Posted on 10/17/2007 10:34:27 PM PDT by Lorianne
"The U.S. employer-based health-insurance system is failing," declares a new report by the Committee for Economic Development (CED). The CED is a Washington, D.C.-based policy think tank comprised of business and education leaders. And it is right: Employer-based health-insurance is indeed failing.
Between 2000 and 2007, the percentage of firms offering health insurance benefits fell from 69 percent to 60 percent. The percentage of people under age 65 with employer provided insurance dropped by 68 to 63 percent. In absolute numbers, those covered by job-based insurance fell from 179.4 million to 177.2 million.
Employers are jettisoning health insurance because costs are out of control. Since 2001, premiums for family coverage have increased 78 percent, while wages have gone up 19 percent and inflation is up 17 percent. The consequence is that health insurance is the number one domestic policy issue in the 2008 presidential race.
So what is the CED's prescription for our ailing health insurance system? The report promisingly begins by recommending the creation of "a system of market-based universal health insurance." In order to achieve this, the CED would make health insurance mandatory for every American.
The CED proposal envisions the creation of independent regional exchanges that would act as a single point of entry for each individual to choose among competing private health plans. The exchanges would set minimum benefit plans. The exchanges would also cut through the thickets of state health insurance regulations that add substantially to the costs of insurance. Individuals could purchase insurance above and beyond the minimum benefit plans with after tax dollars.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
yep.
Yes the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies do keep the costs up. I have no sympathy for the insurance companies, but I will defend the pharmaceutical companies in certain ways.
It takes years to bring new drugs to market. Out of something like 100 drugs that are evaluated, very few get to clinical trials. Out of those still more drop out as ineffective. And when a drug does come to market, it doesn’t always mean a patent will stand for the full 17 years, or 20, whatever it was changed to about ten years ago.
Let’s say a pharmaceutical company does a lot of chemical research for a new medication. When it finds a promising area, it will not only patent the exact chemical composition, but will patent all molecular variants in close proximity. The primary drug may make it through in a year or so, but further research may go on for a decade or so before a secondary medication is developed. At that point, only seven to ten years may remain on that medication. If it takes 15 years, only two to five years may remain for name brand profits to help recoup all the development costs.
There’s no denying there is a lot of money being made, but there are hundreds of millions of dollars in start up costs on these medications.
That’s one consideration. There is another.
While some people carp about the cost of new medications, some of them are very incredible today. In the past people would have to be hospitalized at great cost for certain ailments. Today there is no or very little hospitalization while new antibiotics, new heart regulation medications, insulins and other wonder drugs keep people up and running outside the hospital environment.
What people complain about, is the incredibly expensive new medications. What they don’t appreciate is they won’t have to pay for hospitalization when they are prescribed these meds as an alternative. Not only that, they will live a better quality of life as long as these meds do their work.
Avoiding hospitalization also avoids exposure to hospital contracted stafcillin resistant infections.
In the old days, folks would get sick, get worn down, become vulnerable to secondary ailments and pass away. Today the main problem is addressed with advanced medications, preventing it’s dilitarious effects and thereby the secondary effects that would lead to being confined to a bed, a possible nursing home environment and possible death.
I know that pharmaceutical houses are a prime target these days, but I’m not a big fan of trashing them. They make profits to be sure, but we want a healthy pharmaceutical industry. They’re saving lives as much as anyone else in healthcare is.
Is there some room for criticism? I believe there is. I don’t believe it reaches the level of the vast overcharging some people attribute to it.
We WILL return to our republican constitutional roots in my lifetime.
BUMP
As in a car, the older you get; the less insurance you will receive; thus less medical care.
You are right, that no insurance pays $200 for a doctor visit, but I guarantee my doctor charges the insurance company that and has accepted a lower payment schedule in return.
And, yes, you would think that market forces would be a wonderful driver to reduce costs. But, unfortunately, as of today, we have a multitude of government funded sources of medical insurance: Medicaid/Medicare, etc.
If we truly want it to be free market and see costs decrease, you would have to remove those programs that lead to increased pricing. And you can’t require that everyone have coverage. Otherwise, it is not a free market and prices will be driven up.
That is my concern. For the currently uninsured, they show up on the doorsteps of every emergency room in the country, knowing they can’t be turned away.
