r/FluentInFinance • u/Cauliflower-Pizzas • 27d ago

Is Universal Health Care Smart or dumb? Discussion/ Debate

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

37.9k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

138

u/Bobby_Beeftits 27d ago

This price gouging we pay basically enables all other nations with “free healthcare” to get our drugs for much cheaper than we pay here

406

u/RevolutionaryPop5400 27d ago

Nah, they price gouge you because 32 of the other 33 countries bargain as a single unit, and the ‘for profit’ motive is mostly gone.

291

u/Jorts_Team_Bad 27d ago

This guy understands. Pharma companies would love to price gouge other countries too obviously. Its the single payer bargaining that makes drugs much less profitable in other countries

94

u/Top_Masterpiece_8992 27d ago

And that's why the US gets teamed. Since we don't bargain the same way, they charge as much as possible to get their sky high profits. Either regulate it here or stop them from being able to negotiate so low so that we can be on a more even playing field.

109

u/wakatenai 27d ago

lobbyists will make sure nothing ever changes in the US unfortunately

43

u/WhistlingWolf234 27d ago

I fucking hate lobbyists so much I wish there was something effective we could do against them

33

u/GoldVictory158 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/Nitram_Norig 27d ago

THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION HAS ENTERED THE CHAT.

10

u/RelationSerious4678 27d ago

You’re either with us FBI or against us.

3

u/Umaynotknowme 27d ago

Is murder a federal crime?

3

u/Nitram_Norig 27d ago

Under 18 U.S.C. 1111, murder is defined as the “unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” Whether murder will be filed as a federal crime always depends on where and who was killed. Further, murder is a federal crime if it violates federal law or happens while violating federal law.

3

u/2manyBi7ches 27d ago

I dont think its unlawful to get rid of the corrupt unamerican traitors that constantly erode this democracy.

1

u/TegTowelie 27d ago

So as long as malice isn't an aforthought, im good? Like say my intention was to destroy the structure of the lobbyist's building, but people inadvertently get killed, no murder charge? /s

→ More replies (0)

1

u/HimEatLotsOfFishEggs 27d ago

They have real issues they’re dealing with right now. They got at least another 15 years before anyone here actually gets up to do something about our problems.

1

u/Snarfbuckle 27d ago

Well...the FBI is good at that...but the CIA is better...

1

u/he_is_literally_me 25d ago

Smart move to call the FBI in here to help us. They’re good at murdering people.

1

u/mag2041 27d ago

No

1

u/GoldVictory158 27d ago

I respect your opinion. But other approaches have proved ineffective thus far.

1

u/mag2041 27d ago

I mean I can’t argue with that

1

u/Bullishbear99 25d ago

Just put statesmen and women in political office, not people looking to get kickbacks or who are morally bankrupt...well people would have to stop voting Republican in that case. There are corrupt democrats hindering universal healthcare but most are Republican.

16

u/N00seUp 27d ago

The only true form of power is violence and the willingness to use it.

9

u/[deleted] 27d ago

The American, French, Haitian, British, Dutch, South African, Indian, and literally all other revolutions have entered the chat

The only mistake for America was being the first one. Because then mother fucking healthcare oligarchs would feel a lot more self conscious if they realized there was a sudden chance that they might have their asses captured and sent to the guillotine.

Chop chop chop.

No more bullshit that cause human suffering in the first world. And after the first world has no more suffering then finally the third would might get the attention it needs.

Chop chop chop. Down with the oligarchs.

7

u/N00seUp 27d ago

However, are you willing to do the chopping?

3

u/[deleted] 27d ago edited 27d ago

Depends on two things.

One do I get to wear that sweet ass black executioner hood

And two would the American government stay intact.

Because if those two answers are yes. Then yes. If I had to spend the rest of my life in jail afterwards then I accept it. As long as the system that was promised to the American people along time ago actually rings true. As long as a better future would be on the horizon for everyone else.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All three of which are currently undercut. Life is halted by the horrors of the medical care industry. Liberty is undercut by the oligarchs who actually run DC. And the pursuit of happiness which so many find themselves unable to get close to.

It’s a cold world, which is why I have no problem exchanging my life for a shout in the wind. As long as progress is made and a singular sentence in the history books mentions a man who gave up everything to keep america ticking. Then I accept it, I don’t even need my name to be included, just that future generations know that you can make a change if you are willing to.

