Why America's Health Care Is Still Going To Be Ridiculously Expensive

[FarCenter]

Dean Baker | Mar. 23, 2010, 11:04 AM |

The passage of President Obama’s health care reform will make a difference in the live of tens of millions of people. The subsidies will make insurance affordable to millions of families who could not pay the unsubsidized rate. More importantly, by prohibiting insurers from discriminating against people with serious health conditions, those who are currently covered will have real insurance for the first time. People will no longer have to worry that a serious illness will cause them to lose their job and then their insurance.

This is real progress, but the bill does little to change the fact that health care in the United States is ridiculously expensive and, if current trends continue, will grow more unaffordable through time. While many issues on controlling costs are complicated, some are very simple. At the top of the list is bringing the price of drugs, medical equipment, and medical supplies down to their competitive market price.

Under the current system, patent monopolies allow drug companies and the manufacturers of medical equipment and supplies to charge prices that are often several thousand percent above the free market price. In the case of prescription drugs, the vast majority of drugs could be sold profitably as generics for just a few dollars per prescription, if there were no patent protection. Instead these drugs can sell for hundreds of dollars or even thousands of dollars per prescription.

The huge gap between the patent protected price and the market price leads to the sort of corruption predicted by economic theory. Pharmaceutical companies mislead doctors and the public about the effectiveness and safety of the drug. They give kickbacks and even bribes to doctors for prescribing their drugs in addition to spending vast sums on marketing. And they spend a fortune lobbying Congress to get their patent monopolies extended and strengthened.

<SNIP>http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-americas-health-care-is-still-going-to-be-ridiculously-expensive-2010-3

[NJmaverick]

1. No doubt we still need to pass laws going after the drug companies

and their obscene profits and there counter productive practices.

[Xenotime]

2. Shouldn't be that hard. We have good momentum and we should use it.

[vi5]

3. Not. Going. To. Happen........Ever

Honestly does anyone really think that anyone in congressis going to want to revisit this and tweak it once it's passed and done and in the "win" column? It is going to be easily 15 to 20 years before congress even starts think about ANYTHING more related to healthcare. Our majorities are going to get smaller, the blue dogs are going to get bluer, and there's going to be this palpable sense of "Well, we already reformed healthcare....let's give that a chance to work before we start changing things again."

I hope I'm proven wrong. By all means I do. But something tells me no.

[WeekendWarrior]

5. Yes, I do

And they definitely will if we push for and support more progressive candidates. That's how change is made in our system.

I'm sorry, I can't be a cynic about this. Once you give in to cynicism you might as well go home.

[dflprincess]

10. I'm afraid I agree with Lily Tomlin

"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up."

Now that Congress has passed the insurance scam there is no way they will seriously go back and look at ways to provide access to health care. There will be a few Congresspeople who bring it up, but they'll be ignored until the insurance companies stop writing those campaign "donation" checks.

[WeekendWarrior]

14. Glad I don't live in Lily's or your world. nt.

[dflprincess]

16. Acutally being a cynic is what's kept me active all these years

if I'd been a happy, clappy liberal I would have given up when Reagan was president.

[WeekendWarrior]

17. I take the attitude that optimism

makes you stronger. It also makes you happier. I have faith that progressives will prevail. We make progress every decade and will continue to do so.

I just refuse to go the doom and gloom route. Sorry you seem to think it's a necessity.

[dflprincess]

18. I was optimistic the first time I really worked on a campaign

- that would be McGovern's. Being very young at the time I ignored the polls and was insanely optimistic because I just couldn't believe anyone would vote for Nixon. Needless to say, I crashed & burned on election night and very nearly gave up politics. As I said I was very young. Remember, it was only 4 years after RFK & MLK were killed, Vietnman raged on and it looked like Nixon would get by with Watergate (and mostly he did) so it was very hard to maintain an optimistic attitude.

On the other hand, I'm rarely disappointed by politics, politicians or the voters and when something really good happens, like when Wellstone was elected, I can really celebrate and hope for a little while that the tide is turning.

[FarCenter]

7. It will be revisited a lot sooner than in 10 years

The real major change is that now the US government is responsible in a major way for the management of the health care industry.

Therefore, the health care industry can no longer be ignored by Washingtoon, and the problems of the industry will become the problems to be dealt with by the government, whether the politicians want to deal with them or not.

[no limit]

4. And why didnt they put such a simple concept in this bill?

I think you know the answer to that, you just choose to ignore it.

[NJmaverick]

6. The answer is the with the comprehensive bill you needed to reduce the number of parties opposed

now that the bill is passed you can isolate and pick off single groups like the pharmaceutical industry.

[no limit]

8. So you are saying the white house made a deal with them and will now stabb them in the back?

You wanna bet that won't be the case?

And who would be opposed to big pharma other than big pharma? even republicans hinted that cost controls on drugs was a good idea.

[NJmaverick]

9. Your wording is inflammatory and a poor description of the process

More like the bill laid the foundation and now that it's done they can go after other culprits one by one. However if you prefer to cloud the facts with wild conspiracy theories about secret deals and back stabbing, you go right ahead.

[no limit]

12. The foundation it laid was saying we will not touch big pharma to get their support

and if you think the white house will now go back on a deal it made with them you are dreaming, and actually you are calling the white house a bunch of back stabbers.

These are not wild conspiracy theories, you are doing yourself a disservice by pretending they are. All these deals are well documented.

[Romulox]

13. That would break Obama's word to his pharm industry allies. nt

[TransitJohn]

11. Yeah, them and the big one we now are forced by law to support.

[Fire1]

15. Yes, it's expensive b/c we don't have "socialized medicine." n/t