and puts into motion the production of it's pharmaceuticals, wins. Guidelines NEED to exist so that these companies can adapt and overcome. All we are referring to here is the most basic and yet exacting principles of natural evolution within any specific environment.

Price regulation is the ONLY logical solution. It is the only process that will ever trim and remove all the useless, self serving greed, that's run rampant to absolutely fatal epidemic proportions within and throughout the health care industry today.

The FIRST thing that needs to happen is the abolition of insurance. We need to get back to a real and honest individual level of responsibility. That in and of itself will lower health care prices by up to 30 years of needless progressive inflation. Private sector special interest as infused with the electorate in our government have seen to the crippling of real self sufficiency in this country. This entire Health Care debate is nothing more than a social disease symptom of our extremely sick government.

 

[MaggieMae]

Price regulation is the ONLY logical solution. It is the only process that will ever trim and remove all the useless, self serving greed, that's run rampant to absolutely fatal epidemic proportions within and throughout the health care industry today.

Case in point. Just look at the disparity in the hospital costs as told in this brief story (see last paragraph). Any guesses how much those tests would have cost in the United States?

August 16, 2009

Lives -
Le Treatment
By SARA PARETSKY

Last summer, sitting in a quiet garden outside Paris that belonged to my friend Frédéric, I indulged in my favorite fantasy — living elsewhere, where I would become a different kind of person. Less fretful, better organized, more creative. I could see myself in a garden like this.

Frédéric’s young son was teaching his baby brother to play catch, along with the words “la balle.” He helpfully turned to me and made me repeat after him several times. I study French, but I’m not fluent, so I added a 7-year-old French coach to my garden and more-perfect-life fantasy.

The only problem, I explained to Frédéric, was that I didn’t think I could cope with French bureaucracy. “No one can,” he said. “Just remember that they exist to make your life miserable, and you’ll be fine.”

A few days later, my husband and I traveled to the Loire Valley. Having served with the Royal Navy at Normandy, he enjoys seeing France in peacetime. Every year or so, we try to look at a different part of the country.

My husband kept falling asleep on the trip but insisted he was fine. Shortly after reaching our hotel, in a little town south of Tours, he complained of severe chest pains. I was panicky, but the concierge called a taxi and helped explain to the driver that we needed a hospital emergency room.

The small country hospital was much like an American one: anxious people lined up in a waiting room, a television blaring, vending machines along one wall. My husband speaks no French, so I explained as best I could to the gatekeepers at the front desk what the problem was, the douleur dans sa poitrine, sa fatigue and so on. We were U.S. citizens, not British, and we didn’t have an E.U. passport, so we didn’t have reciprocity for insurance coverage.

After a few minutes, someone came for my husband. Even though he didn’t speak French, they wouldn’t let me go with him. I sat down to wait, trying to breathe deeply. Among the waiting crowd was a woman about my own age, clearly as worried as I was about her own family member. She was already in the waiting room when I arrived, and after perhaps half an hour, she went up to the front desk and asked, in a hesitant soft voice, for news.

The man behind the counter demanded to know if she’d heard him call her name. “Non,” she whispered. “Then you have no reason to come forward,” he said.

Of course, he spoke in French, but even I could follow it. I remembered Frédéric’s mantra — bureaucrats exist to make our lives miserable — and I watched the clock slowly sweep off another 30 minutes.

At that point, I couldn’t take it anymore. I walked up to the desk and asked for news of mon mari. The gatekeeper turned to his colleague: had Madame been to the counter already? No? This was the première fois? Very well. He called into the back, and in a few minutes, a technician came to fetch me.

I was escorted to my husband’s cubicle, which he was sharing with a Frenchman who collapsed while getting off the Paris-Tours train. A doctor arrived. Her English was worse than my French, so with my little Collins dictionary I translated my husband’s symptoms. They took him and also his cellmate away for X-rays and left me and the cellmate’s partner to sit on their beds.

The partner, a chic young woman, blond, extremely thin, was carrying a fat book called “L’Anorexie.” Judging by her own size, I wondered if it was a guide, but she explained that she was training to help people with eating disorders. Bulimia and anorexia were severe problems in France, she told me: women, and increasingly men, are prey to a cultural mystique that proclaims they must be both fashionistas and foodinistas. Bulimia in particular is widespread, she said, and people smoke heavily to suppress their appetites.

