Why is healthcare prohibitively expensive in the US?

[vegas giants]

How can universal healthcare be paid for by a country which is financially bankrupt?

It cant. Thank God that is not the US

 

[Manc Skipper]

Surely you do not wish to imply the US should be able to afford universal healthcare just like any other country in spite of the huge differences in debt and deficits between them?

It would save money.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Dear, if you don't advertise, nobody knows about your product, nobody buys it, prices are sky high and there is no incentive to do research. You see how capitalism is far too complicated for liberals to grasp. The very presence of liberalism is the biggest danger to our country.

But "drugs are expensive because research costs so much!" was the claim. Not so much as promoting drugs which compete with not only other manufacturers drugs, but the old drugs of the same company, all of which do the same thing. Merely opting for generics instead of branded drugs will save billions..

 

[marke]

It cant. Thank God that is not the US

And yet Congress is facing yet another battle over the debt ceiling because it does not have enough money to pay its current bills, much less future expenditures.

 

[vegas giants]

And yet Congress is facing yet another battle over the debt ceiling because it does not have enough money to pay its current bills, much less future expenditures.

Yeah we do that all the time.


It's not a problem

 

[marke]

It would save money.

That's what all the universal healthcare propagandists say, but they have a history of being wrong or of simply lying outright for political reasons.

 

[marke]

Yeah we do that all the time.
It's not a problem

It is not a problem to dunces who think all the US has to do is print itself out of debt.

 

[vegas giants]

It is not a problem to dunces who think all the US has to do is print itself out of debt.

Its


Not


A



Problem

 

[Crystal]

That's what all the universal healthcare propagandists say, but they have a history of being wrong or of simply lying outright for political reasons.

They said the same **** about Obamacare.

 

[Greenbeard]

They said the same **** about Obamacare.

There were right.

 

[imagep]

A particular institution requires that it's customers pay into a pool, then that institution provides a service based not on what it's customers have paid, but based upon their need.

Doesn't that sound a little like the Marx quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

Insurance in itself is a socialist institution, whether it is operated privately or publicly, voluntarily or by force.

If you claim to be a conservative or a libertarian, and you think that you can only acquire adequate healthcare by having a third party to pay for it (basically, other people subsidizing your needs), then you are a socialist. Socialism isn't an absolute, it's not black or white, on or off - it's a matter of degree.

I don't associate with any political party, but if I had to pick a label for myself, it would be "a free market capitalist". I own my own business, I have never received welfare or means tested benefits, and I am a strong supporter that the free market in almost all cases provides for the best results. I hold the conservative viewpoint about many topics. I believe that taxes should be minimal, I am pro life, I even believe that we should build the "wall". But I'm also a socialist...to a degree, because I believe that there is a need for insurance, and a need for everyone to have insurance.

Most likely, you are a socialist too.

 

[RobertU]

One reason for the expense is that we have been approaching healthcare for all in a backwards fashion. Instead of offering low-cost or free insurance for the young and healthy, we started with Medicare, which covers aging patients with expensive to treat long-term chronic conditions.

There are also government regulations that defeat cost-cutting. I had a very ill friend on Medicare and Tricare. When she was discharged from a physical rehabilitation center, they gave her a free wheelchair. I asked, instead, for a free transport chair, which is cheaper and lighter for a caregiver to use. No, they couldn't do that. Then, when she was admitted to a licensed boarding care facility, I offered to bring her large number of pills from her home to the facility. The operator said no, government regulation wouldn't allow that. They had to start from scratch to order new drugs. So those hundreds of dollars of medicine were wasted.

The facility operator also noted that when many of her very ill patients died, they had several bottles of pills left over. She had looked into the possibility of shipping them to a clinic in the Philippines, but the government said that was prohibited. So again, hundreds or even thousands of dollars of medicine went to waste.

