Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
"Increasing costs" is better than "increasing risk" but it's still nonsensical as it does not allude to what this increased risk is beyond there are 47 million new customers. If a large portion of them were of poor health your concern might be valid. To be honest, insurance industry would like nothing more than to have more customers though for profit reasons they would much rather have more healthy ones than those who aren't.
The current bill also provides for the ability to negotiate drug prices and it also reverts the language in the Medicare Part D that barred the government from negotiating dug prices. As for the drug makers there is nothing free market about them as they enjoy a soft monopoly under the guise of the patent system and engage in price fixing ( Merck and Pfizer) and fraud ( Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novertis, Merck, Eli Lilly). They have been steadily raising prices every year and their act is nothing more than price gouging with a blessing. Frankly you're not going to stop this price increase without some sort of government act (through patent reform or direct federal grants to universities to do drug research). This is one industry where the consumer simply can not vote with his dollars.
Calling it government run HMO doesn't make it so. The truth is this bill is still insurance industry friendly as it is not a bill that creates a single payer system. Divorced from market forces? Every industry in this country has enjoyed nurturing by the federal government. The initial cost of funding this exchange is no different, it is intended to a) provide means to those who can't afford insurance subsidy to purchase health care and b) to lower their cost by creating a platform where they can strengthen their negotiating power. There is nothing inherently anti-free market about that. |
A drug company only gets about 7 years from a patent because of the time to do the reserch and then get it approved eats up so much of the time on the patent. Take away the profit and we will loose because why risk they millions to produce a drug that might or might not work if you cannot make a decent profit. So if a person receives a goverment subsidy to purchase ins. is it just a discounted price in the goverment plan or can they use it anywhere?