• GlaxoSmithKline fined $3 billion for bribing doctors and mis-selling their medicines
    50 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;36620739]It would be even nicer to find out who accepted the bribes and revoke their medical licenses permanently.[/QUOTE] Goddamnit Medic, I knew you were a filthy asshole...
Incentives matter. My reforms will lower healthcare expenditure to UK levels while not scaring away hundreds of thousands of jobs due to higher tax rates. The money in the MSA cannot be used on anything other then medical services. Additionally, the US government can encourage opening of new medical schools, there hasn't been a new one since the 60's. The "rich get their money by gaming the system" argument is a load of horseshit perpetuated by the fact that there hasn't, before, been a recession in three decades. 95% of businesses go out of business in their first year, that is a HUGE risk for how much money it cost to start a business, and for the amount of people who use Bill Gate's software and the amount of contribution he has made to society, you can argue that he is underpaid. Whenever a business does something corrupt the average person thinks, "greedy greedy bastards!" but an economist thinks, "these people are responding, predictably, to the incentives they face." When Obama issued the bailouts every economist in the world could tell you that the banks are going to buy more bad debt in order to get more bailout money. Even though the recession is over, unemployment is still high. Economists say that the extension of the unemployment safety net is preventing recovery. There are plenty of states with 3-5% unemployment for folks to move to. Necessity is the mother of growth. Don't think economics is republican, because it is not. If it turns out that global warming exists then we should tax carbon emissions because they have a higher cost than people are paying in the environmental catastrophes that will ensue. If you believe in welfare, by all means, but you have to be sure that the safety net doesn't interfere with incentive structures that are in place to make the economy more efficient. Instead of just giving folks health insurance, we can give them money in their MSA to spend on health insurance. Incentives matter. [QUOTE=joe588;36631286]insurance is one of the biggest cons of the century.[/QUOTE] The profit margin of your typical insurance company is about 2.5%. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36634106]noble how do you contend against the majoritarian argument that all developed countries except the USA have some form of universal health care, and they have a [url=http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECDChart1.gif]much more[/url] [url=http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm]efficient allocation[/url] of resources than the USA's system[/QUOTE] my reformz, they are a better way [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36633982]$5000 deductible so people are terrified of going to the hospital what a great idea.[/QUOTE] You can buy a insurance plan that covers deductibles over $2000 for ~$150/mo. I am not making it up, it is that cheap. [QUOTE=theenemy;36631002]How are you going to stop abuse of MSA's? It's a tax free route for all your money. The whole system is open to massive abuse even if you do impose limits. I had a look to see if I could find evidence for the '90% aren't emergencies' thing and the highest I could find was 44%. It's still a high number and waste should be discouraged I just have serious doubts that giving more control over expenditure to individuals would work at all. If you need a CAT scan you're not going to spend a long time looking for the best price because you're in a position to need a CAT scan. You're ill and you need it fixed. Also, lets look at the top of this thread to the article where a pharma company has been fined for persuading people to use a drug that doesn't work. If people can be swayed from the best choice medically they can be swayed from the best choice financially. And this is ignoring the possibility that it could all just be free at the point of use, providing healthcare to everybody as they need it, in my view a human right.[/QUOTE] I am glad you brought these things up. Shopping around for a CAT scan is easy as going down the list of phone numbers of medical providers in a phone book. Money in MSA's cannot be withdrawn. As for health care as a human right, sure it can be, but you don't have to hurt business with high tax rates. Obamacare can cover them, but instead of providing or subsidizing health insurance until it is affordable what it should do is provide money in poor folk's MSA each month and provide catastrophic health insurance to those who can not afford it.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36635551]The "rich get their money by gaming the system" argument is a load of horseshit perpetuated by the fact that [B]there hasn't been a recession in three decades[/B].[/QUOTE] Stopped reading there.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36635551]You can buy a insurance plan that covers deductibles over $2000 for ~$150/mo. I am not making it up, it is that cheap. [/QUOTE] Oh yeah and who takes that insurance, the barbershop?