Meanwhile, my husband’s heart and lungs were examined inside and out. He and his cellmate were both suffering from pneumonia, not heart attacks. They were given antibiotics.

At 2 a.m., when we were discharged, I offered my MasterCard to the surly gatekeeper. He said they would send us a bill. The doctor apologized for having to bill us, but we were not citizens, after all.

Six months later, the bill arrived. For X-rays, an EKG, 10 hours in the emergency room, a doctor, a cardiologist, technicians, nurses, drugs and even the surly gatekeeper, we were required to pay $220. I might put up with a lot of ugly bureaucrats for that.

Sara Paretsky will publish her 13th V. I. Warshawski detective novel, “Hardball,” in September.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16lives-t.html

 

[Care4all]

I'm afraid the only way to cut costs to health care is sadly to cap prices....I just see no other way....

If we all individually bought our own health insurance and businesses did not pay for 60%-80% of the price of it as a benefit, then there would be resistance from the market place of individuals that could essentially cap the prices and profits made, but this would be a very long, painful process....

so, does the gvt come in and just cap the price increases on Medical care? And IF this were done, would it really slow research and development when it is our government that subsidizes R&D by the tune of 40% of the cost?

Should we be charged with letting the private sector profit, when we, ourselves, paid with taxes, for the research and development of the procedure or technology or medical product?

When the government starts putting a price cap on what a new medical technology is worth, that is when we will start to see less medical technologies (including drugs) being developed. There is more to it than the development costs of these technologies. Just like any great invention, it should be worth money. If the government says that it is only worth the cost for development, what company incentive is there to create the next great medical technology?

No, capping prices is not the solution.

THE US GOVERNMENT pays FOR 40% of the research and development costs.....should WE GET 40% of the profits then? Or should the price of the drugs or technology that we paid for with OUR money be REDUCED in price by 40% for us Americans and they can charge the higher price to other foreign countries who did NOT contribute to the development of the new procedure or drug?

And also, do you really believe that humans would not continue to develop better drugs or technologies for ourselves if there were not HUGE PROFITS in it? I don't.

 

[MaggieMae]

Let's face it folks. We can't afford government sponsorship of any new health care initiative at this time. So all of us will just muddle along with the status quo and nothing will get "reformed" until the cost of private health care and health insurance becomes even too exhorbitant for upper income levels to ignore.

 

[FireGod]

Let's face it folks. We can't afford government sponsorship of any new health care initiative at this time. So all of us will just muddle along with the status quo and nothing will get "reformed" until the cost of private health care and health insurance becomes even too exhorbitant for upper income levels to ignore.

Well at least only the healthy will survive (for the most part) and bonus points for population control. Who says eugenics is not a good thing?

 

[toomuchtime_]

I'm afraid the only way to cut costs to health care is sadly to cap prices....I just see no other way....

If we all individually bought our own health insurance and businesses did not pay for 60%-80% of the price of it as a benefit, then there would be resistance from the market place of individuals that could essentially cap the prices and profits made, but this would be a very long, painful process....

so, does the gvt come in and just cap the price increases on Medical care? And IF this were done, would it really slow research and development when it is our government that subsidizes R&D by the tune of 40% of the cost?

Should we be charged with letting the private sector profit, when we, ourselves, paid with taxes, for the research and development of the procedure or technology or medical product?

When the government starts putting a price cap on what a new medical technology is worth, that is when we will start to see less medical technologies (including drugs) being developed. There is more to it than the development costs of these technologies. Just like any great invention, it should be worth money. If the government says that it is only worth the cost for development, what company incentive is there to create the next great medical technology?

No, capping prices is not the solution.

THE US GOVERNMENT pays FOR 40% of the research and development costs.....should WE GET 40% of the profits then? Or should the price of the drugs or technology that we paid for with OUR money be REDUCED in price by 40% for us Americans and they can charge the higher price to other foreign countries who did NOT contribute to the development of the new procedure or drug?

And also, do you really believe that humans would not continue to develop better drugs or technologies for ourselves if there were not HUGE PROFITS in it? I don't.

The US government does not pay for 40% of the research and development costs for new drugs and medical technologies that private firms hold patents on. The US government pays for a significant amount of basic research through universities and foundations and for clinical research concerning existing therapies.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Here's the real deal. Health Care does not need to be reformed. We have some of the finest health care in the whole world. What needs to be reformed are the insurance companies and how we pay for health care. I think the government should pass some laws that are a bit more controlling of the insurance companies and look into what it actually costs to give good health care. Example: Why should it cost more in New York City to fix up a broken arm then it does in a small town in North Dakota? A broken arm is a broken arm. The government doesn't need to control our lives with managing our health care. They need to get the insurance companies in check and standardize the cost of health care across America.