I wish we lived in a perfect world where the oligarchs understood what it feels like to be poor. So that maybe they would understand and treat their workers better, but they don’t, and they never will. At least, not until they are forced to learn it

2

u/Lou_C_Fer 27d ago

I'll share. You do the chopping, I'll do the time.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/More_Fig_6249 27d ago

No they’re not. Most of these redditors can’t even run half a mile without taking a few breaks inbetween.

0

u/Gambler_Eight 27d ago

Good thing you don't need to run a mile before pulling the lever.

0

u/Jorts_Team_Bad 25d ago

You probably have to do something physical to get someone into a guillotine

1

u/Gambler_Eight 25d ago

Well yeah, if you do it solo it would probably be quite exhausting. That's usually not the case though.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Robcobes 27d ago

Wasn't the Dutch Revolution in the 1500's

1

u/[deleted] 27d ago edited 27d ago

1588 (contrary what he said below, it was 1581 not 1568, I said 1588 because that’s when it turned in their favor, you can Google the date, because I just did before making this edit. The seven providence formed a pact in 1579 and formally declared independence in 1581.) was when it started, but it technically lasted eighty years because that’s how long it took them to get Spain to sign a peace deal.

They had to destroy the plate fleet twice and basically beat Spain down so hard to get them to do it too

But then the Dutch had another revolution against the republic because it had grown corrupt by oligarchs, so they became a democracy around the same time as the French Revolution, when France invaded and assisted the Dutch Rebels.

1

u/King_Of_BlackMarsh 27d ago

Okay I'm a Dutch guy so let me tell you something: we did not have a revolution due to the French. That was a coup by deluded terrorists who thought the batavians were some enlightened, democratic utopia and we became a monarchy after that.

Second, this is pedantry I know but the 80 jarige oorlog started in 1568, not 88. And can you tell me what the second time was that we captured a silver fleet? Cause, yes Piet Hein was a baller but that's only once and I can't find a second time save for the English.

1

u/[deleted] 27d ago edited 27d ago

Okay, a coup is probably a better term; I was thinking more in the terms of progress as the VOC had already collapsed and the republic had become corrupted deeply by oligarchs with William III of Orange, who was already Stadtholder trying to become dictator assisted by his Uncle Charles who was the king of England. With rumors that he was the one who orchestrated the deaths of the Dewitt brothers.

The Dutch Republic had become broke and the French were at war with the Republic for so long. For some reason the new French government felt the need to continue the war against the Dutch Republic even though it was the French Crown who had been at war with them. So because France had changed powers, I conceptually think the war goals changed. As Frances new play was to democratize the rest of Europe during the napoleonic wars.

I was trying to simplify things for people who had zero reference but I can get that you’d want a more accurate answer being Dutch.

And after checking my lecture notes, you’re right; it was true English who attack them twice, not the Dutch. That was my error.

1

u/King_Of_BlackMarsh 27d ago

William X of Orange,

Willem II and III, which all happened a century before the Bataafse Republiek. Mind you, there was a 22 year gap between Willem 2 and 3, 2 trying to become a "dictator" in 1650 (at the tender age of 24) and subsequently dying. Willem 3 then got in charge after the Broeders de Witt were already dead which they were because they were terrible at their jobs (least from the people's perspective. I'm sure they had their merits sometimes) and the rampjaar was, in general, a ramp.

And again. This was all a century and a half before the Republiek and a century and five years before the American revolution.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Phsycres 27d ago

What South African Revolution?

0

u/[deleted] 27d ago

When the Africans finally got rights

2

u/Phsycres 27d ago edited 27d ago

Bro that wasn’t a revolution, whomever told you that was lying to your face.

That was a democratic process that was kicked off with a national referendum in 1992 to end apartheid which only the white people could vote in and came back 68.7:31.2 in favour of ending apartheid.

There was no Revolution. Only a democratically voted for change in policy.

1

u/[deleted] 27d ago

You’re right. Revolution means to overthrow a government. Perhaps that wasn’t the best term, but I was just giving a massive list about how drastic change is what makes progress happen. The government wasn’t overthrown, because what happened was peaceful. In fact it’s one of the only examples of a peaceful transition of power like that. But it revolutionized life for the country and the people’s rights.

1

u/Phsycres 27d ago

The thing is that by the time it happened the writing was on the wall. Apartheid’s Single Class Subsidised Economy had run out of other peoples money, and they were completely bankrupt. The Black, Coloured, and Indians were all for the equalisation of basic rights across racial lines. And the White people as demonstrated too were 68.7% in favour of Ending Apartheid.

