| SpokenTruth said: https://www.statnews.com/2019/02/27/pharma-biotech-embrace-medicare-for-all/ So not only can prices come down some without major impact on profits but it's in the long term interests of pharmaceutical companies to migrate towards long term scale treatment systems. To say nothing of the fact that, as noted by JRPGFan, the majority of new drugs aren't even developed in the US anyway. Also, you keep forgetting that the removal of private insurance would remove their profit margin on a given drug. You keep saying you get it and then say something proving you don't. Fewer drugs or longer development cycle....or frikkin healthcare for everybody? How is this even a rational question worthy of considerable debate? Do you know how many people just lost their health insurance in the past month? |
A better option is actually a hybrid system where you have private insurance and universal healthcare.
Those over a certain tax bracket threshold get given a choice to pay for their own insurance... Or pay extra on top via a levy.
That in turn means that private insurance companies need to compete with the universal system... So they will provide more effort into ensuring that their costs are as low as possible with the best possible quality of care.
There is a reason that despite Australia having a universal healthcare system, 30% of the country is still covered via private insurance through choice... It also helps relieve the public sector.
From there... You set up an independent advisory board which includes private and public professionals derived from insurance companies, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, government leaders, academics, union leaders and patient advocates who then analyze the cost-effectiveness of various medications and petitions the government for subsidization.
For example the stop-smoking drug "Champix" is Government subsidized, normally it costs hundreds and hundreds of dollars, but the Government can justify subsidizing it to just $16-$40 depending on tax bracket... How? Well. Smoking causes cancer and a myriad of other diseases, so it actually saves the Government money in the long run as it's potentially less people relying on the health system. - The independent advisory board acknowledge that and provided the cost-benefit analysis to the government who then endorsed it.
That is how it works in a nation who not only provides cheaper care per-capita than the USA, but superior coverage and superior quality of care. - If it works so well.. And the real life evidence exists of it working, then why can't the USA get it's act together and emulate it?
Obamacare cost the USA $1.76 Trillion smacko's which is an insane amount of cash and Trump has undone a large portion of that money/work.
There needs to be a systemic review of the healthcare system in the USA... And the left-wing Democrats and the Right-wing Republicans need to get together and come to a bipartisan agreement of a future plan. - Heck China even manufactures the majority of Pharmaceuticals these days, not the USA... For a nation that strives to be on the forefront of medicine... That is a bit of slap in the face, especially with imports/exports being scuttled and thus placing strain on medical supplies.
The Coronavirus is hopefully going to be a catalyst in many nations for healthcare reviews, improvements and investments, it will be the front-running political contention point.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
Essay Pro