Health Care a Right?

[Tmy]

I think the R+D stuff is 1/2 bunk. RX compaines seem to do quite well in this country.

Compare drugs with technology. Electronics Co's have alot of r+d costs and when say the new plasma tv comes out, its very expenvie. Yet in a couple of years the price drops considerably as more n more people buy. (often driven by competition).

I think these compaines have a responsibilty to sell these drugs at a reasonable price. They get govt patent protection, they hire researches who were educated through govt schools and scholarships. They dont have to be non profit, but they also dont have to be price gougers considering they are legal drug dealers.

 

[Segnosaur]

Compare drugs with technology. Electronics Co's have alot of r+d costs and when say the new plasma tv comes out, its very expenvie. Yet in a couple of years the price drops considerably as more n more people buy. (often driven by competition).

There are some differences between drug development and the electronics industry...

- Everyone probably wants a TV; not everyone is going to be taking (insert name of drug here)
- Drug manufacturers probably have more regulations
- The drug industry has to worry more about putting money into 'failed' products (compare that to Sony... they know how a TV works, they just have to redesign what's there and slap their logo on it.)

I think these compaines have a responsibilty to sell these drugs at a reasonable price. They get govt patent protection, they hire researches who were educated through govt schools and scholarships. They dont have to be non profit, but they also dont have to be price gougers considering they are legal drug dealers.

Electronics get 'patent protection'. They higher electronics engineers who went to publicly funded schools.

 

[evildave]

But what level of insurance?

I mean, I would be happy to have coverage that covered broken bones, getting pneumonia, the odd short hospital stay, and excluded things like "organ transplants", or treatments above a certain cost.

The BIG problem with a system where only emergencies are covered is, you let the little things that could've been cured eaily when it was a small problem turn into BIG problems:

Instead of getting that mole removed, there's metastasized cancer to fix a few months later.

Instead of the bronchitis, we have pneumonia a week later.

Instead of some stitches, we have blood poisoning and shock a couple of weeks later.

Instead of walking in for a little chest pain and/or high blood pressure, we have people carted in unconscious with heart failure or a stroke.

Of course, SOME of these people simply die, and that's inexpensive. More often, the emergency treatment helps them live on long enough to come in for more emergency treatments.

After all, you beat back the cancer, and the person can't afford to get re-checked very often, so the cancer recurs, as it did in my sister.

You beat back the pneumonia, the person can't afford to stay on the meds, so it comes back.

You beat back the infection, and the person can't afford to have the stitches removed correctly, the wound gets re-infected again.

The person gets the drugs, and/or emergency surgery to get them back on their feet, they can't afford to stay, or to keep comming in for the treatments and check-ups, and has another heart attack or stroke. At least this (usually) has relatively few cycles before the patient's deceased. They each happen to be extremely expensive cycles.

You think about how much it costs to produce an adult human, educate him/her to a certain level, and get productivity out of him/her. What a waste.

 

[evildave]

Valid points all, EvilD, but consider this. Unnecessary pre-dx tests and lawsuits, coupled with people who treat their insurance card like a Visa and pharmaceutical companies who price-fix amongst themselves, contribute greatly to the high cost. Employers don't 'make out' on COBRA. In fact, many are forcing participatory contributions from their employees (translate: charging them) and dropping their level of coverage because they simply can't afford it. COBRA, ironically, was the government's attempt at providing health insurance for unemployed people. And, you can personally attest to how well that is working. What makes anyone think socialized medicine would fare better?

No, Employers don't pay anything. COBRA is billed to the insurance provider. Individual coverage is priced FAR below what COBRA costs, regardless of what it cost the employer for that insurance. Most likely, insurance companies are sticking it to employers that "have to" pay provide full time employees medical, then passing these fees straight on to the emplyees when they're laid off.

I don't know about socialized medicine, other than examples of it working in other countries, where the non-socialized medicine here in the U.S. is a mess.

You get "California" coverage that punishes you for getting sick or hurt outside of California, or even a REGION of California. You can't visit the local doctor right around the block from you and have anything covered. He's not on the list. You have to go to this other city to visit an over-crowded warren of confusion and take a number for the tiniest of complaints. In this case for me, Fresno, and an hour-long drive each way, if I'm lucky.

The local doctor never has more than three or four patients in her waiting room. Usually just me, for my appointment. I could invest 30 minutes there, or four two hours on the highway, and another two hours waiting around at the other place wading through throngs of infectious people, to get 45 seconds of inattention and be told to stand in line elsewhere.

How could this be said to "work"?

For the routine, minor things, I bet socialized medicine works a LOT better. Especially to keep them from becomming MAJOR things.

 

[Ladyhawk]

EvilD;

What you're describing sounds like an HMO plan. Do you know if that is what you have? I only ask because I wouldn't be surprised. There's a hundred scenarios and I won't go into them here. But, COBRA law states that employers must provide the opportunity (from 18 - 36 mos depending on the qualifying event) to the employee to continue their coverage. HMOs have a lot of rules around PCPs or "gatekeepers', getting a referral to see a specialist, etc.

You did bring up something, however, that I hadn't considered a possibility. Most insurance plans have some continuation of coverage clause. This enables an individual to continue their coverage on their own, subject to proof of eligibility. I suppose it is entirely possible, in some instances, that an individual's risk could be lower than the group they were calculated into with the employer group. Hence, their premium through COC could be lower than through COBRA. Still, since employers get a better group rate because the risk of adverse selection is lowered, that would be more the exception than the rule.

As to your point that employers don't pay anything for COBRA, you are absolutely right and I didn't think I'd stated anything different. I apologize if I wasn't clear. My point was that the insurance company cannot charge the COBRA recipient more than 102% of what they charged the employer. Sorry for the confusion...