131–140 of 369 posts
It's such an absurd expense that I wonder if I get diagnosed with cancer, I would just deny treatment, accept death, and hand my assets to loved ones. Not sure if anyone else thinks the same way.
I think your family would spend that money and more to get more time with you.
In Australia the Leftist government of Gough Whitlam introduced health-coverage-for-all in 1975 with a scheme called Medibank. In 1984 after a couple of governments, Bob Hawke's Leftist government created the Medicare scheme (Medibank became a government provider of private health insurance), which exists to this day. The most interesting stat I ever heard about Medicare was this: prior to Medicare the number one cau…
I'm all for universal coverage too. But reducing the profits of pharmaceutical companies well reduce the money they have for r&d dramatically. This will slow down the speed of pharmaceutical development. So I think it needs to be paired with reforms to the FDA to reduce the go to market costs for drugs.
Couple this with the fact that there is a large focus on designer drugs, and dependency rather than curative drugs, and there’s snake oil being sold by drug companies that they absolutely need a regional monopoly to bring us new and life changing drugs.
In Australia the Leftist government of Gough Whitlam introduced health-coverage-for-all in 1975 with a scheme called Medibank. In 1984 after a couple of governments, Bob Hawke's Leftist government created the Medicare scheme (Medibank became a government provider of private health insurance), which exists to this day. The most interesting stat I ever heard about Medicare was this: prior to Medicare the number one cau…
Considering what a disaster the insurance marketplace was, I'm very skeptical.
Edit: what I mean by "disaster": when it launched, the site completely crashed for over a month and then, when it finally came back up, the policies offered weren't accepted by most doctors, because they had crazy restrictions.
More than 42% of 9.5M people with cancer drained life's assets within 2 years in the US .
Yes, but bankruptcy due to health reasons is actually quite common in Canada as well. Why? If you’re sick enough you can’t work or pay your bills so you go bankrupt. It’s not just healthcare costs. Survey research commissioned by the Canadian government found that despite having a government-run health system, medical reasons (including uninsured expenses), were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for universal coverage too. But reducing the profits of pharmaceutical companies well reduce the money they have for r&d dramatically. This will slow down the speed of pharmaceutical development. So I think it needs to be paired with reforms to the FDA to reduce the go to market costs for drugs.
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_costs “A study has placed the amount spent on drug marketing at 2-19 times that on drug research” Maybe this should be reduced first?
That's a non-sequitur. Companies have no incentive to spend any more on marketing than they have to. Tech companies also spend more on marketing than R&D--would innovation increase if the government forced that number downward?
In Australia the Leftist government of Gough Whitlam introduced health-coverage-for-all in 1975 with a scheme called Medibank. In 1984 after a couple of governments, Bob Hawke's Leftist government created the Medicare scheme (Medibank became a government provider of private health insurance), which exists to this day. The most interesting stat I ever heard about Medicare was this: prior to Medicare the number one cau…
In Australia the Leftist government of Gough Whitlam introduced health-coverage-for-all in 1975 with a scheme called Medibank. In 1984 after a couple of governments, Bob Hawke's Leftist government created the Medicare scheme (Medibank became a government provider of private health insurance), which exists to this day. The most interesting stat I ever heard about Medicare was this: prior to Medicare the number one cau…
I'm all for universal coverage too. But reducing the profits of pharmaceutical companies well reduce the money they have for r&d dramatically. This will slow down the speed of pharmaceutical development. So I think it needs to be paired with reforms to the FDA to reduce the go to market costs for drugs.
In Australia the Leftist government of Gough Whitlam introduced health-coverage-for-all in 1975 with a scheme called Medibank. In 1984 after a couple of governments, Bob Hawke's Leftist government created the Medicare scheme (Medibank became a government provider of private health insurance), which exists to this day. The most interesting stat I ever heard about Medicare was this: prior to Medicare the number one cau…
I'm all for universal coverage too. But reducing the profits of pharmaceutical companies well reduce the money they have for r&d dramatically. This will slow down the speed of pharmaceutical development. So I think it needs to be paired with reforms to the FDA to reduce the go to market costs for drugs.
If drug companies are willing to sell the exact same drug in Canada or the UK or Germany or France for less than a percent (in some cases) of what they sell it here for then why can't US insurance companies, hospitals and consumers buy it for that price? There's no reason other than an artificial monopoly.
You'll note that I didn't say "anywhere" and that was deliberate. India, for example, has decided that drug companies largely (it's complicated) don't get monopolies from patents and thus you can buy a lot of low-cost high-quality generics in India because no drug company is getting paid.
Obviously this is untenable at the global scale.
And before anyone lambasts India for not respecting patents here, countries do this sort of thing all the time. In the US, for example, you can't patent nuclear technology as a matter of national security.
My plan in a situation that would burn up all of my assets for little guarantee of meaningful gains is to off myself to prevent using up my family's assets. I wouldn't want to sacrifice the future of the rest of my family to milk a couple more years, especially with reduced quality of life. Assuming I'm mentally strong enough to, anyway. Although, nowadays with mandatory out of pocket maximums, if you have insurance,…
>off myself to prevent using up my family's assets I'd give 90% of my income if it meant my friend that "offed herself" could still be alive. Decisions like that have consequences beyond you...
I published a piece on debt in America last week and touched in the subject of medical debt. When you look at it from a broader perspective, most Americans are in a financially dire situation. 42% sounds lower than I would have expected. Americans are Drowning in Debt: https://thenib.com/americans-are-drowning-in-debt