And you have the problem with people not going because all they carry is catastrophic coverage... mandatory is never good.
Let the companies that are now providing health insurance to their employees calculate what they are spending and simply add that to their wages or salary on a text exempt basis. Then let the employees pay doctors and hospitals when the need their services, sort of like you do when you fill up your gas tank or go to the market for groceries. No third parties involved. No paperwork for the doctors and hospitals. No insurance companies to deal with. No government bureaucrats to deal with. Life like it was in the 50's.
To dream.
How about appendicitis? How about a heart attack? How about a deep vein thrombosis? How about pneumonia? You don't want those in an emergency room?
Where did you get your medical degree?
I would defend my position from a single angle: If the cost of research through manufacture is the problem, why can one simply go to Mexico or Costa Rica (+ else) and receive the same exact medication in the same exact box for a pittance of the cost in the US?
One could say that the price in underdeveloped countries is being kept down because of the sainted work of these pharm giants reaching out to the poor (and that is what the pharms do say)... but I really doubt it. It is much more likely that the US cost is artificially jacked up exponentially.
Supply and demand would dictate that a sufficient supply at a higher volume should be cheaper. Hence the cost should be lower in the US, which undoubtedly is the pill-happy volume center. It should be more expensive in Mexico, where volume and availability are sure to be less.
On this single point I would rest, though I could go further.
i notice that there is also pet insurance because people want to cover mri’s when Foofee has cancer
Foofee... LOL! :D
Perhaps there is, for those that can afford it. It is not impacting the cost of care as I would assume it is still relatively rare that an owner of an animal carries such a thing.
Where I live such a thing would be considered ridiculous, or nearly so.
stephenjohnbaker wrote: “That will be a neat trick......I can see em screaming now :-)”
Federal civil service employees don’t get free health insurance. They pay for it (hundreds of dollars a month). As far as I know, they choose from a variety of health care plans similar to what you can purchase as a private citizen. I think they have access to partially subsidized insurance, (mail handlers?), but the cost is only slightly lower. On the other hand, I think the US House and Senate get free care. Active duty military, for obvious reasons, also get free care. Military retirees are covered by Tricare and must pay a small fee for their coverage.
The solution to this "problem" is not to impose a mandatory insurance requirement on all Americans . . . it's to eliminate government-run hospitals and government-mandated emergency care requirements for hospitals entirely. Medical facilities should be run as private businesses, and charity care can be provided at the hospital's discretion however it sees fit.
EV wrote: “Wow. The Romney virus is running wild, even on FR.”
Yes. Unbelievable isn’t it? When even FReepers start talking about the need for government regulated mandatory coverage, you know our society is in trouble.
Have we forgotten Reagan’s wisdom so quickly? Government IS the problem, not the solution. Examples: government not protecting the border but mandating coverage for illegals, government controlling about 50% of the existing market through Medicaid/Medicare, government mandating what private insurance must cover, etc.
The solution is simple and should be obvious for any FReeper: less government, more free market!
And BTW, regarding this function of a hospital:
It is my opinion that such things shouldn't happen at an e-room anyway. Doctors offices have gotten all uppity and want bankers hours. It has become customary to go to the e-room instead of to the doctor, or even to the doctor's house if needing stitched up after hours (as I used to do). Most of these things, including stitches, colds, long term care issues, etc. could be much cheaper and safer if performed by nurses outfitted with a minivan full of crap in order to perform such as a house call, thus taking the weight off the hospital, the doctors office, and reducing the spread of contagion... while offering reasonable care and good training to the nurses.
Of course, the nurse would have to be able to prescribe and would have to work under a physician... Perhaps attached to a Doctor's office, or an outpatient facility.
This is exactly why "big business" is in favor of a government-run health care system. The purpose of a government run health care system is not to provide coverage to everyone who doesn't have insurance . . . it's to reduce the cost (by reducing the quality) of insurance for those who are already covered in a manner that gives them: 1) no incentive to shop around for a different job that offers a better insurance plan; and 2) no mechanism to complain about it (since it will be run by a massive, anonymous bureaucracy).
Uh, it was a joke, kind of like the three rules of EMS:
A)All bleeding eventually stops.
B)patients eventually die.
C) If you drop the baby, pick it up.
You are under arrest
Why?
For failure to buy health insurance
Ping.
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.