Isn't it great that your healthcare is a gift from your employer that can be taken away whenever they want?
The US healthcare system currently takes 17% of GDP in spending on healthcare. I'm sure if we took that and placed it into single payer, it could be made to work....especially when you consider that nearly every other industrialized country makes a go at it at a much smaller % (around 10 to 12% IIRC) of their GDP (which is smaller than the US by quite a bit) and they cover 100% of their citizens.
Oh I forgot, profits over people every day of the week....what was I thinking? pfftt.
Nothing in the Affordable Care Act would have caused your premiums to triple. What could very easily have caused your premiums to triple is your employer reducing the amount they subsidize. Employers have been doing that a lot since 2008. You're fortunate that yours waited so long. Isn't it great that your healthcare is a gift from your employer that can be taken away whenever they want? It's an awesome system we have here.
tl;dr your premiums didn't triple, your employee contribution did.
A medical imaging system may cost 10m and only a few dozen are built. 3+ years of design, development by a team of 20 engineers at 100K salaries and support staff of same size at half that rate. 10M in salaries alone. Even at 10% margin, the company break even point will be 20 units (half for mfg costs). Now Obama wants a portion of the $10m as a compensatory for ACA.
Then where does the cost of R&D come from.
Previous profits that some feel should not exist
Nothing in the Affordable Care Act would have caused your premiums to triple. What could very easily have caused your premiums to triple is your employer reducing the amount they subsidize. Employers have been doing that a lot since 2008. You're fortunate that yours waited so long. Isn't it great that your healthcare is a gift from your employer that can be taken away whenever they want? It's an awesome system we have here.
tl;dr your premiums didn't triple, your employee contribution did.
I love a system where if I make more money, I pay more into the system so that other people can pay less, for the same care.
That's right....the rest of the world does ZERO R&D on medical care....zero. How could I have forgotten that? Duh.....
When "the rest of the world" produces the advancements in medicine and technology, we'll import those things just like we do cell phones. Until then, the money should be flowing to the people who are creating those advancements - otherwise, there will be NO advancements.
Nothing in the Affordable Care Act would have caused your premiums to triple. What could very easily have caused your premiums to triple is your employer reducing the amount they subsidize. Employers have been doing that a lot since 2008. You're fortunate that yours waited so long. Isn't it great that your healthcare is a gift from your employer that can be taken away whenever they want? It's an awesome system we have here.
tl;dr your premiums didn't triple, your employee contribution did.
I love a system where if I make more money, I pay more into the system so that other people can pay less, for the same care.
yup.. the haves pay for the have nots to form a basic safety net that has become a hammock
and the rest of the world imports those devices (paying a profit to the people who develop it) while still managing to cover everyone at 2/3 per capita what the US spends (on smaller economies to boot).
There's a reason that an MRI costs nearly 4 times in the US as it does the evil socialist country of France....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html
Oh, I bet it's because we have a better MRI machine than they do....that's it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/high-cost-of-medical-procedures-in-the-us/
This is a good deal for residents of other countries, as our high spending makes medical innovations more profitable. We end up with the benefits of your investment, Sackville says. Youre subsidizing the rest of the world by doing the front-end research.
And right there in your article:
What happens when the prices in the US are cut, and it takes two or three or four times as long for a company to make a profit in their research?
Investors find more profitable companies to park their money in, which leaves less for researchers to spend on finding solutions and getting them to us.
Better think about unintended consequences, before you go blaming prices.
That's right....the rest of the world does ZERO R&D on medical care....zero. How could I have forgotten that? Duh.....
Do you honestly think that we spend 1/3 more of our GDP to cover fewer people just to cover R&D in medical in this country (an additional 6 to 7% GDP vs other countries)?
You can believe what you want. Doesn't matter how much research the US does if it gets to the point that the US citizens can't afford to use it. Once that happens, I guess the rest of the world will be fucked too (based on your quote above).....or the masses will simply vote free care to themselves....from those at the top getting the profits from all of that R&D.
Again, do you think that the MRI machine hasn't paid for itself in all of these years? Why does France spend 1/4 as much for an MRI as we do? Why do other countries spend as little as $60 for an MRI vs $1080 for the US, on the same exact MRI unit (that's been around for decades)?
YOU posted the article, not me. The only explanation it offers is that government controls prices "in other countries", but not in the US.
What do you think is going to happen, if the US institutes price controls?
I don't know. I do know this though....if we don't do something, the people, as they lose more and more, will take it themselves. It's already happening and will get worse as time goes on.
You can cheer lead the profits and more of them but you will get a socialist state at some point (just like job offshoring). Hope you enjoy the results...and Obamacare is just a start.
OH, and I'll say this though: I was referring to insurance company profits in my original postings above, not so much R&D. Any time you have a middle man taking a large share for very little value added service, you get a shitty system like we have now. There is no reason whatsoever that an acetaminophen tablet should cost $10 at a hospital....none.
Americans have completely unreasonable expectations of insurance. It should cover major, unexpected medical expenses. If you want it to pay for every medical need, it's going to be expensive - whether it comes from a private company or from the government.
Well, I guess there is no other choice but to pay a larger percent (1/3 or more) of the largest economy in the world to cover fewer and fewer people with less and less benefits. Enjoy your upcoming socialists state....you asked for it.
As Zebo states so well...cheap is more expensive.
Then what's your solution to get to "cheap", without cutting jobs or discouraging companies from taking risks in order to earn profits?
I just told you....there's no other choice than to stay the course, and watch the consequences, Obamacare being the first but certainly not the last. Enjoy.
Well, when you have a BETTER solution that actually addresses the problems, let us know.
Socialism isn't going to make things better. Look at how it worked out for Russia.
Doesn't matter how it worked out in Russia. The average US citizen who has declining wages, benefits, rising costs, etc. and looks at the rest of the worlds medical costs and coverages is going to vote for the same for themselves regardless of the 'consequences'. Again, enjoy.
By the way, what's your solution to the skyrocketing costs of healthcare which are strangling the rest of the US economy?