[QUOTE]It's not free if you pay for it with tax dollars. With insurance everyone pools their money together as protection against the [I]risk[/I] of getting sick or hurt[/QUOTE] That's the same idea as universal healthcare, just with a smaller pool. [QUOTE]Companies can analyze who is most at risk for needing the care and charge them more, so that premiums are more fair for healthy people. [/QUOTE] Companies also have incentives to over charge people as a way of increasing profits. [QUOTE]With universally pre-paid health care instead of insurance, everyone pays the same rate (this is effectively having the healthy subsidize the unhealthy - they're going to need the care much less)[/QUOTE] You have a problem with subsidizing the unhealthy? Or should the healthy be the ones getting subsidized on healthcare? [QUOTE]you also have issues with things like people going into emergency rooms for things that are not medical emergencies creating long waiting lines for people who actually do need the care, etc. I doubt someone is going to waste expensive resources (like a doctor's time) on going to the emergency room for a headache when their own money is on the line. There is the risk of moral hazard under this system, because you're spending other people's tax dollars.[/QUOTE] That's why elective procedures and care wouldn't be paid for by universal healthcare [QUOTE]Lastly, if you're going to argue that we should have universal health care, you also have to draw a line to explain why we [I]shouldn't[/I] have universal food, housing, and clothing too. These things are all needs, so why shouldn't the government just provide them to everyone through tax revenues? Why is there supposedly a right to universal health care, but not a right to universal food, clothing, etc?[/QUOTE] Because food/clothing/housing are an expected cost that can be put into a budget, you can't expect to break your arm and have to pay medical bills, there also is and should be low income housing, foodstamps, and other essential needs.
On the other hand, it really does help in court when they fill up an entire stadium and make a video of the rich people saying "We are going to bribe you to sell this drug"
[QUOTE=RBM11;36636728]Stopped reading there.[/QUOTE] 1990 recession was barely a recession, the 2000 slowdown wasn't a recession. [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36637430]Oh yeah and who takes that insurance, the barbershop?[/QUOTE] No, really, good catastrophic health insurance that covers deductibles over 2,000 costs around $150/mo. Look it up if you don't believe me.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36634781]For the same reason you could have kept expensive private insurance were there a public option or continued to buy the premium stuff foodstamps won't get you.[/QUOTE] Why would there need to be a public option? If people are not very well-off and can't afford health care then why can't they just be rolled into medicaid? As for everyone else, the reason the costs for insurance are so high in the US is because of far too much government intervention in the market driving costs up. The tax break for employer provided health insurance is one of the major culprits that has distorted the market. The government run public option would also provide unfair competition in the market and drive private businesses out, that's one of the main reasons they dropped the idea in 2009. Obama himself even said the public option wasn't very important or necessary. [QUOTE=zakedodead;36637512]That's the same idea as universal healthcare, just with a smaller pool.[/quote] Universal health care works more like a system of pre-paid health care, not insurance. There's a difference between insurance that covers you in the event of an emergency and having completely pre-paid regular visits, checkups/exams, etc. The insurance business is entirely about risk, seeing who is most at risk of needing emergency care will determine the premium they pay. Under this system you are talking about, everyone just pays for their neighbor's regularly scheduled health care expenses under the label of "preventative care". [quote]Companies also have incentives to over charge people as a way of increasing profits.[/quote] Competition will bring these costs down to an equilibrium point that is fair for both parties. The people running the insurance company need to be paid, and they need to make money to expand their business. Profits are the reward for running a successful, efficient business. Taking away the profit motive will reduce the incentive to run the business efficiently. They can't charge excessive rates because competition will put them in check, unless they are a monopoly (which simply can't exist in this market without government intervention). [quote]You have a problem with subsidizing the unhealthy?[/quote] Yeah. If someone is obese, smokes several packs of cigarettes a day, then have them pay for their own care, instead of forcing their costs onto other people through taxation. If they can't afford it then roll them into medicaid and just call it what it really is - welfare. [quote]That's why elective procedures and care wouldn't be paid for by universal healthcare[/quote] The doctor's time (expensive resource) has already been wasted running tests on some guy in the ER, diagnosing him with a headache and sending him home. That resource (time) is already gone, not to mention someone has to pay for the doctor's labor too. Are you just going to charge him later when you realize his condition was nothing serious? What if he can't pay? [quote]Because food/clothing/housing are an expected cost that can be put into a budget, you can't expect to break your arm and have to pay medical bills, there also is and should be low income housing, foodstamps, and other essential needs.[/QUOTE] Doctor's checkups and exams are expected costs too, so why should they be covered? As an alternative to that system, someone young and generally healthy could just purchase low-cost catastrophic insurance for themselves which will cover the costs of low-probability, but serious injuries. If someone wants regular checkups and preventative care they can purchase a more expensive plan that offers those benefits. If you get the government out of health care, then the market will be able to offer these kinds of alternatives to people at suitable prices.
