Posted on 12/27/2004 10:48:35 AM PST by zoobee
The American healthcare system is the best in the world. Or so we are often told. But is it really true?
It is certainly the best system for drug companies, which can charge the highest prices in the world to some U.S. consumers. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that average prices for patented drugs in 25 other top industrialized nations were 35% to 55% lower than in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Lemme guess....tomorrows article will be about Michael MooreOns new "movie"? Nice setup
It's the best system but "socialized insurance" always drives up costs. Not to mention out of control lawsuits.
Ah- the postings of the trolls. Where is the other side?
This guy obviously is a former Pfizer employee or soon will be.
Just because I post it doesn't mean I agree with it. Quit ASSuming.....
What is that supposed to mean?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308974/posts
Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints
Then where is the "barf alert"?
True, but the system we have now is more than a free market for insurance companies. They face no real competition. If you had to purchase a car the way one does health insurance, the auto dealers would be visited by the Federal Trade Commission and armed with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Health insurance and health care have become luxurious necessities. And we are paying the price for what is really a closed or privileged market, not a free and open one. Congress can either open it up to competition or we face eventual "socialization".
This article is chock full of lies.
Ok.....thanks...
Well....I was hoping people would point them out. I posted this because some guy at work sent me this stating this is his only beef with Bush...so I posted it here in hopes of getting some intelligent responses...and I get called is names. I wonder about some of the people in here.....
No offense, but then perhaps you should add a reply stating that you don't agree with the article, and are posting it so people can take a look.
Just a thought...after all, the trolls have been out in force lately, and people are getting itchy trigger fingers.
I thought our healthcare was already "socialixed" in a sense. Government doesn't "own" the providers but the payment system is from he who does not need to those who do.
That was obvious from the source line.
The LA Times, USA Ptooey, New York Times, CBS, BBS, and other "reputable" news sources have all been caught fabricating news and running hoaxes as legitimate facts.
They are still "reputable", they're reputation is that they are not credible.
Can anyone tell me what to tell this guy at work who insists the drug companies are in Bush's back pocket? Or at least point me to some articles that contradict this soon to be X employee?
If you are honestly seeking answers to these questions, keep reading FR. This subject comes up occasionally and there are many good reasons why these drugs cost less in other countries. I just don't have time to find the related articles for you right now. Sorry if I jumped on the troll designation too quick. You might not be.
I can only echo westmichman...I don't know enough about the topic to help, but there are lots of articles that pop up on here from time to time. Try doing a search, and see what threads you can come up with.
Good luck. Although, if it is a soon to be EX employee, why bother? LOL
How do you get a free drug market.. eliminate the SSA.. completely..
and ALL medicine will become cheaper.. Doctors,hospitals and insurance too..
BUT first you must cut the lawyers off at the knees. No way to get rid of them entirely but you can make them midgets..
My wife processes medical claims all day long. She see's the exact phenomenon described in this article every day. It is real and there is nothing misleading about it.
What this article says is absolutely true.
If you don't have insurance, you get stuck big for a cash visit.
If you do have insurance you pay the going rate or the negotiated rate.
I have never understood why the hospitals stick it to people with no insurance. The pharmacuetical companies do the same thing.
They will accept $399 for a procedure via Blue Cross, but if you don't have insurance that same procedure might cost you $5000.
Its fundamentally dishonest.
I meant the pfizer guy.....but OK..thanks...I'll do some googling.
This was part of my thoughts...that the drug companies can't afford the lawsuits and need to make the big bucks to take the risks.....
I have had to make visits to the ER with and without insurance...you are absolutely right. There is a discrepancy between the billing of the two.
I wonder why they stick it to folks paying cash? The higher the bill, the more likely they would be to default on it. Seems like a self-fulfilling prophesy to me. After all, if they can't afford insurance coverage, what makes hospitals think they can pay even more?
Seems like pretty dumb business practice to me.
My understanding is the new Medicare Perscription Drug legislation restricts Medicare's ability to use its considerable leverage to negotiate with pharma companies for lower drug prices and it does not allow for the reimportation of cheaper perscription drugs. If true, why is this?
You can explain that the FDA is in part responsible. They are to test and research drugs. If they conclude tests too early they are held accountable if something goes wrong. so, in order to not look bad and not be responsible they hold OK back for up to 25 years from the drug companies. All that money developing and researching is, in effect, lost to the drug companies so the price goes up. Since the gov't. is involved, market forces are left out thus, drugs are over priced, outdated before they hit the market and patients are made to suffer from the loss of them.
Because the law requires them to do so.
Medicare and big insurance companies insist on a "discount".
Now, obviously (duh) these "discounted" prices have to cover nearly 100% of actual costs, since the uninsured usually pay nothing.
So, the published price must be 3X the "real" price, so that the goverment and insurance payments cover 100% of real costs, instead of 33%.
If Medicare and insurance companies got real discounts, of tyhe magnitude that they claim, 100% of hospitals in the US would be closed in two weeks.
The one exception to this rule is Medicaid, which pays a fraction of cost. Once a hospital's Medicaid business goes over 20%, it is in grave danger of closure, and many hospitals that serve the poor have in fact closed in the past 20 years.
When the government pays 33 cents on the dollar of charges, they periodically audit to make sure the "real" price of a service they pay $100 for is $300.
That's why the uninsured keep getting those big bills.
"I have never understood why the hospitals stick it to people with no insurance. The pharmacuetical companies do the same thing."
It's the same in the auto collision repair business. In this area, State Farm pays $30/hour for collision repair. If you walk into any body shop and pay out of pocket, the rate is $70/hour, if not more.
The hospitals don't care if you pay.
What they DO care about is maintaining the illusion that their "real" prices are that high, so that the Feds and the insurance companies will cover their costs while bragging about getting big phony "discounts".