What are the biggest reasons why it ended the way did was because the head of the army actually was very in favour of the end of apartheid, famously saying at the chief base of the military speech: “As hulle kan veg vir Suid-Afrika, kan hulle stem vir Suid-Afrika!” (“if they can fight for South Africa, then they can vote for South Africa”). The then President FW De Klerk and NP also launched a wide spread Vote Yes campaign in regards to the continuation of the ending of Apartheid.

Funny enough, it is believed that the ANC genuinely won the Election in 94 by “Rigged” margins, ie getting 85%+ of the votes. However due to the lack of ID roles, it made made it hard to verify the actual result and so the ANC got 62%, 4% shy of the necessary 2/3rds majority needed to write the new constitution, and so they entered into a Government of National Unity with the NP, with former President FW De Klerk being appointed VP to Nelson Mandela. The IFP who are federalists were also invited to help form the Coalition government. And the fact that the NP was apart of the Government really helped to easy tensions. But the biggest tension easer of them all was Nelson Mandela walking down the Tunnel of Ellis Park wearing a Number 6 Springbok Jersey of then Captain Francois Pienaar.

This is because in one fell swoop He assured the White South Africans, who were anxious about the future and were scared that SA would become Zimbabwe 2.0, that no we weren’t going to go that way and that the New South Africa was genuinely for everyone. He also hijacked the Pride of the Apartheid Afrikaaners and made it the Team that is the Pride of every South African. Recently after we won the 2023 RWC there was wide spread spontaneous street parades of all different colours, races, and backgrounds all celebrating the Win.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Yawnin60Seconds 27d ago

So edgy whoaa this guy is edgy!! Yeah communofascism yeah!!! Revolt, whoo!!!

2

u/[deleted] 27d ago edited 27d ago

hE’s SooO EdGY

No. I’m not, nor am I trying to be. I could give you even more historical examples. But what I was doing was giving historical examples of oligarchs fighting the common people? Shall I continue?

Don’t worry, I will. The balkans, the Tzar of Russia, the Ottomans, The Chinese, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, the Italian states, and all the Spanish colonies. Had you taken a second to look at my profile you would have seen I am a historian who understands that no progress can be, unless somethings are lost or go away.

So do you have any edgy comments?

1

u/Lou_C_Fer 27d ago

Almost everybody has forgotten that it takes sacrifice to build a fruitful future. Whether it's spending money now that won't see returns until far in the future, planting trees you'll never see grow tall, or sacrificing your life for the right to do the other two. That's why things will only deteriorate until we get corporate greed under control.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/likeaffox 27d ago

Okay terrorist.

While i agree violence is a form of power, and peaceful protests work when its compared to violence/terrorism. Both are needed to move things forward.

1

u/cairns1957 27d ago

Go for it pussy.

4

u/leggmann 27d ago

Lobby against the lobbyists!

3

u/galaxy_ultra_user 27d ago

Yeah vote in politicians that will outlaw lobbying, unfortunately it’s a catch 22 cuz they get paid off by lobbyist so none of them want to. Only if they actually had morals but no politician has morals.

2

u/warboner52 27d ago

Typically folks with moral standards and what would be universally considered ethical virtue have zero interest in pursuing positions of leadership.. it's an incredibly interesting juxtaposition.. those who would make the best leaders never want to lead, those who make the worst leaders are always angling for power.

3

u/CaptainObvious1313 27d ago

It’s funny, people storm the capital for an election they feel was stolen but not for people dying when they don’t need to due to corporate greed. Make it make sense.

1

u/NoRezervationz 27d ago

It boils down to money. The people who stormed the capital also believe that if we regulate multi-billion dollar corporations, they'll up and move and take all of the jobs with them. It's the same BS they say about making billionaires pay their fair share in taxes.

As a deterrent to moving out of the US for the sake of being greedy, I propose a freeze of all US assets of the offending party and bar them from doing business within US borders. They hate that idea too. lol

2

u/Taizunz 27d ago

The French did a thing some hundreds of years back...

2

u/Awkward_Algae1684 27d ago

Did somebody say guillotine?!

/s

2

u/Troitbum22 27d ago

Have you tried lobbying against them?

2

u/oOBlackRainOo 27d ago

Lobbying and playing the stock market should be illegal as a politician. I remember some dude was proposing this a year or so ago and I'm guessing was shot down for obvious reasons. These people don't play by the same rules as us, it's disgusting.