 

[Care4all]

When the government starts putting a price cap on what a new medical technology is worth, that is when we will start to see less medical technologies (including drugs) being developed. There is more to it than the development costs of these technologies. Just like any great invention, it should be worth money. If the government says that it is only worth the cost for development, what company incentive is there to create the next great medical technology?

No, capping prices is not the solution.

THE US GOVERNMENT pays FOR 40% of the research and development costs.....should WE GET 40% of the profits then? Or should the price of the drugs or technology that we paid for with OUR money be REDUCED in price by 40% for us Americans and they can charge the higher price to other foreign countries who did NOT contribute to the development of the new procedure or drug?

And also, do you really believe that humans would not continue to develop better drugs or technologies for ourselves if there were not HUGE PROFITS in it? I don't.

The US government does not pay for 40% of the research and development costs for new drugs and medical technologies that private firms hold patents on. The US government pays for a significant amount of basic research through universities and foundations and for clinical research concerning existing therapies.

Hey!
your comment lead me to better inform myself on the topic... I am in the process of reading right now, this analysis from Cato on the topic...it is an interesting perspective/analysis of the issue....not done with it yet, so i can't say i totally agree or disagree with them...but so faqr, it has made me think of thigs I hadn't thought of previously...thus my interest has been kept...http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/kremer.pdf

 

[Subhumus]

The US government does not pay for 40% of the research and development costs for new drugs and medical technologies that private firms hold patents on. The US government pays for a significant amount of basic research through universities and foundations and for clinical research concerning existing therapies.

So what you are stating is that the government (that's you and me via taxes as well as tax breaks given to other large private sector investors into the pharmaceutical industry that HAVE to be made up) does not literally write a check for 40% of the cost, but they DO contribute at least that much in savings to the pharmaceutical industry with respect to their R&D of new drugs. What's the difference?

Bottom LIne: Government Subsidies are in fact HUGE with respect to the pharmaceutical company's R&D. Agreed?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Let's face it folks. We can't afford government sponsorship of any new health care initiative at this time. So all of us will just muddle along with the status quo and nothing will get "reformed" until the cost of private health care and health insurance becomes even too exhorbitant for upper income levels to ignore.

If the Dems were really interested in achieving the stated goals of health care/insurance reform instead of just looking for health care as a campaign issue, significant reforms could be achieved right now at very little expense to the government.

First, there is significant research that shows moderate changes in diet and exercise could vastly reduce the cost of treating diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression and various other age related maladies. An aggressive program of education and incentives from the federal government could inexpensively greatly reduce our health care costs and competition would translate these reduced costs into lower premiums and that would mean greater access to health insurance.

Second, studies indicate that the cost of defensive medicine, tests, referrals, hospital admissions ordered for legal rather than medical reasons, may cost us over $100 billion per year and there is good reason to think this cost could be significantly reduced if non economic damages in malpractice suits were capped at $250,000. Again this would reduce the cost of health care and competition would translate this reduction in cost into lower health insurance premiums; lower premiums mean greater access to health insurance.

Finally, allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines would intensify competition, and as health care costs came down because of government encouraged lifestyle changes and less defensive medicine, this increased competition would lower health insurance premiums faster and deeper.

Of course, these reforms would bear a largely Republican imprint so, regardless of the benefits they might bring to the American people, the Dems would never allow them to pass.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The US government does not pay for 40% of the research and development costs for new drugs and medical technologies that private firms hold patents on. The US government pays for a significant amount of basic research through universities and foundations and for clinical research concerning existing therapies.

So what you are stating is that the government (that's you and me via taxes as well as tax breaks given to other large private sector investors into the pharmaceutical industry that HAVE to be made up) does not literally write a check for 40% of the cost, but they DO contribute at least that much in savings to the pharmaceutical industry with respect to their R&D of new drugs. What's the difference?

Bottom LIne: Government Subsidies are in fact HUGE with respect to the pharmaceutical company's R&D. Agreed?

There is absolutely no data to support your contention.

 

[Subhumus]

Really?

