XPost: talk.politics.misc, or.politics, seattle.politics
XPost: ca.politics
From: lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net
hlillywh@juno.com (Hal Lillywhite) wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote in message
> news:<6nlfd.6666$8W6.6011@trnddc05>...
>
> ...
>
>> > OK, there is that aspect of it, law forces hospitals to take anyone
>> > at the ER. And most non-HMO docs have some charity patients.
>> > However I doubt that is as expensive as the Canadian system.
>
>> Glad you brought up Canada. Why do you suppose drugs manufactured in
>> the US and imported by Canada are cheaper there than they are here?
>> Let's assume that the US has ten times the population of Canada and
>> that drugs are used on the same per capita basis. Assume also that a
>> manufacturer wants to get $100.00 for a particular drug and there are
>> ten Canadian patients and 100 US patients. The Canadians will only
>> pay $50.00 per patient so the manufacturer is short $500.00. Where do
>> you think they'll find the $500.00? Wait for it! ... why they'll
>> charge the US patients $105.00 each - or more, depending on how many
>> other Socialized Medicine systems we're subsidizing!
>
> True and that is a major problem. IMHO, neither party has really
> addressed the cause of the problem. As I understand it, if the drug
> company refuses to sell to Canada at their dictated price, they will
> violate the patent and make it themselves. We need to deal with the
> patent violation aspect of this. And no, it will not be easy. We
> don't have a lot of leverage over what Canadian manufacturers do in
> violation of patent law. We can impose strict controls or tarrifs on
> what we import from them, but that creates other problems. I don't
> think there is any easy solution. My prefered action would be to try
> the tarrif route against any country violating our patents but I don't
> claim it is a perfect solution.
>
> Notice that this is one case of *not* exporting jobs to other
> countries. At least most of the drugs "imported" from Canada were
> manufactured here.
But in the meantime it's ok for us to support socialized medicine for
Canadians and not ok to support universal health INSURANCE for our
fellow citizens.
>
>> You 'doubt that it is as expensive', yet you say the following:
>>
>> > And if you have a
>> > non-HOM doc, you may not subsidize the deadbeats if he refuses to
>> > do so. At least he will have the right to send away the patient
>> > with the minor cold. In a socialized system that patient will eat
>> > up more of the doc's time.
>
>> And what do you think the patient will do? Why, they'll go straight
>> to the ER where it will be more expensive to treat them and you'll
>> eat the cost in insurance premiums, higher co-pay, or direct costs if
>> you visit a hospital. Does this sound sensible to you?
>
> Agreed, that is a big problem. IMHO, what the law does to the ER is
> involuntary servitude, they are forced to work for no pay. We need to
> change that law. At the very least, allow the ER to refuse service
> for any but emergency problems and protect them from law suits by
> patients who do not pay the bill. If I give first aid to someone as
> an unpaid volunteer, I have some protection against law suits. Why
> should an unpaid ER not have similar protection?
The hospitals and ERs have CHOICES. One choice would be to stop taking
any tax dollars.
>
>> > And having a choice of insurance companies allows us
>> > to deal with those that do a better job of controlling costs.
>
>> Oh really? There are three hundred million patients to choose from.
>> How many insurance companies do you suppose there are?
>
> I can think of about a dozen right off the top of my head.
And how much leverage do you think you have with them?
>
>> How many insurance
>> purchasers read the insurance company's annual reports?
>
> Don't need to do that to decide which to buy from, just look at what
> they cost the customer.
This statement is so jaw droppingly naive, I'm ... well speechless.
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
