Isn't it amusing that the only way to pass a healthcare bill in the US is to make it strictly worse?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by BurnPyro, May 4, 2017.

  1. Ohmin

    Ohmin I need me some PIE!

    Sure, just for us we're stuck with a corrupt "union."


    ... maybe I shouldn't have given up on journalism to work on fiction novels. With lines like that I'd be rolling bank with the right outlet.
     
    Geressen likes this.
  2. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    Honestly no matter which part of the spectrum you are on:
    1. Single Payer Healthcare
    2. Obamacare
    3. Pre-Obamacare
    4. Free Market Healthcare
    The Republican bill is ass, because we were at 3, which wasn't working. So we went to 2, which wasn't working (though IMO was better than 3).

    And now the Republican bill is 2.5, which moves it back closer to the thing that wasn't working either.

    It also erases a bunch of stuff which would actually help a free market function - like having requirements for the way plans are described so that people can easily compare plans, and makes the entire thing way less efficient by introducing all kinds of edge cases and loopholes and exceptions.
     
    Ohmin likes this.
  3. Gaverion

    Gaverion I need me some PIE!

    So the goals of a for profit and not for profit institutions are very different. For profit obviously is trying to maximize roi from a dollar perspective, not for profit tries to maximize roi based on benefit to its members.

    Easy example Turing pharmaceutical purchasing the right to Daraprim and raising the price 6000%, not something that makes sense for a not for profit to do.
     
    BurnPyro likes this.
  4. Ohmin

    Ohmin I need me some PIE!

    Indeed, or the Epi-pen cost changes, IIRC. Though to be frank in the Turing case I don't think it's likely to improve their profits much, certainly not in the long term. That's more terribly business sense than anything else.

    I'm not sure what you're getting at with this that hasn't already been stated though...?
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2017 at 5:20 PM
  5. Gaverion

    Gaverion I need me some PIE!

    what I am getting at is that removing regulation increases the amount of for profit companies in the industry who will price gouge because they can. If regulation were designed to favor non profit companies in the health industry then care would be more focused on maximum benefit than maximum profit and ultimately result in better lower cost care.
     
  6. Ohmin

    Ohmin I need me some PIE!

    It depends on the regulation. For example in the case of Daraprim, if distribution and other trade laws were relaxed it would allow other companies to sell the drug and sell it for much less. (This is much more important in this case, as Turing is not a US company.)

    A lot of current regulations, fees, and the like can favor larger companies over smaller ones, this leads to them being able to brute force things even when there isn't a copyright/distribution rights issue at the heart of it.

    Regulation is something that is essential, including for free-market models, but they can also be abusive or make the problem worse... case in point, the crap that the Republicans are trying to shove down people's throats.

    It's also worth noting that Shkreli's actions are a-typical... and possibly still would have happened within a non-profit company that bought the distribution rights; pending how much of a scumbag the person(s) running that non-profit are. After all, even if you don't have stock-holders you still have money flowing through a business and such things invite corruption just as much in 501(c)3's as they do in for-profit corporations.

    Favoring non-profits still would likely help though, as there are more levers that the public can pull to try and deal with them... most of the time.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2017 at 10:11 PM
  7. Ohmin

    Ohmin I need me some PIE!

  8. BurnPyro

    BurnPyro Forum Royalty

    They're really not though. He knew people had no other choice than to keep purchasing so he could jack up the price.

    Same reason why comcast is garbage, there is no alternative. (In the places where its garbage)

    Or the classic "big company undercuts small company to make them go under, then jacks up the price when monopoly is achieved".

    Imo, healthcare is a basic right and should not be subject to the whims of the greedy.
     
    Ohmin and Geressen like this.
  9. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty


    you want everyone to have acces to healthcare paid for by the goverment using taxes by raising the taxes on the rich?

    you greedy no-good SO-SHIA-LEECH!
    [​IMG]
     
    BurnPyro and Ohmin like this.
  10. Ohmin

    Ohmin I need me some PIE!

    So make sure businesses can't achieve a monopoly. The problem a lot of people have with government control is that rather than breaking up a monopoly it's replacing one with another (in their view).

    How does one really deal with that?

    It's not that easy or that simple. Comcast and ATT have been hit several times with actions intended to try and break up their monopolies but they haven't been that successful in the long run.

    I agree, but I'm not sure how to best do that. While IMO a single-payer system would certainly be an improvement for example, there's still the very real possibility of the greedy impacting the costs and access to healthcare, and it still wouldn't resolve the Daraprim situation either.
     
  11. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    The American healthcare system is inefficient not because of government, but because of the nature of health insurance and lack of standards/regulation on how things are handled. Different states/regions/insurers may have their own rules and each incur their own costs - stacking up admin costs across the board.


    upload_2017-5-19_20-11-17.png

    Source: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...rature/2014/sep/hospital-administrative-costs

    "In a well-functioning health care system, sound administration is required to ensure efficient operations and quality outcomes. In the United States however, the complex structure of health care financing has led to a large and growing administrative burden [1]. In 1993, administrative personnel accounted for 27% of the health care workforce, a 40% increase over 1968 [2]. Similarly, administrative costs as a percentage of total health care spending more than doubled between 1980 and 2010 [3]. Private insurers’ overhead costs have also increased sharply, rising 117 percent between 2001 to 2010 [4]."

    Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283267/
     
  12. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    several hospital locations have merged and they should have worked out some of the kinks in the new digital patient file system but yeah the 20% is embarrasing.
     
    BurnPyro likes this.

Share This Page