Check this out citizen.org/documents/ACFDC.PDFt:

Please copy and paste this address together with usual prefex as I am not allowed to post links yet.

 

[MaggieMae]

Let's face it folks. We can't afford government sponsorship of any new health care initiative at this time. So all of us will just muddle along with the status quo and nothing will get "reformed" until the cost of private health care and health insurance becomes even too exhorbitant for upper income levels to ignore.

If the Dems were really interested in achieving the stated goals of health care/insurance reform instead of just looking for health care as a campaign issue, significant reforms could be achieved right now at very little expense to the government.

First, there is significant research that shows moderate changes in diet and exercise could vastly reduce the cost of treating diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression and various other age related maladies. An aggressive program of education and incentives from the federal government could inexpensively greatly reduce our health care costs and competition would translate these reduced costs into lower premiums and that would mean greater access to health insurance.

Second, studies indicate that the cost of defensive medicine, tests, referrals, hospital admissions ordered for legal rather than medical reasons, may cost us over $100 billion per year and there is good reason to think this cost could be significantly reduced if non economic damages in malpractice suits were capped at $250,000. Again this would reduce the cost of health care and competition would translate this reduction in cost into lower health insurance premiums; lower premiums mean greater access to health insurance.

Finally, allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines would intensify competition, and as health care costs came down because of government encouraged lifestyle changes and less defensive medicine, this increased competition would lower health insurance premiums faster and deeper.

Of course, these reforms would bear a largely Republican imprint so, regardless of the benefits they might bring to the American people, the Dems would never allow them to pass.

By all indications, your last two paragraphs will be explored further if and when health care resumes its debate on The Hill. The first suggestion about diet change is DOA. Even the proposal to tax soft drinks in order to help pay for health care reform was immediately dismissed, laughed at, shouted down by conservatives who believe that getting fat on Pepsi is a Constitutional right. Michelle Obama's campaign to fight childhood obesity (for the reasons you mention) also has met with either guffaws and/or shouts of socialism.

 

[Vega]

Yes, the current bills are not perfect and I wouldn't vote for them but reform is necessary. The fact that I don't know exactly how much it costs to go to the doctor is reason enough for reform. Wouldn't it be great if doctors had a menu of services or a menu board like McDonald's where you could see exactly how much it would cost for a check-up or how much each stitch would cost or how much an x-ray would cost. There's a lot of problems that need to be fixed. For instance, my asthma medicine in the U.S. costs $190 a month but I can get it in Canada for $55 or India for $30. Why is that? And can we fix that?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Let's face it folks. We can't afford government sponsorship of any new health care initiative at this time. So all of us will just muddle along with the status quo and nothing will get "reformed" until the cost of private health care and health insurance becomes even too exhorbitant for upper income levels to ignore.

If the Dems were really interested in achieving the stated goals of health care/insurance reform instead of just looking for health care as a campaign issue, significant reforms could be achieved right now at very little expense to the government.

First, there is significant research that shows moderate changes in diet and exercise could vastly reduce the cost of treating diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression and various other age related maladies. An aggressive program of education and incentives from the federal government could inexpensively greatly reduce our health care costs and competition would translate these reduced costs into lower premiums and that would mean greater access to health insurance.

Second, studies indicate that the cost of defensive medicine, tests, referrals, hospital admissions ordered for legal rather than medical reasons, may cost us over $100 billion per year and there is good reason to think this cost could be significantly reduced if non economic damages in malpractice suits were capped at $250,000. Again this would reduce the cost of health care and competition would translate this reduction in cost into lower health insurance premiums; lower premiums mean greater access to health insurance.

Finally, allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines would intensify competition, and as health care costs came down because of government encouraged lifestyle changes and less defensive medicine, this increased competition would lower health insurance premiums faster and deeper.

Of course, these reforms would bear a largely Republican imprint so, regardless of the benefits they might bring to the American people, the Dems would never allow them to pass.

By all indications, your last two paragraphs will be explored further if and when health care resumes its debate on The Hill. The first suggestion about diet change is DOA. Even the proposal to tax soft drinks in order to help pay for health care reform was immediately dismissed, laughed at, shouted down by conservatives who believe that getting fat on Pepsi is a Constitutional right. Michelle Obama's campaign to fight childhood obesity (for the reasons you mention) also has met with either guffaws and/or shouts of socialism.