 

[I'm Supposn]

A particular institution requires that it's customers pay into a pool, then that institution provides a service based not on what it's customers have paid, but based upon their need.
Doesn't that sound a little like the Marx quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

Insurance in itself is a socialist institution, whether it is operated privately or publicly, voluntarily or by force. ...
But I'm also a socialist...to a degree, because I believe that there is a need for insurance, and a need for everyone to have insurance. Most likely, you are a socialist too.

Imagep, you post as a person that's difficult to correspond with; your post is reasonable.
Reasonable people are always difficult because you don't want to disregard them. They're too often correct, and even when they're not entirely correct, you're impelled to further examine and question your own positions, by understanding their positions.

Until you pointed it out, I never thought to describe insurance as a socialist scheme. Thank you for that.

I'm interested in what your opinion of my post

Can Democrats and Republicans agree upon anything to reduce medical insurance costs? ...

might be. Please consider it and respond. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[imagep]

Imagep, you post as a person that's difficult to correspond with; your post is reasonable.
Reasonable people are always difficult because you don't want to disregard them. They're too often correct, and even when they're not entirely correct, you're impelled to further examine and question your own positions, by understanding their positions.

Until you pointed it out, I never thought to describe insurance as a socialist scheme. Thank you for that.

I'm interested in what your opinion of my post might be. Please consider it and respond. Respectfully, Supposn

I don't think that republicans and democrats will ever agree on anything that reduces the cost of healthcare, mostly because both parties love insurance, and neither recognize that any third party payer system destroys the one thing that keeps prices modest in the free market - competition based on price and quality. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that they have to have insurance to pay for healthcare.

Most of the things that republicans believe would reduce the cost of healthcare are state issues, not federal issues. Things such as tort reform, and purchasing insurance across state lines (there is no federal prohibition on this), may make healthcare a couple of percent less expensive, but that's a tiny drop in the bucket.

Non-progressive Democrats only significant suggestion is to force everyone to acquire insurance (the Federal Mandate), which was considered a conservative idea until democrats actually put it into their legislation.

Progressive democrats are only interested in government provided healthcare with absolutely no direct cost to the consumer, which is something that conservatives will never agree to.

There are perfectly logical compromises, but neither side is willing to propose them, and if they did the other side would automatically reject them.

Our only hope in making any progress is for either major party to have a huge majority in both houses of congress plus hold the presidency.

 

[James972]

Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that they have to have insurance to pay for healthcare.

dear, free market Republican insurance would reduce health care prices by about 80%. Time to put your thinking cap on and tell us what you don't understand about insurance.

 

[James972]

Most of the things that republicans believe would reduce the cost of healthcare are state issues, not federal issues. .

Republicans believe capitalism would reduce prices about 80%. Now, Federal govt is very very heavily involved in a non capitalistic way in health care. Do you get it now?

 

[James972]

There are perfectly logical compromises, but neither side is willing to propose them, and if they did the other side would automatically reject them.

.

what on earth are you talking about? Capitalism cant compromise with socialism. Socialism just killed 120 million!

 

[marke]

As you may know, the costs of healthcare are going up faster than GDP. Healthcare in the US is getting rather expensive these days.

Supporters of universal healthcare typically say that since healthcare is a basic necessity, prices do not affect demand because without it, people will die. The economic term for how much demand changes relative to price is price elasticity. To their credit, healthcare is an inelastic good (demand changes more slowly than price), but on the other hand, it isn't the only one.

Other examples of inelastic goods are gasoline, clothing, recreational drugs (including tobacco), and to some extent, food and water. And yet, we don't see companies price gouge on gasoline, clothing, food, or water. Now maybe one could make the case that water utilities are heavily regulated or are owned by municipal governments and most recreational drugs are illegal but what about the others?

Although the cost of food has gone up in the last generation or so, it didn't do so by nearly as much as healthcare. When food (or drinks) get close to expiration date, they go on sale. In fact, sometimes when they're not close to expiration date, they go on sale. Clothing likewise is not being price gouged.