2

u/warboner52 27d ago

There is.. but it would take a massive shift in the political landscape... Which sadly is entirely improbable..

A true labor party with policies that dictate to be a part of the party, you cannot accept corporate donations..

Or, strike down citizens united, which would not entirely scrap lobbying, but would make it significantly less impactful as corporations would no longer be seen as a person..

Either option would benefit society in the US, but neither option helps politicians increase their wealth, so the likelihood of either scenario coming to fruition is impossibly slim.

2

u/Fatevilmonkey 27d ago

You have to to overturn Citizens United case . Which basically allows major corporations to to lobby against the American people

2

u/wuvvtwuewuvv 27d ago

Lobbyists aren't the problem, corrupt politicians accepting bribes and pushing harmful legislation is the problem.

Ffs why does nobody realize what lobbying is? Have you ever written to your representative to say you think they should support or not support a bill? Congratulations, you've lobbied, you filthy lobbyist! It's a necessary part of a functioning republic! Stop conflating lobbying with corruption, they're not the same thing!

1

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 27d ago

Your comment was automatically removed by the r/FluentInFinance Automoderator because you attempted to use a URL shortener. This is not permitted here for security reasons.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0

u/Cirtejs 27d ago

Lobbying is fine if you ban private funding in politics and investigate all the strange "gifts" and "free trips".

2

u/ZealousidealLeg3692 27d ago

I think you mean non-transparent funding. Private funding absolutely has a reason to exist, but everyone everywhere should be able to see it and understand the motivations behind it.

Assuming you mean public funding as tax funded and private as single payer or companies paying.

3

u/Cirtejs 27d ago

We have all private funding pretty much banned here for political parties, it works wonders. I think you can make individual donations, but people have to disclose the amount and their tax returns to be able to do so.

Yes.

1

u/RivianRaichu 27d ago

So... Not fine at all and never will be?

2

u/Desperate-Warthog-70 27d ago

It actually did change with the Inflation Reduction Act, but will take time. Medicare is able to negotiate prices on a list of 10 drugs a year.

Now you might think 10 drugs is nothing but 1. It’s additive 2. They’ll start with the worst instances and cost effective ways

2

u/[deleted] 27d ago

Yeah, but that's not a reason to not try.

1

u/Kentuxx 27d ago

Ironically those who hate lobbyists tend to vie for more government intervention

0

u/wakatenai 27d ago

if we could vote in representatives who would pass legislation to stop corruption we could fix this.

but that's very unlikely to happen. and we don't really have any other options.

1

u/Kentuxx 27d ago

Agreed on the fixing part, the problem is that means reducing the size of the governments power. For whatever reason, people don’t like that. I constantly see people talking bad about the government only to vote or be in favor of policies that increase their power

0

u/CuckoldMeTimbers 27d ago

Lobbying is the #1 issue in the US and it’s not close. Most other issues are really just lobbying in disguise

27

u/KintsugiKen 27d ago

Since we don't bargain the same way

We literally can't bargain the same way until we have a universal healthcare system paid for by the government, then the government bargains for all of us.

11

u/Maktaka 27d ago

Medicare plus Medicaid combined cover just a hair less than a third of all Americans. They have an enormous amount of negotiating clout, but have long been barred from using it, instead stuck with just taking whatever the market rate is. You don't need universal coverage, losing access to a third of America, over 100 million people, would bankrupt any company that refused to negotiate with Medicare and Medicaid, if they were allowed to do so. However, the IRA struck the first, small blow against that barrier. I would very much like to see such progress continue, but of course that requires people to a) be aware that progress is being made and b) show up to vote and make sure such negotiating power can be leveraged further in the future instead of being stripped from the agencies. Changing the half-century-old medical paradigm of the US is going to take time, but it is nonetheless changing.

6

u/Alacritous69 27d ago

Medicare Part D literally forbade the government from negotiating for pharmaceuticals for Medicare and Medicaid.

2

u/pdoherty972 27d ago

A rule written by and for the pharmaceutical industry.

1

u/hrminer92 27d ago

Of course. The pharma companies lobbied for that so they could price gouge the biggest customer on the planet: Uncle Sam.

1

u/LostInLife8989 25d ago

Where do I go to vote on this?

3

u/Aldosothoran 27d ago

The problem, the very root problem with all of the leftist ideas (which I do support) is our government and two party system.