These are political gestures, not real policy initiatives, you mention. What is needed is a coordinated program of education and incentives to motivate people, health care providers, insurers and employers to encourage proper weight maintenance and exercise as well as healthier eating habits. A proposed sin tax on sugary drinks intended to make paying for unpopular health insurance legislation less distasteful and photo ops of Michele smiling at fat kids at a time when the public is souring on her husband's policies and performance is not a real policy initiative.

Health care is nothing more than a campaign issue to the Dems, and for that reason they will pass nothing that cannot be used to enhance their prospects at the polls or that the Republicans might be able to claim some credit for, such as caps on non economic damages or selling insurance across state lines, regardless of any benefits these things might bring to the American people.

 

[MaggieMae]

If the Dems were really interested in achieving the stated goals of health care/insurance reform instead of just looking for health care as a campaign issue, significant reforms could be achieved right now at very little expense to the government.

First, there is significant research that shows moderate changes in diet and exercise could vastly reduce the cost of treating diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression and various other age related maladies. An aggressive program of education and incentives from the federal government could inexpensively greatly reduce our health care costs and competition would translate these reduced costs into lower premiums and that would mean greater access to health insurance.

Second, studies indicate that the cost of defensive medicine, tests, referrals, hospital admissions ordered for legal rather than medical reasons, may cost us over $100 billion per year and there is good reason to think this cost could be significantly reduced if non economic damages in malpractice suits were capped at $250,000. Again this would reduce the cost of health care and competition would translate this reduction in cost into lower health insurance premiums; lower premiums mean greater access to health insurance.

Finally, allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines would intensify competition, and as health care costs came down because of government encouraged lifestyle changes and less defensive medicine, this increased competition would lower health insurance premiums faster and deeper.

Of course, these reforms would bear a largely Republican imprint so, regardless of the benefits they might bring to the American people, the Dems would never allow them to pass.

By all indications, your last two paragraphs will be explored further if and when health care resumes its debate on The Hill. The first suggestion about diet change is DOA. Even the proposal to tax soft drinks in order to help pay for health care reform was immediately dismissed, laughed at, shouted down by conservatives who believe that getting fat on Pepsi is a Constitutional right. Michelle Obama's campaign to fight childhood obesity (for the reasons you mention) also has met with either guffaws and/or shouts of socialism.

These are political gestures, not real policy initiatives, you mention. What is needed is a coordinated program of education and incentives to motivate people, health care providers, insurers and employers to encourage proper weight maintenance and exercise as well as healthier eating habits. A proposed sin tax on sugary drinks intended to make paying for unpopular health insurance legislation less distasteful and photo ops of Michele smiling at fat kids at a time when the public is souring on her husband's policies and performance is not a real policy initiative.

Health care is nothing more than a campaign issue to the Dems, and for that reason they will pass nothing that cannot be used to enhance their prospects at the polls or that the Republicans might be able to claim some credit for, such as caps on non economic damages or selling insurance across state lines, regardless of any benefits these things might bring to the American people.

A campaign issue? Surely you jest. Do you honestly think they would have risked all their political capital knowing health care reform would be dead as a doornail once the right wing noise machine had its way again?

 

[toomuchtime_]

By all indications, your last two paragraphs will be explored further if and when health care resumes its debate on The Hill. The first suggestion about diet change is DOA. Even the proposal to tax soft drinks in order to help pay for health care reform was immediately dismissed, laughed at, shouted down by conservatives who believe that getting fat on Pepsi is a Constitutional right. Michelle Obama's campaign to fight childhood obesity (for the reasons you mention) also has met with either guffaws and/or shouts of socialism.

These are political gestures, not real policy initiatives, you mention. What is needed is a coordinated program of education and incentives to motivate people, health care providers, insurers and employers to encourage proper weight maintenance and exercise as well as healthier eating habits. A proposed sin tax on sugary drinks intended to make paying for unpopular health insurance legislation less distasteful and photo ops of Michele smiling at fat kids at a time when the public is souring on her husband's policies and performance is not a real policy initiative.

Health care is nothing more than a campaign issue to the Dems, and for that reason they will pass nothing that cannot be used to enhance their prospects at the polls or that the Republicans might be able to claim some credit for, such as caps on non economic damages or selling insurance across state lines, regardless of any benefits these things might bring to the American people.

A campaign issue? Surely you jest. Do you honestly think they would have risked all their political capital knowing health care reform would be dead as a doornail once the right wing noise machine had its way again?