[QUOTE=Noble;36638912]Yeah. If someone is obese, smokes several packs of cigarettes a day, then have them pay for their own care, instead of forcing their costs onto other people through taxation. If they can't afford it then roll them into medicaid and just call it what it really is - welfare.[/QUOTE] To me, the thought of someone being doomed to die because they were denied coverage due to some medical disorder is soooo depressing.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36630073](from health care debate thread) There are two problems with using insurance with small co-pays for health care. First, people have no incentive to save money by finding out where they can get the cheapest CAT scan because insurance covers it, so who cares? Second, when somebody has small-deductible health insurance, they have no incentive not to go to the doctor's office. Studies show Americans are over-tested, 90% of emergency room visits are not medical emergencies, etc, etc. You're probably thinking, "No health insurance!? That's crazy!" but there are alternatives. In order to make healthcare affordable for the average american, we must move toward a consumer-driven system. 1. Make personal owned health insurance more favorable than corporate health insurance. Corporate health insurance isn't paid for by money subjected to income taxes, and is therefore a valuable form of compensation. A 30% subsidy can be given out to make personally owned health insurance more favorable and additionally people who couldn't afford health insurance can now afford health insurance. 2. Encourage the use of Medical Savings Accounts. (MSA's) Money deposited into this account will not be subjected to income tax and will be used for small medical services. Money in this account never goes away and can be invested in mutual funds if not in use. 3. Encourage the use of catastrophic health insurance. Catastrophic health insurance is considerably cheaper than regular health insurance and will cover expenses such as major surgery and broken limbs. You will use your MSA to pay for everything else. 4. Switch medicare from a reimbursement plan to a fixed-benefit plan. Instead of being reimbursed seniors will receive a fixed amount of money in their MSA each month. Healthcare is problem because the healthcare market is off equilibrium due to the wasteful habits created by the use of insurance. Universal healthcare lowers healthcare expenditure as a % of GDP by creating a system of rationing in which the wasteful habits are discouraged by long waiting lists, death panels, etc. This seems like a good solution only when you fail to consider the possibilities. Rather than having government take over and ration healthcare I am proposing that we get the healthcare market back on equilibrium by creating incentives for people not to be wasteful. These reforms will greatly lower the cost of healthcare while at the same time allowing people the same access to it. Also, I didn't come up with these reforms, nobel prize winning economists did.[/QUOTE] or you could do the smart thing and not have privatized hospitals in the first place A hospital should not be a corporation, medical care should be a service provided by the government, not used to make money
[QUOTE=RBM11;36630654]Fuck I take this... I don't think my asthma is severe but I was prescribed this as a kid so I'm not sure.[/QUOTE] Actually fuck this I did have severe asthma. Somehow when writing this I didn't even think about the time I had to be hospitalized and all the asthma attacks that were fucking horrible. Advair is good if you have severe asthma, can't remember the last time I've had an asthma attack.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36639609]or you could do the smart thing and not have privatized hospitals in the first place A hospital should not be a corporation, medical care should be a service provided by the government, not used to make money[/QUOTE] The smart thing is to use my reforms to drive the cost of healthcare down to UK levels (which it will, it solves problems in the health care market that are responsible for cost inflation) without taxing businesses into nonexistence.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36639866]The smart thing is to use my reforms to drive the cost of healthcare down to UK levels (which it will, it solves problems in the health care market that are responsible for cost inflation) without taxing businesses into nonexistence.[/QUOTE] If a proper UHC system was implemented, businesses wouldn't be "taxed into nonexistance", because, from what I see living in a country with such systems, the UK specifically, we still have plenty of businesses around, and they don't seem to have any problems with the taxes because the taxes don't actually hit the business, they hit the worker. We pay for the healthcare through our paychecks, as far as I see, the tax has no effect on trade or business. UHC works. You can't deny it.
How can such a large company 'encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children' and 'bribing doctors' only have a 3 billion dollar fine as legal recourse? This is everything that is wrong with privatized medicine right here. They were trying to spread very specifically useful medications as snake oil cures to secure more profit. What's worse is the punishment for something so terrible seems lax and negligible in a way that I doubt it would significantly deter such behavior.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36639609]or you could do the smart thing and not have privatized hospitals in the first place A hospital should not be a corporation, medical care should be a service provided by the government, not used to make money[/QUOTE] why are you so irrationally against corporations in healthcare the issue is how to get the best healthcare for people. if the government does that better then support government healthcare. if corporations do it better then support private healthcare. it's an empirical question.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36639021]To me, the thought of someone being doomed to die because they were denied coverage due to some medical disorder is soooo depressing.[/QUOTE] stop this the single example of the guy who died a tragic pointless death because he was denied coverage is a salient and emotional data point which completely swamps the benefits that that money would provide when invested elsewhere. it's an illusion caused by the brain being shit at calculating utility
[QUOTE=hexpunK;36640473]If a proper UHC system was implemented, businesses wouldn't be "taxed into nonexistance", because, from what I see living in a country with such systems, the UK specifically, we still have plenty of businesses around, and they don't seem to have any problems with the taxes because the taxes don't actually hit the business, they hit the worker. We pay for the healthcare through our paychecks, as far as I see, the tax has no effect on trade or business. UHC works. You can't deny it.[/QUOTE] The UK has had to pay the tax since the 40's. If in the US tax suddenly rose 10% a second recession would ensue. Businesses pay almost all the taxes, at least here in America.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.