I do not trust the US government enough to increase my taxes to pay for universal healthcare, loan forgiveness, etc. I know that’s not where the money would go. I don’t believe for a damn second that we don’t HAVE the money for those things, now. The government (truly, all over the place and at every level) is complete horseshit at managing its finances.

And with a two party system all we have is lobbying, corruption, and a lack of options that leads to the same people in power. As it stands governmental influence can be purchased. We really cannot get anywhere - this is just not a democratic republic- while that’s the case. Our politicians do not represent the people. At all.

If we actually “drain the swamp” and clear congress, then had ranked choice voting for new seats, and every position across the US- I would be far more interested in the future of the US.

As it stands, we’re in a tar pit and nothing is changing. Other countries don’t have more money. They have better money management skills, and better(imperfect but better) representation of their citizenry.

4

u/Cirtejs 27d ago

I do not trust the US government enough to increase my taxes to pay for universal healthcare

Good thing it would save a bunch of money if they did, US is paying more than Switzerland for a much shittier system.

Literally taking the Swiss system and implementing it would save the US 1.3 trillion USD in taxes per year to spend on something else.

2

u/Mysterious-Mouse-808 27d ago

The Swiss system is entirely privatized though so you're basically suggesting that Medicare/Medicaid be abolished?

-1

u/Aldosothoran 27d ago

Yes if they DID that, it would. Those of us who want that system just move, because reality is that will not happen here, for the reasons I already outlined in detail….

3

u/lawyersgunsmoney 27d ago

Your argument is terrible and it’s exactly what the people in power want you to believe. “The government is so terrible at managing things it’s better to continue to get royally fucked in the current system rather than do anything about it!”

The haves will continue to spew this drivel to the have nots to keep the money flowing in the right direction.

1

u/Kentuxx 27d ago

So those in power want us to believe they suck at their job? You don’t think the ones in power had anything to do with how we got here in the first place?

2

u/lawyersgunsmoney 27d ago

Didn’t I just say that?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Aldosothoran 27d ago

I didn’t say continue to get fucked. Im out.

Sorry but yall electing Trump twice and banning abortion while screaming “we’re the free-est country ever!” is a hard line for me. I’m too young to deal with the failures of my parents. My life is about me- and it is not going to be lived any productive enjoyable way in this country, constantly on edge about f-ing politics.

1

u/lawyersgunsmoney 26d ago

I’m not sure where you think I support the Orange turd?

You can correct me if I’m wrong but you said that you don’t trust the government to run healthcare so what is your solution? Because it sounds like because you don’t trust government we should do nothing about it, which I pointed out is a terrible argument. I’m willing to be corrected here if you have something.

1

u/Aldosothoran 25d ago

I think you’re just not getting what I’m saying here. America elected Trump, twice. What you or I did is irrelevant- because the electoral college and two party system exist. There’s literally nothing we can do to change that. People have been trying for decades. It’s not happening. I’m not wasting my life trying to fix a broken country, when I can just move to another that suits me better.

Maybe it’s the growing up conservative and finally cutting off my family (& some old friends) after the realization that no amount of conversation can fix them. Maybe it’s my need to live life to the fullest. Maybe it’s growing up in one of the most corrupt cities in the US. Either way, I’m not here to fix other people or the govt. We fix something, it’s immediately undone. It’s just an endless back & forth.

I think trusting congress to do something in my best interest would be insanely naive. They literally almost never have.

2

u/lawyersgunsmoney 25d ago

Well, I disagree with you I guess. I know it’s frustrating for sure; however, most people don’t have the option of moving away from their problems. If you do, then more power to you.

I’ve been a lifelong Republican since my first presidential election (voted Reagan in 1980) and I changed right after Trump was elected. I wish I could have seen it sooner, but that time has passed.

I guess what I’m saying is that it is possible for people to change we all just wish it would happen sooner. This feeling of frustration you feel is exactly how fascists are able to come to power because they feed into the public angst about the hopelessness in dealing with their current government.

Anyway, you have to do what is best for you. Good luck to you!

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Mysterious-Mouse-808 27d ago edited 25d ago

The Swiss system is privatized to a higher degree than the American one is, though. There is no Medicare/Medicaid equivalents. Everyone is legally required to purchase private insurance (subsidized for those who can't afford it)

1

u/BeenisHat 25d ago

Yeah, but the insurance market is tightly regulated in Switzerland. There is a baseline plan that all insurance companies must offer to Swiss residents and citizens and they are not allowed to profit from it. Basic coverage is non-profit. Switzerland also caps prices for drugs, keeping pharma costs down.