Apparently, part of the charm of Dem politicians for some voters is that they rarely do learn from past mistakes. When this debate - or debacle - began, there was no risk, or there would have been no risk for competent, sane political leaders who genuinely wanted to see health care/insurance reform. The polls showed overwhelming popular support for reform and the Dems held not only the WH but overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress. It seemed almost impossible not to pass significant health care/insurance legislation, but the Dems managed to find a way to fail.

Take the House bill, eliminate the public option, substitute high risk pools for the individual mandate and standard rates for people with pre existing conditions, include some moderate cap on non economic damages and allow the sale of policies across state lines and the Dems would have almost certainly picked up enough Republican votes to get it through the Senate even if some moderate Dems balked. A bill with these compromises would have accomplished everything the actual House bill does, save the public option, but it would have been as much a Republican bill as a Dem bill, so none of these ideas ever got serious discussion in either house of Congress.

Every Dem who has run for the WH since Truman has run in part on the promise of extending health care and there was no way the Dems were going to give up this campaign issue to the Republicans no matter what their refusal to compromise might cost the American people. If they had been able to pass a purely Dem bill, they could have campaigned on that success forever, much as they have with SS and Medicare, but a compromise bill that seemed as much Republican as Democrat would have actually cost them a favorite and potent campaign issue so they would rather see no health care/insurance reform than lose health care as a campaign issue.

 

[Christopher]

When the government starts putting a price cap on what a new medical technology is worth, that is when we will start to see less medical technologies (including drugs) being developed. There is more to it than the development costs of these technologies. Just like any great invention, it should be worth money. If the government says that it is only worth the cost for development, what company incentive is there to create the next great medical technology?

No, capping prices is not the solution.

I totally disagree. What you are stating is that the market cannot regulate itself profitably unless they have an open ledger with which to proceed. That's ludicrous. In an industry based on the discovery of new medicines, typical competition doesn't come into play based on sales, compition exists on the basis of efficiency. He who discovers the new medicine first, has it approved by the FDA, and puts into motion the production of it's pharmaceuticals, wins. Guidelines NEED to exist so that these companies can adapt and overcome. All we are referring to here is the most basic and yet exacting principles of natural evolution within any specific environment.

Price regulation is the ONLY logical solution. It is the only process that will ever trim and remove all the useless, self serving greed, that's run rampant to absolutely fatal epidemic proportions within and throughout the health care industry today.

The FIRST thing that needs to happen is the abolition of insurance. We need to get back to a real and honest individual level of responsibility. That in and of itself will lower health care prices by up to 30 years of needless progressive inflation. Private sector special interest as infused with the electorate in our government have seen to the crippling of real self sufficiency in this country. This entire Health Care debate is nothing more than a social disease symptom of our extremely sick government.

No, what I am saying is that if price caps exist less development in new medical technologies will occur.

 

[Christopher]

I'm afraid the only way to cut costs to health care is sadly to cap prices....I just see no other way....

If we all individually bought our own health insurance and businesses did not pay for 60%-80% of the price of it as a benefit, then there would be resistance from the market place of individuals that could essentially cap the prices and profits made, but this would be a very long, painful process....

so, does the gvt come in and just cap the price increases on Medical care? And IF this were done, would it really slow research and development when it is our government that subsidizes R&D by the tune of 40% of the cost?

Should we be charged with letting the private sector profit, when we, ourselves, paid with taxes, for the research and development of the procedure or technology or medical product?

When the government starts putting a price cap on what a new medical technology is worth, that is when we will start to see less medical technologies (including drugs) being developed. There is more to it than the development costs of these technologies. Just like any great invention, it should be worth money. If the government says that it is only worth the cost for development, what company incentive is there to create the next great medical technology?

No, capping prices is not the solution.

THE US GOVERNMENT pays FOR 40% of the research and development costs.....should WE GET 40% of the profits then? Or should the price of the drugs or technology that we paid for with OUR money be REDUCED in price by 40% for us Americans and they can charge the higher price to other foreign countries who did NOT contribute to the development of the new procedure or drug?

And also, do you really believe that humans would not continue to develop better drugs or technologies for ourselves if there were not HUGE PROFITS in it? I don't.

toomuchtime answered your first two questions. In answer to your last question, I say no. Of course some humans would continue to develop new technologies. Places like the Huntsman Cancer Institute are great. My point was that it would definitely be decreased. Profit incentive is still a good market factor that produces results.