Oil is considered an inelastic good because it's necessary to power our cars. Sure, electric cars exist, but the market is only in its infancy. But despite the importance of oil, prices aren't constantly on the rise, even with growing demand. Rather, they fluctuate, even though most oil reserves are in OPEC countries.

So why don't the markets of other inelastic markets see a great amount of price gouging? The answer is competition. If Safeway charges too much for groceries, shoppers will simply look elsewhere. If one gas station charges too much for gasoline, people will go to other gas stations. The markets for clothing likewise don't price gouge because there is competition. Thes markets are inelastic, if the price rises by a lot, there will still be a great deal of demand for them. An inelastic market will be able to maintain fairly small prices so long as there is competition. Thus it is worth asking why we don't see the same in healthcare.

It would perhaps be fallacious to say that healthcare in the US is expensive purely because of the free market because it is one of the most heavily regulated sectors in the US economy.

If this Forbes article is to be trusted, the US government is limiting the number of physicians per year, causing a shortage and thus raising the cost of medical care due to lobbying on the part of the AMA. The government has also restricted the establishment of medical schools. Foreign doctors have to redo their residencies, regardless of how long they have been practicing, to legally practice in the US.
The Evil-Mongering Of The American Medical Association

Another problem is prescription drug medication. Thanks to patents, prescription drug companies have the license to price gouge their consumers without fear of competition. Some argue that the patent system guerantees that drug manufacturers will make a profit after developing the drug. The problem with this notion is that the big prescription drug companies spend more money on marketing than on R&D.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rketing-than-research/?utm_term=.be4ebaf0521a

Which brings me onto my next point. The FDA puts a long and burdensome process on getting drugs approved. While it may be with best of intentions, it has effectively prevented many would be useful drugs from coming onto the market. Big pharmaceutical companies have little trouble complying with these regulations but smaller companies are effectively crowded out.

Medical costs will rise steadily in spite of unrealistic hopes that healthcare costs can be forced to go down. Hospitals must charge exorbitant prices for services because they must cover the high costs of serving people who do not pay for the coverage. That is one thing, and there are maybe a hundred more factors as well.

 

[James972]

I never thought to describe insurance as a socialist scheme. Thank you for that.

but liberals never ever thought of much did they? Private capitalist insurance in not govt monopoly socialist insurance. Do you understand now?

 

[James972]

Medical costs will rise steadily in spite of unrealistic hopes that healthcare costs can be forced to go down. .

what you are trying to say is that costs will rise in any industry where there is no Republican capitalist competition to survive based on lowering prices. Do you understand now?

 

[imagep]

what on earth are you talking about? Capitalism cant compromise with socialism. Socialism just killed 120 million!

Capitalism has already compromised with socialism in almost every country in the world. Nothing is black or white.

 

[imagep]

Republicans believe capitalism would reduce prices about 80%. Now, Federal govt is very very heavily involved in a non capitalistic way in health care. Do you get it now?

I believe that capitalism would reduce prices by about 80%, but other than you, I've never met a republican who would agree with that. Seriously, that would make a great poll question, if we could limit the answer just to self identified conservatives.

 

[James972]

Insurance in itself is a socialist institution, whether it is operated privately or publicly, voluntarily or by force.

socialism is when a govt monopoly runs things. 1+1=2

 

[James972]

I believe that capitalism would reduce prices by about 80%, but other than you, I've never met a republican who would agree with that. Seriously, that would make a great poll question, if we could limit the answer just to self identified conservatives.

they all agree to it. Trump just tried to force all providers to post prices, for example.

 

[marke]

what you are trying to say is that costs will rise in any industry where there is no Republican capitalist competition to survive based on lowering prices. Do you understand now?

No, I don't know what you mean. As long as we are going to force everyone to help pay the medical costs as well as the insurance costs of healthcare, including all pre-existing conditions, all illegal immigrants, all poor people who already know they don't have to pay medical bills, and so forth, the costs will always be prohibitive.