Posted on 08/26/2023 6:03:22 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A July 2023 study touted a 13.4 percent return on investment for healthcare stocks, when returns on T-bills and I-bonds were 3.96 percent and 4.3 percent respectively. According to one analyst, “Whether you're seeking dividends or explosive growth, the economy's most reliable sector [healthcare] has something for you.”
For private investors, both individual and corporate, the first goal is always financial. When politicians expend taxpayer dollars, i.e., investing our money, it is presumably to create a better life for Americans.
1. What are politicians’ goals when investing, specifically in healthcare?
2. How does investing in healthcare, private or public, affect patients?
Judging by both rhetoric and behavior, Washington seems to have two goals for federal investing in/spending on healthcare: reducing the cost of care, most recently drugs; and giving government insurance to everyone. Biden’s disingenuously titled Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will establish prices for drugs and severely penalize companies that charge higher prices. Medicare will be allowed to “negotiate” prices for medical care with individual providers. This brings an image of a provider in a rowboat negotiating right of way at sea with nuclear aircraft carrier.
Such investments in healthcare, like every regulatory solution from Washington, generate BARRCOME (bureaucracy, administration, rules, regulations, compliance, oversight, mandates, enforcement).
BARRCOME is massively expensive: in dollars, in patient care, and in freedom.
Between 31 percent and 50 percent of all U.S. healthcare spending goes to pay for BARRCOME. That is roughly $2 trillion of patient care that Washington denies those it supposedly serves.
Patient care suffers from BARRCOME by “bureaucratic diversion.” The dollars used to pay bureaucrats is taken from dollars to pay providers, hospitals, and suppliers like pharmacies.
The result is called the seesaw effect.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Thus, as BARRCOME drives the number of government-insured individuals up, access to care goes down!
- All workers should be eligible to sign up for their own portable healthcare account, on the free market.
The most any government should do is provide good information. Based on the good information, let the people figure it out.
Say what?
•There is the patient who has healthcare needs.
•There is the healthcare provider who has spent expensive years learning the skills to provide healthcare,
•In between these two there is the bureaucracy that sucks in money. muddles the process, reluctantly distributes some funds, while cashing in with elite worthy salaries.
My excellent FRiends, kindly consider the question that if the Dems have no respect or conscience issues at all for cancelling babies moments away from natural birth, would they have any issues, at all, with cancelling older folks who just happen to remember how great the 50's were?
Insurance ties doctors’ hands on treatment, too.
I’ve often wondered how much influence insurance exerts such that MDs are afraid to veer from the physicians desk reference or other anointed sources rather than advise what they think is a best course of action from their experience.
Common sense? Where’d that come from?
Drug coverage plans should be separated out and be all-the-patient-needs. Doctors should not have to haggle for a drug for a patient. The patient co-pay should be approximately the incremental manufacturing cost.
Each drug plan should cover about 80% of the patented key molecules, 80% of the breakthrough drugs and 80% of the recombinant drugs, at a minimum.
Drug plans would typically buy entire product line access from most drug companies for their insureds.
For drugs not covered, they would have to be available via a federal program with up to college FISA level patient pricing (with federal subsidies up to EU pricing). If Mr. X can pay $2000 a year to send junior to college, Mr. X can pay $2000 a year for a drug to save his life.
Drug makers would have an incentive to have their drugs in at least one drug plan (which might be their own).
Drug plans would be sold nationally.
To get a federal subsidy, a doctor who has previously treated you would have to approve your plan choice. This is to ensure you buy a proper plan that will meet you needs.
Remember, drugs are primarily expensive because of the federal patent system and federal FDA.
BARRCOME is everything they refused to admit was going to massively increase with Obamacare.
In the selling of Obamcare one complaint they used was that the hospitals, as health care providers, were often monopolies in some areas. Now the biggest hsopitals since Obamacare have all expanded (gobbled up smaller hospitals in their area) to being bigger than they were Obamacare.
BARRCONE costs a lot and just as in other economic sectors the bigger halth care outfits can more easily absorb (hide) its true costs.
I have no doctor and have not contacted one for over 2 years. I find them manipulating and no help. I live alone and I have enough mind left to know what my body needs or does not need. If I did have a pain I couldn’t handle, I would go to the emergency. So far I have little to no pain. I exercise and walk a lot and take vitamins. (I will be 90 in Dec.} I may just leave this mess called world all by myself. Nothing worth staying here.
Dr’s need to be in private practice again not tied to these large medical groups.
Wow good for you.
You do know that the PDR is used by Dr’s to proscibe drugs, has all currently use drugs and interactions.
Right on! You go. God bless.
Seems like EXACTLY what I grew up with.
Went to doctor——
PAID THE DOCTOR.
Oklahoma Doctors vs Obamacare
https://reason.com/video/2012/11/15/the-obamacare-revolt-oklahoma-doctors-fi/
These docs explain it all
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.