Posted on 07/13/2017 8:28:53 AM PDT by Kaslin
Pharmaceutical prices are highest in places like the United States, without a doubt. The reason they're cheaper in other countries is that those countries' governments mandate a price fix. Pharma companies must comply, or sometimes not get approval to sell their products in that country. Often, they're willing to sell at a discounted price, in order to make money, but there's a limit as to how far the price on products can be reduced. If they're too low, pharma companies simply won't sell them.
Allowing US consumers to purchase pharmaceuticals elsewhere will have a ripple effect throughout the industry and throughout global markets. It's a supply and demand situation. Pharmaceutical companies will simply not sell in countries where they cannot make a certain profit margin. That means countries like Mexico and Canada might have to forgo getting the latest treatments. Mexican consumers will still want to get their hands on the best medicines, and the increased demand will increase the price.
There is also the issue of supply-chain traceability. In many other countries, it's hard to tell where the "medicine" originated; there's often little guarantee that what you're purchasing is actual pharmaceutical product, or a counterfeit product. Do you want to put a suspect med into your body, with price being your only criteria for doing so?
Epic Fail
Far too logical, and too likely to work, to have any chance whatsoever of success.
The only Health Care plan that will succeed is one that provides a steady stream of grotesquely immense, unearned wealth to denizens of the D.C. swamp. And it must be plan that delivers no consequences whatsoever to those Swamp Creatures. It has one final necessary feature: It must be entirely non-functional and keep the Health Care System in a state of complete and total disrepair at all times. That is because it must continue to provide a steady stream of grotesquely immense unearned wealth to those Swamp Creatures for the long-term future.
That is the only kind of plan that will ever be approved by Congress.
Not sure Wayne understands the problem.
The costly mandates to the insurance companies are no medical underwriting and no annual/lifetime caps on payments.
His proposal appears to keep both of them.
One huge incorrect premise. 100 million Americans are enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid. The government pretty much sets the market now anyway.
Right you are!
Regards,
Interesting you say that...
In the original Obamacare debate I called my Congressman ( McCotter) and pleaded with an aide to allow Churches. My reason?
Insurance Law...
* A Natural Group is any group who is formed who's not sole purpose is to acquire insurance.
* That means the Elks, The Better Business Bureau, Your Camaro Club, and yes a Church etc etc etc.
* Those are all Natural Groups, they could offer it Now!
So I got some positive interest from the aide, but no call back, Nothing.....
It is enough to make you revile anything swampadelic. Beam Me up Scotty... Their is no competing against K Street Lobbyist and it took me until 2010 and realize they were the problem and pleaded here, wasn't wasn't the Tea Parties going after them? Then I realized ( it didn't have a name ) The GOP and the DNC are all Uniparty, we thought our guys were the good guys, and they would look out for us and do the right thing.
Man did we get screwed...
Chief Justice John Roberts rightly noted that Obamacare was a tax. Keep that reality in mind and realize Obamacare played “Robbing Hood”. There will be a tax to support healthcare but it should not penalize the young and working class via taxing income or requiring unreasonable levels of coverage. Instead we should have two classes of healthcare. One would be private, allowing you to get reasonable coverage on the open market tailored to your specific needs. The other would be public for those unable to afford or obtain private insurance. Care would be provided by government clinics with hospitalization through a voucher system. Funding would be through a small national sales tax and premiums charged on an “as able” basis.
There are many options out there. I am disgusted with a Republican Party that has not taken action to repeal Obamacare and move forward with a better system. I am even more disgusted with Democrats who have chosen to double down on stupid and fight to retain the failing Obamacare. Both parties need to remember they serve a public that has grown tired of their bickering and failure to address national problems.
Why would I rebel? I have fantastic healthcare coverage. My employer pays 80% of the costs. Take that away and I would have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to replace it. I certainly don't want to do that.
Yes, and then he says, "The poor get some version of government-run healthcare."
I don't think all his ideas are bad, by any means, but what he's NOT doing is getting government out of either health insurance or medical care. He's just using government in a different way.
"Getting government out" would be private pay, private insurance, or private charity, period.
***1. “keep the government out of it” 2. “Everyone MUST”
Epic Fail***
Big League Epic Fail
LOL, Good catch!!
What, you don’t go to the doctor for insect repellent? It’s probably no cost to her, because it’s “preventive care” against West Nile Virus and stuff.
Aren’t you glad we have the government to save us from having to pay $5.95 at Walmart for Deep Woods Off? If there are any changes, Thousands Will Die!
Re your tagline, that’s “two sexes.” A language usually recognizes at least three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter.
LOL, you’re killing me! Love it!
Happy to help.
Actually, though, now I’m wondering if I can get my GP to give us free insect repellent. There are a lot of diseases spread by mosquitoes and ticks: West Nile, Zika, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Lyme disease, malaria, yellow fever ... the last two aren’t endemic in these parts, but all it takes is one infected person fresh off the plane from Cameroon, and it could be 1862 all over again.
Concomitantly, you need to reduce the obscene cost of new drug development in order to keep the new drug development machine going.
. . . or else limit medical care to 1950 technology . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.