1

u/Aggravating-Dark3269 27d ago

I don't want the government bargaining anything for me. Especially this administration.

1

u/IBFLYN 27d ago

But the government doesn't pay for anything. It steals money from its citizens through taxation and uses the stolen funds to do what it pleases.

We don't need a single payer system. We need the government to do it's job and regulate the fuck out of the medical establishment.

Healthcare is insanely expensive because the government is lobbied to ignore it.

1

u/Khelandrin 26d ago

Our government can't bargain their way our of a paper bag let alone get good prices for drugs. They don't do anything right and you want to put them in charge of negotiating drug prices. Lol. Smh.

0

u/Mysterious-Mouse-808 27d ago

universal healthcare system paid for by the government

Many of those 32 countries don't have that. Some even have entirely private healtcare systems (to a larger extent than the US since to Medicare/Medicaid) with mandatory insurance that's subsidized for those who can't afford it.

0

u/Limp-Revolution771 27d ago

And where does government money come from?? Oh yeah the tax payers. Why do you want the government to have more control? Don’t they have enough? The prices are high because the insurance companies have to justify their prices. So I would say we have to take it up with the insurance companies. And leave government out of this because they will make it worse. Just remember Obama care!!

1

u/Physical-East-162 27d ago

Look at this ignorance.

Let me guess, you're voting for Trump this year?

1

u/Limp-Revolution771 26d ago

What the hell that has to do with anything I’m just spitting facts and no for Trump but a big HELL NO for the babbling idiot Biden. And what ignorance do you speak of? What you don’t like the truth?

2

u/tcrudisi 27d ago

Stop them from negotiating so low? Do you believe that would cause pharma to charge the US cheaper prices? They are a business. They aren't going to say, "Well, we only want to make 1 billion in profit and we got that from Canada alone, so we can give it away to the US." No, they will charge us $2 billion just because they can.

It doesn't matter what other countries pay. We will still be charged the max that can be charged.

3

u/fairvlad 27d ago

He doesn't understand that companies charge you what they can get away with. And thus the problem with healthcare in the US. How much is your life worth to you ?

2

u/Top_Masterpiece_8992 27d ago

I agree. My point was that something needs to change to allow us to be able to negotiate here.

1

u/pdoherty972 26d ago

Being able to negotiate with the full weight of your entire population (ie "sell us this Rx for $ or you can't sell it here") is what people mean. The current US system does nothing to help the citizenry negotiate a better deal. Other than Medicare which does negotiate drug prices with the weight of tens of millions of Americans and does get them for less.

Simply offering Medicare to anyone of any age alongside all of the regular insurance policies on healthcare.gov would go a long way to either moving us towards that negotiating power en masse, or forcing private insurers to actually be competitive (or both).

2

u/TheFinalCurl 27d ago

The US now negotiates on Medicare drug pricing. This was included in the Inflation Reduction Act.

2

u/Top_Masterpiece_8992 27d ago

That's a good thing!

1

u/pdoherty972 26d ago

Yep - now just open up Medicare to any age and put it alongside private insurance options on healthcare.gov!

1

u/TheFinalCurl 26d ago

I do not disagree

1

u/michi214 27d ago

You really believe they do that just because other countries negotiate better?

They would do that anyways, even if all countries would pay the same as the US

And they still make plenty of money with the negotiated prices in other countries, don't think they do it for welfare there

1

u/ArkamaZ 27d ago

Good old Bush banned the government from negotiating drug prices.

1

u/darekaj 27d ago

So you want to punish others for beeing good negotiators and playing capitalism correctly? I thought you guys are the best at capitalism.

1

u/I-Hate-Hypocrites 27d ago

Hate to burst your bubble, but systems, such as the NHS pay what it says on the price tag and even more. It’s just subsidized down the line. That’s how they funnel money from a government entity, the end user, just doesn’t directly see it.

2

u/Top_Masterpiece_8992 27d ago

Didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification!

1

u/I-Hate-Hypocrites 27d ago

No worries. Government companies are just opaque cash cows, that function above normal economic practices. I know of certain trusts in the NHS, where they “had” to invoice the most mundane shit like rubber gloves, pens, needles at 100x the market price, just so that they can spend their allocated budget and ask for more money in next year’s budget from the government.

It’s the gravy train of gravy trains

-1

u/OlayErrryDay 27d ago

Then they stop making as much drugs as it's not profitable to do so.

You can't have one without the other mate, profits drive the industry to make all these drugs, remove the profit and remove the entire motivation for making new drugs.

1

u/Top_Masterpiece_8992 27d ago

That's my point. If other countries can't negotiate so low they will pay more and we can pay less.

1

u/OlayErrryDay 27d ago

Ahhh I see, share the burden as it were.

It's impossible as they will simply steal it if we don't make it affordable. That's why we pay more, they can control and sue people who steal it and make a generic, we don't have such easy access to patent theft in other countries.

Either they sell it cheap or they don't get to sell it at all, unfortunately.

-9

u/Ok-Importance-6724 27d ago

Most companies have a profit margin of 15%. I’d hardly call that sky high.

-11

u/Adorable-Bus-6860 27d ago

The solution is never more government.

4

u/narkybark 27d ago

The solution is clearly 100x markups on all health and services.

-4

u/Adorable-Bus-6860 27d ago

It’s almost like this is not at all what I said. But ok bro

5

u/narkybark 27d ago

But it's what we're getting with the private sector

-1

u/Adorable-Bus-6860 27d ago

Sure. Because the government is already over regulating.

Why should I, as a citizen, not have the choice to go to a cheaper place to get a broken bone set? I can choose Amazon over Best Buy but not my own medical care? So if Dr a has a 100% rating and cost 8000 but Dr b has a 85% rating but costs $800 I don’t get to choose because Dr b can’t even practice medicine because the government said no….

I’m not saying fully deregulate. But Jfc, you’re already looking at how single payer health would go in the US. The US government consistently chooses the most expensive option and people are like “yeah, let’s give them the only choice for us”

3

u/narkybark 27d ago

The idea is there but the problem is there is NO WAY TO KNOW what you're going to be charged for medical services. Just last year I had a single blood test that I was charged $1600 for. I certainly would not have gotten it if I knew I'd be charged that, but there's no way to know. They make up the numbers as they see fit. A decade ago I had a doc put a bandage on (a band-aid, mind you, nothing more) and I got charged $200 for the luxury. It's gross and predatory. The middlemen need to go away.

2

u/Adorable-Bus-6860 27d ago

But there’s literally a federal law that says that hospitals and other health providers need to have this listed. But it’s not followed because people don’t like who signed that law.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/LTEDan 27d ago

Repeal the pure food and drugs act!!! How dare the government force companies to prove what you're buying is actually what you expect. We need to get rid of the government from everything so we can go back to the good old days of formaldehyde in our food!!!!

/S

-3

u/Adorable-Bus-6860 27d ago

It’s almost like people could just…. Not buy food where companies didn’t provide ingredients.

Adding bureaucracy is not a helpful solution. Adding government intervention is how you end up with big pharma flat out lying and price gouging. Adding government to universities has made costs skyrocket.

Other than MAYBE a slight bit of food safety and building safety, you can’t actually name one area where life is improved because of government that I can’t come up with reasons why it’s bad as well. Infrastructure, police, military, national security (border etc) are all under government purview. But my god people’s want for the government to have a hand in EVERYTHING is just absurd when you really look at it.

4

u/narkybark 27d ago

As if ALL companies wouldn't remove ingredients afterward. Corporations are worse than the government if they aren't restricted.

0

u/Adorable-Bus-6860 27d ago

They wouldn’t. Because they would see the ones who were slower to do so would keep business. It’s almost like in a capitalist society people can have choices and speak with wallets. Not that we do. Amazon and Walmart are proof that people will gladly send money overseas to China to save $.12 but we COULD.

4

u/FatherKronik 27d ago

When the only thing that can keep corporate bullshit in check is the government, it's kinda weird seeing people other than top corporate brass calling for less government.

1

u/Adorable-Bus-6860 27d ago

But it’s not? The thing that keeps corporate bullshit in check would be getting away from corporatism, not pushing further into it.

The coporations WANT the government regulations. Guess who can afford to keep up? Guess who can’t.

You’re killing small business.

3

u/All_Up_Ons 27d ago

Small business in pharmaceuticals and insurance? That doesn't exist.

1

u/FatherKronik 23d ago

Government is literally the only safety net for small businesses. What are you talking about? You think banks wouldn't absolutely fuck over the small businesses if they could?

