Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lowbridge

There is a lesson to be learned here. Before ACA healthcare cost was out of control. Drug companies did not care, hospitals did not care, insurance companies did not care, doctors did not care, BUT the Democrats cared. Americans voted for them in 2008 and 2012. Result is an even larger diseaster. I think the GOP would do a better job, but telling everyone leave it to free markets (medicine does not work that way) was no answer. If you are in pain and dying and the drug company says you need this pill twice a day for the rest of your life at $ 25 bucks a pill, you will be hard pressed to say no like other commodities. Same with hospitals and doctors. You want to live, gimme $ 100,000 for treatment, hospital stay and doctors’ fees. To keep a person alive and treated, we are talking about chemicals, skills and knowledge. None are rare and hard to attain, only the holder and owner of it is trying to make a profit and living off of it. If abused, doctors can be a small elite with its ancillary industries (pharma, hospitals, devices etc etc) cater to the upper and well to do and still make a lucrative living from it. Just look at history where doctors cater only to those who could pay (ala royal family, rich merchants and landowners, while the poor relied on charity and churches). The rich had the best science can offer and the rest got average. That always been the norm till recent history.


13 posted on 09/07/2013 8:11:57 AM PDT by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Fee

there you go with that “norm” business

“norms” are bullshit

Do not fall into the “norm” trap set by obama

“norms” float and evolve and change and cannot be relied on


18 posted on 09/07/2013 8:24:20 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Fee
May I be Machiavellian here? If anyone over the age of 80 (or so) were not eligible to get insured treatment for the most expensive solutions, the marketplace would eventually bring things in check. There would be a demand for treatments people could afford themselves. People would take better care of themselves. Responsible decisions would be made about when it makes sense to invest (their own) money in the treatment.

Would a number of Seniors over that age die? Well, yes. But an unintended consequence just might be that people take better care of themselves and many actually live longer.

22 posted on 09/07/2013 8:26:58 AM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Fee

It will be the norm again.

Health is expensive, and there are not enough resources (machines, nurses, medicines, etc) to give everyone great care. Never has been (triage).

We have had an oddity of history where people think that someone else can pay for their very expensive health care. We are going back to the norm. Which means life expectancy will, not may, will, drop.

Because the new nobles will not want to pay for the rest of us much longer.


43 posted on 09/07/2013 12:31:04 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Fee
Before ACA healthcare cost was out of control. Drug companies did not care, hospitals did not care, insurance companies did not care, doctors did not care, BUT the Democrats cared.

I don't know why you omitted the most crucial group who doesn't care: The patient with cadillac health insurance fully paid by their employer. "I don't care what it costs, I have insurance." This once-upon-a-time standard scenario is about to become extinct, precisely because patients didn't care about the costs.

If you are in pain and dying and the drug company says you need this pill twice a day for the rest of your life at $ 25 bucks a pill

In a truly free market, there would be viable competition to produce alternative pharmaceuticals, and drive down the cost of monopoly drugs. What we have instead is an FDA government regulation monstrosity, trial attorneys salivating for drug and medical supply side effects, and drug patents extended for decades by simply changing the shape of a pill.

44 posted on 09/07/2013 12:37:52 PM PDT by NautiNurse (Obama sends U.S. Marines to pick up his dog & basketballs. Benghazi? Nope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Fee

Think logically about what you are saying. Are you saying that YOU are the one whom should set the price for a drug company’s research efforts, or for a physician’s treatment? Any proposal to mandate “affordable” healthcare necessarily entails theft of the MD’s time at gunpoint.


65 posted on 09/07/2013 5:25:43 PM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Fee

Utter and complete bullpucky. My dad was a physician who regularly gave his services away to the poor and those who could not pay. But he wasn’t going to do that for every low life who thought they deserved a free ride. That sounds like what you want. I don’t think any advocate of a healthcare system where the doctor and patient have a relationship oppose catastrophic coverage. But don’t for a minute sit there and expect the same health coverage as someone who is willing to any more. You will get what you need, nothing more, if you’re not willing to pay for something.


74 posted on 09/08/2013 4:05:02 AM PDT by Solson (The Voters stole the election! And the establishment wants it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson