As I said, the problem is a combination of things. Some of those things have advocates on one side of the aisle; other things have advocates from the opposite side. Since nobody wants to work together and fix the problem — and they've had years to do it — one side and its lobbyists gets its feelings hurt.

 

 

 

Who chooses not to be insured? :confused:

 

I saw a show last year where they were interviewing people who didn't sign up for health insurance through their employer. Despite most of them making pretty good money, many claimed they didn't want to spend their money on health insurance because they wanted the money for nice cars and going out partying. Most of them were in their mid 30's or younger. I have to assume they didn't have families.

Here's a fairly indepth article on that topic.

 

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf

 

Medicare’s Administrative Costs, Past and Present

It is very difficult to do a real apples-to-apples comparison of Medicare’s true costswith those of the insurance industry. The primary problem is that private sector insurers must track and divulge their administrative costs, while most of Medicare’s administrative costs are hidden or completely ignored by the complex and bureaucratic reporting and tracking systems used by the government.

 

This paragraph doesn't really make sense or explain anything. I'll try to simplify what it sounds like it says:

 

"Private insurers keep track of their costs, but bloated Medicare doesn't."

 

Since they keep track of their costs, I want to see what all the executives make. Bet that goes a long way toward explaining the difference between 19 percent and 3 percent. But the private sector is more efficient? :sssh:

I saw a show last year where they were interviewing people who didn't sign up for health insurance through their employer. Despite most of them making pretty good money, many claimed they didn't want to spend their money on health insurance because they wanted the money for nice cars and going out partying. Most of them were in their mid 30's or younger. I have to assume they didn't have families.

Some, yes.

 

My mom through the years has offered insurance to her employees. Some have families but they would simply rather pocket the money. A lot of these people also know they or their kids will not be denied basic medical care. Expensive procedures, maybe so. But the medical field does not outright deny access as many portray to those fully incapable (or unwilling) of insurance coverage. It just comes at the expense of everyone else.

I saw a show last year where they were interviewing people who didn't sign up for health insurance through their employer. Despite most of them making pretty good money, many claimed they didn't want to spend their money on health insurance because they wanted the money for nice cars and going out partying. Most of them were in their mid 30's or younger. I have to assume they didn't have families.

 

From the other thread.

 

If you don't want it, you should pay your penalty on the back end, not the front. If you get lucky, so be it.

 

I paid money for years into the insurance pool and have only rarely drawn from it. I guess the only thing I regret is not getting my money's worth out of it. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want insurance or some other sort of health care coverage (other than to save the $$). Had I pocketed the extra money all those years it was paid into insurance, I'd probably be dead.

One conveniently ignored fact about the American health care system: People can't afford to pay their medical bills. Medical care should not be just for those who can afford to pay.

 

IMO, the best solution is to wipe out the health insurance industry, and make TV advertising by pharmaceutical companies illegal. It may not be a magic bullet, but those are the two biggest obstacles I see in this country as far as making health care more affordable.

 

 

When it comes to drug costs there are many different things that drive it up. The first of which is development costs, which are extremely high especially because of all the dead ends they have to go down before they finally come up with something effective. Then they have to go through years of testing, licensing and studies before the FDA will even allow them to market it. Once that is done then they get to put it on the market. Problem there though is that they have apply for the patent before testing begins and as such if the testing takes years then they aren't going to have much time to recoup their losses in the long run because as soon as a generic is allowed to be produced most states have laws in place that force pharmacies to dispense generic drugs unless specifically told not to by the MD or the patient.

 

That is the whole purpose of their advertising AND for their "vanity drugs" as you call them. The vanity drugs themselves, ED ones in particular, are really not applicable in the insurance or healthcare scenario because 99% of the time no insurance(government or private) will cover them. Only exceptions are the ones who have that problem due to medical conditions brought on by medications they have to take. More often than not people pay that expense out of pocket and don't grumble about it.

 

When it comes to drug costs those are the primary factors in determining the price. Additionally there are a couple other things that affect the price as well.

 

There is an artificial shortage of ingredients for some medications because the FDA actually holds the supplies of the ingredients to prevent any company from monopolizing it for their own gain. Ironically in the process they are creating their own monopoly. However in the event that demand peaks there is a possibility of a shortage because the government has to then go through a lengthy process to release it to the companies to then use that to manufacture the drug. This happened last year with Isosorbide Dinitrate(or mono, can't remember which of the two) Extended Release. This is a medication used to prevent chest pains and the like. Many patients had to be switched off of this medication because of the government's involvement in the process.

 

On top of that you have the inherent difficulties and low yields that are part of the process in the chemical reactions that produce the medications. With the low yields in the reactions, it also affects the price.

 

Finally most of the major pharmaceutical companies sell their drugs places other than the U.S. and are often told they can charge a certain price or not sell their drug there. Often times they will bite the bullet and take the loss per capita because they can make it back here. The biggest concern of mine is that if our government jumps in there and does this then there will be a huge impact over time on the development of new medications. And frankly when we can't stay ahead of antibiotic resistant bacteria I do not want to be around when it happens.

When it comes to drug costs there are many different things that drive it up. The first of which is development costs, which are extremely high especially because of all the dead ends they have to go down before they finally come up with something effective. Then they have to go through years of testing, licensing and studies before the FDA will even allow them to market it. Once that is done then they get to put it on the market. Problem there though is that they have apply for the patent before testing begins and as such if the testing takes years then they aren't going to have much time to recoup their losses in the long run because as soon as a generic is allowed to be produced most states have laws in place that force pharmacies to dispense generic drugs unless specifically told not to by the MD or the patient.

 

That is the whole purpose of their advertising AND for their "vanity drugs" as you call them. The vanity drugs themselves, ED ones in particular, are really not applicable in the insurance or healthcare scenario because 99% of the time no insurance(government or private) will cover them. Only exceptions are the ones who have that problem due to medical conditions brought on by medications they have to take. More often than not people pay that expense out of pocket and don't grumble about it.

 

When it comes to drug costs those are the primary factors in determining the price. Additionally there are a couple other things that affect the price as well.

 

There is an artificial shortage of ingredients for some medications because the FDA actually holds the supplies of the ingredients to prevent any company from monopolizing it for their own gain. Ironically in the process they are creating their own monopoly. However in the event that demand peaks there is a possibility of a shortage because the government has to then go through a lengthy process to release it to the companies to then use that to manufacture the drug. This happened last year with Isosorbide Dinitrate(or mono, can't remember which of the two) Extended Release. This is a medication used to prevent chest pains and the like. Many patients had to be switched off of this medication because of the government's involvement in the process.

 

On top of that you have the inherent difficulties and low yields that are part of the process in the chemical reactions that produce the medications. With the low yields in the reactions, it also affects the price.

 

Finally most of the major pharmaceutical companies sell their drugs places other than the U.S. and are often told they can charge a certain price or not sell their drug there. Often times they will bite the bullet and take the loss per capita because they can make it back here. The biggest concern of mine is that if our government jumps in there and does this then there will be a huge impact over time on the development of new medications. And frankly when we can't stay ahead of antibiotic resistant bacteria I do not want to be around when it happens.

Great post. For those who want two examples of the bureaucratic weight on the healthcare industry, the bolded provide two excellent examples (neither of which I was aware of).

 

Why must they get a patent before testing? That's insane...

Great post. For those who want two examples of the bureaucratic weight on the healthcare industry, the bolded provide two excellent examples (neither of which I was aware of).

 

Why must they get a patent before testing? That's insane...

 

Which companies can afford to go through the patent process? Which companies can afford the lobbyist to keep that protection in place?

Which companies can afford to go through the patent process? Which companies can afford the lobbyist to keep that protection in place?

 

 

Not so much lobbyists as court costs. Many times the generic manufacturers try to fight the people that make the name brand in court in order to get the right to make it. Once that happens they are pretty well worked over unless there is some sort of problem with the generic revealed in trials. Fillers and other inactive ingredients causing problems and so on.

 

At best a drug company has 13 years to try to recoup the losses after they hit the market.

This paragraph doesn't really make sense or explain anything. I'll try to simplify what it sounds like it says:

 

"Private insurers keep track of their costs, but bloated Medicare doesn't."

 

Since they keep track of their costs, I want to see what all the executives make. Bet that goes a long way toward explaining the difference between 19 percent and 3 percent. But the private sector is more efficient? :sssh:

 

Did you read it? It goes into great detail.

"Underinsured" means you have insurance but it constitutes over 10% of your income. That's fine (well not really) if you're making 6 figures however if you're making 30k to 50k, 10% of your income should not be going to insurance. By the way, that doesn't include the outrageous premiums that you have taken out of your check.

 

THAT's the problem with our current health care.

 

25M Americans were undersinsured in 2007.That's a 60% increase from 2003.

 

http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2009_02_24/Shearer.pdf#page=2

 

The underinsured do not receive adequate care and face financial hardship. As Shearer explained: "Underinsurance is a problem for two key reasons: Inadequate coverage results in the financial burden of uncovered health care. In our survey, for example, 30% of the underinsured had out-of-pocket costs of $3,000 or more for the previous 12 months. Underinsurance can lead to medical debt and even bankruptcy. The second problem posed by underinsurance is delayed or denied health care and poorer health outcomes, caused by the financial barrier to care."

 

http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2009_02_24/Shearer.pdf#page=2

 

 

So don't simply look at the % of people that HAVE coverage. That's not , by itself, the issue for many.

"Underinsured" means you have insurance but it constitutes over 10% of your income. That's fine (well not really) if you're making 6 figures however if you're making 30k to 50k, 10% of your income should not be going to insurance. By the way, that doesn't include the outrageous premiums that you have taken out of your check.

 

THAT's the problem with our current health care.

 

25M Americans were undersinsured in 2007.That's a 60% increase from 2003.

 

http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2009_02_24/Shearer.pdf#page=2

 

The underinsured do not receive adequate care and face financial hardship. As Shearer explained: "Underinsurance is a problem for two key reasons: Inadequate coverage results in the financial burden of uncovered health care. In our survey, for example, 30% of the underinsured had out-of-pocket costs of $3,000 or more for the previous 12 months. Underinsurance can lead to medical debt and even bankruptcy. The second problem posed by underinsurance is delayed or denied health care and poorer health outcomes, caused by the financial barrier to care."

 

http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2009_02_24/Shearer.pdf#page=2

 

 

So don't simply look at the % of people that HAVE coverage. That's not , by itself, the issue for many.

 

How does it not include the premiums when that is the way health insurance works?

How does it not include the premiums when that is the way health insurance works?

 

First link 2nd parargraph says it does not include premiums.

Be careful what you post in this web. It could get turned in via the [email protected] ID as spreading unauthorized 'facts'.

 

Unfortunately this is no joke:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

 

From this official government website:

 

 

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected].

"Underinsured" means you have insurance but it constitutes over 10% of your income. That's fine (well not really) if you're making 6 figures however if you're making 30k to 50k, 10% of your income should not be going to insurance. By the way, that doesn't include the outrageous premiums that you have taken out of your check.

 

THAT's the problem with our current health care.

 

25M Americans were undersinsured in 2007.That's a 60% increase from 2003.

 

http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2009_02_24/Shearer.pdf#page=2

 

The underinsured do not receive adequate care and face financial hardship. As Shearer explained: "Underinsurance is a problem for two key reasons: Inadequate coverage results in the financial burden of uncovered health care. In our survey, for example, 30% of the underinsured had out-of-pocket costs of $3,000 or more for the previous 12 months. Underinsurance can lead to medical debt and even bankruptcy. The second problem posed by underinsurance is delayed or denied health care and poorer health outcomes, caused by the financial barrier to care."

 

http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2009_02_24/Shearer.pdf#page=2

 

 

So don't simply look at the % of people that HAVE coverage. That's not , by itself, the issue for many.

So by this line of thinking everyone should have basically 100% everything paid for coverage?

Be careful what you post in this web. It could get turned in via the [email protected] ID as spreading unauthorized 'facts'.

 

Unfortunately this is no joke:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

 

From this official government website:

 

 

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected].

 

One of the Whitehouse people is starting a disinformation campaign. Another example of point the finger at people and not address the issues. Heard her little speach yesterday.

 

They're getting dangerously close the 1st Amendment.