Pitiful, isn't it? So much for critical analysis....
Ah, I see. I guess I don't have enough Machiavelli in me to come up with that.
A good thing, too, in my opinion, lol.
Seems like pretty dumb business practice to me.
Only because you don't understand the American health care business.
It's called free market capitalism.
You own a hot dog stand. You set your price at $1.00. Along comes a guy and says "I've got 10,000 hot dog buyers who will buy from you if you sell to them for 80 cents. Otherwise, I'm taking them across town." What do you do?
Answer: as long as 80 cents is above cost, you sell at the discount.
Do you immediately drop your price to every single customer TO MATCH THE DISCOUNT THE BULK BUYER LEVERAGED ON YOU? OF COURSE NOT!
You have no moral obligation to replicate to every customer the deepest discount you've agreed to in your business.
Along comes a guy witha gun (in this parable, this is Medicare). He says "You will service my customers and take whatever I pay you. And the payment this year is 30 cents. You will be notified about once a year of the new payment. Any questions?"
Do you immediately drop your price for all your customers to 30 cents?
Of course not.
Here's the problem. Say a drug company's profit margin is 30%. I doubt that few if any will be higher than that. Now say you can force their prices down "35% to 55%" so they are in line with "other top industrialized nations". Now what will your drug company profits be? And how many years will they continue to do any research? If you are comfortable that we already, at this moment, have all the types drugs that we need or will need, then by all means force the profits down. (Full disclosure: I am an ex-pharmaceutical R&D person.
No price control system can ever work, of course.
Either the prices are too low, in which case quality falls and eventually the enterprise fails, or prices are too high and overcapacity develops.
In our medical controlled price system, we have both at the same time.
Medicare doesn't pay for hospital infection control, so programs are small or nonexistent. Medicare pays about 3X cost for cardiac programs, and we have lots.
The overall big picture is that Medicare and the insurance companies WILL cover almost all hospitals costs, as long as they can claim that they really are getting the voters (Medicare) or the customers (insurance companies) "big discounts"
They know they are being lied to, but they don't care-the alternative is all the hospitals fail, which would create unhappiness-and your Congressthing wants nothing quite so much as that you should be happy.
Well, then I guess it's a good thing I don't run my own business! :)
I'm an independent contractor, though. :)
It's a big mess, that's all I know. :)
As usual, the government will eventually be forced to solve a problem it worked hard to create.
In my little part of the healthcare world, Medicare is 30% of the business (and that is a low number, actually).
So that is as if you have ONE CUSTOMER with 30% of your business. And this customer gets to decide his own price.
Further, in my little world, 60% of the customers are GOVERNMENT PAYERS OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER.
So imagine that 6 out of 10 of your customers decide what to pay you based, not on your price, which is just a number on paper, but based on what they think they can afford. What would you do when the rent goes up 2% and 6 out of 10 of your customers drops your payment 2%?
Answer: raise the price on the others.
Their 'credibility' takes a dive every day!
Like I said, I only know that it's a big mess. One I am not qualified to fix, so I have to trust others that -ostensibly-know what they are doing.
Nice. Makes me want to go back to college for a business degree! LOL
The big pharmacuticals sell at discounts so that the country buying will use their drug and not create a generic and lose their sale completely. Blackmail by government isn't restricted to ours alone.
I have high deductible health insurance and I have very good luck getting discounts to match insurance companies when I point out to the doctors that they will 1) be paid cash today and 2) do not have to wait and spend resources filing insurance claims. I usually get a 60% discount this way. My benefit is my health insurance premiums are 1/3 - 1/4 the usual cost and with a HSA I get to keep what I put into it and do not spend. I win all around.
They stick it to people with no insurance because they're stupid and deserve it. It's called thinning the herd.
___________________________________________________________
That's a pretty crappy generalization. Glad to know you think I am stupid.
I couldn't have been uninsured for any other reason, right? All of the dumb choices in my life led to me being uninsured at that time, and so me and mine deserved to be "thinned from the herd".
Must be nice to be so smart...it lets you insult people at will. Are you sure you aren't a liberal?
There is a law (I believe part of the Stark Bill) that makes it illegal for a Dr that participates in Medicare to charge differently to for the same procedure regardless of insurance. But it doesn't make it illegal for the Dr. to receive different compensation per any contracts he may have signed.
What this means is that a Dr. must "charge" each patient $75.00 (hypothetical amount) for a mid level office bill. But Medicares reimburses them only $50.00. Insurance company A may have a contract with the Dr. to only pay $62.00, while Insurance company B's contract is $68.00. But since the patient with no insurance has no contractual agreement he pays the full $75.00.
Every physician I have ever worked with would LOVE to only charge the no insurance patient the $50.00 that Medicare reimburses, but the Government wont allow them to do that. So they must "charge" the same $75.00 they bill Medicare. Another secret for every single patient with no insurance to know is that if they go into the accounting office at almost every clinic (I know there are exceptions), and ask them to allow them to pay a reduced rate, this law can be gotten around. You may have to prove a financial hardship, but most physicians are willing to help out. If they document that they "tried" to collect full payment, they can write it off as a hardship case.
I am not suggesting that you walk into the office and say "write off my whole bill" with an entitlement attitude, but if you go see the accounting rep, and say, "My office bill is $75.00, but I can pay you cash up front, will you reduce this bill?" Most will say yes because the amount of money they save with the filing and billing fees will usually make up the difference.
Back to my original point.... The Government (and the Stark Bill), makes it illegal to "charge" one person more than another. It doesn't however make it illegal to "collect" different amounts.
"what is really a closed or privileged market"
Where are the terms "closed market" and "priveleged market" defined? I am not familiar with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.