Real British Healthcare Headlines

[scooterbug44]

In this scenario, do you constantly raise the prices of your seashells until the cost of your seashells is more than 10% of a family's income?

The pharmaceutical companies didn't go out of business because places like Target, Wal-mart, and Publix started offering prescriptions at affordable prices, so I don't buy the argument that a little "generic" gov't insurance competition is armageddon.

 

[Winnie]

In this scenario, do you constantly raise the prices of your seashells until the cost of your seashells is more than 10% of a family's income?

The pharmaceutical companies didn't go out of business because places like Target, Wal-mart, and Publix started offering prescriptions at affordable prices, so I don't buy the argument that a little "generic" gov't insurance competition is armageddon.

But they sure would if government was producing and providing medicine at a loss. You can be certain Walmart et al are making up any lost profits from the lower cost drugs in other areas.

 

[30ashopper]

In this scenario, do you constantly raise the prices of your seashells until the cost of your seashells is more than 10% of a family's income?

The pharmaceutical companies didn't go out of business because places like Target, Wal-mart, and Publix started offering prescriptions at affordable prices, so I don't buy the argument that a little "generic" gov't insurance competition is armageddon.

So you think a new health insurer, run within the federal government, budgeted in the normal federal budget process, controlled by Congress, providing health care coverage to those that Congress dictates while purchasing it's drugs and services from other healthcare providers (hospitals, doctors, labs, drug companies, etc..) is a good idea? This new department would not be required to compete with any other insurer, it would produce a loss and nobody would care.You really, honestly think that that is gonna be a win win situation??

 

[scooterbug44]

I think it COULD be...................

How is what you described different from Medicare, but available to those under 65? Where is the outrage for Medicare?

Quite frankly, we REALLY need to do SOMETHING about the healthcare/health insurance juggernaut - the amount businesses and individuals are spending on it is ridiculous - reducing insurance costs, prescription prices, and medical bills would do far more to help our economy and businesses than a "stimulus check" IMO.

Even before the recession many businesses were rethinking how they handle their employee health insurance because of how rapidly that cost was expanding.

 

[Gidget]

The difference is that now you are not required to buy insurance at all. You can buy as little or as much coverage as you feel comfortable with. The healthy among us do currently get more affordable coverage than those who aren't.

Thanks Winnie - I see where you are coming from.

G

 

[Gidget]

There certainly are a LOT of smart women on this forum!!!!!!!!!!!!

Men too of course, ;-) but it is just wonderful to be able to discuss such important issues and learn so much.



G

 

[30ashopper]

I think it COULD be...................

How is what you described different from Medicare, but available to those under 65? Where is the outrage for Medicare?

Quite frankly, we REALLY need to do SOMETHING about the healthcare/health insurance juggernaut - the amount businesses and individuals are spending on it is ridiculous - reducing insurance costs, prescription prices, and medical bills would do far more to help our economy and businesses than a "stimulus check" IMO.

Even before the recession many businesses were rethinking how they handle their employee health insurance because of how rapidly that cost was expanding.

Right here!

Sincy you're going to hold it up as the example of what could be our new national single payer system, tell me, hows Medicare working out in terms of lowering costs and providing quality care?

 

[scooterbug44]

I mentioned it because it's government health care currently available to everyone, and everyone seems so focused on hysteria that they forget "government health care for all Americans" has been here for years.

I don't doubt that there could be improvements in the Medicare system - but that doesn't change the fact that at 65 your private insurance costs drop and that the government already provides health care to millions.

 

[30ashopper]

I mentioned it because it's government health care currently available to everyone, and everyone seems so focused on hysteria that they forget "government health care for all Americans" has been here for years.

I don't doubt that there could be improvements in the Medicare system - but that doesn't change the fact that at 65 your private insurance costs drop and that the government already provides health care to millions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

 

[CampCreekLou]

I think it COULD be...................

How is what you described different from Medicare, but available to those under 65? Where is the outrage for Medicare?

Quite frankly, we REALLY need to do SOMETHING about the healthcare/health insurance juggernaut - the amount businesses and individuals are spending on it is ridiculous - reducing insurance costs, prescription prices, and medical bills would do far more to help our economy and businesses than a "stimulus check" IMO.

Even before the recession many businesses were rethinking how they handle their employee health insurance because of how rapidly that cost was expanding.

There SHOULD be outrage. It can't be sustained.

"The costs of Medicare doubled every four years between 1966 and 1980.[31] According to the 2004 "Green Book" of the House Ways and Means Committee, Medicare expenditures from the American government were $256.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. Beneficiary premiums are highly subsidized, and net outlays for the program, accounting for the premiums paid by subscribers, were $230.9 billion."