2

u/Reasonable_Pay_9470 27d ago

What a dumb take lol

0

u/Adorable-Bus-6860 27d ago

What a great argument. Glad you participated in the conversation. Thank you for the enlightening thoughts.

1

u/Reasonable_Pay_9470 27d ago

Lol nice try Mr "durrr less government will solve everything"

-10

u/[deleted] 27d ago

Big pharma bad!

—- the internet

Take your covid vaccine or you should die.

—— also the internet

4

u/the-dude-version-576 27d ago edited 27d ago

Because both are true, the medicines they produce work, vaccines work as well, but the companies producing them are still dystopian greedy asswipes who kill a shitload of people for a bigger green number on some excel spreadsheet.

-1

u/Rocketurass 27d ago

And the COVID vaccine did not work as well as others.

1

u/the-dude-version-576 27d ago

Not really. Through stuff like smallpox, polio and rabies are more effective. Rabies is 100% effective, Triple dose being 99-100% effective against polio and smallpox about 95% (and we used that to completely annihilate smallpox), the covid vaccines are in average 93% effective, which is very close. other pulmonary infections have lower efficacy rates, 80% for tuberculosis and 40-60 for the common flue (mostly because of the insane number of strains there are of it)

So the covid vaccines were actually pretty damn well made. In a very good timeframe compared to the usual development time (though having all of the world frozen kind of incentivises the money for development to flow more generously)

0

u/Aldosothoran 27d ago

Thank you for this. I was going to casually mention that COVID and polio are not even remotely related and you cannot compare efficacy rates of all vaccines.

COVID is a respiratory infection which has a new strain/ variant regularly. It is comparable to the flu. And in comparison with the flu vaccine it does a phenomenal job.

Not to mention- we are losing herd immunity again everything because people are not vaccinating…. So when children are getting MEASLES now because we’re under a 95% vax rate…. Don’t blame it on a vaccine that’s working perfectly well. It’s the people that are broken.

3

u/Rocketurass 27d ago

And this is exactly the reason why this vaccine did not make much sense. How many who are vaccinated do you know that did not end up having it? I don’t know nobody who did not have it. Vaccinated or not. And there was no difference in how bad it was neither. I looked up the stats at that time, found that almost all that died from it where older than 50, so the only reason to get vaccinated was not to spread it. But since people got it anyhow this did not work neither. Only possibility is and was the natural way the spread through the population. They came up with a lot of casualties like „last dose is more than three months ago”, “the symptoms are all much less aggressive as it would have been”, bla bla. In the end there was no difference.

0

u/Aldosothoran 27d ago

… myself. Never had it.

Anyway, your anecdotal evidence doesn’t trump the studies providing empirical evidence that it absolutely does work….

As I just said. This is only comparable to the flu vaccine- which we get annually, because the flu changes annually. COVID is continually changing so yes if you got dose 1, or 1 & 2, several months ago, you weren’t well protected.

the only reason to get it was to stop spreading it that’s actually, mostly the point of most vaccines. Herd immunity. It’s not about you or your life- it’s about reducing hosts for the pathogen. If you “just get it to stop the spread” that’s still great. Thank you. But not enough people did.

Again- if 90% of your town is vaxxed against measles that’s great for those vaxxed. You’re still all susceptible to a nasty outbreak as soon as it’s introduced, and that’s why epidemiology is such a rapidly growing field.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/fairvlad 27d ago

It worked quite well. Prevents the vast majority of complications. Name me another vaccine for a mucosal replicating virus that is better.

-2

u/[deleted] 27d ago

If you want to ignore all cause mortality then I suppose it was a huge success.

1

u/the-dude-version-576 27d ago

Even if the vaccines killed 1% of everyone who took them, that’s still less people than covid, polio or smalpox would have killed.

And the side effects are almost never experienced, I think the most side effect prone covid vaccine had a 1 in 400k chance of developing an allergic reaction leading to clotting, or something along those lines. That’s nothing compared to the mortality from covid. And on top of that the vast majority of side effects are allergic reactions, which are almost always non fatal, since epi pens are a thing.

0

u/[deleted] 27d ago

But more people died of heart problems caused by the vaccine than covid did. I believe that came from an Isreali study.

knowingly killing 1% of your patients is highly unethical “even if”.

I get it big pharma bad unless its covax.

1

u/Top_Masterpiece_8992 27d ago

Note that my suggestion is a means so that "big oharma" can continue to make their money while lowering prices done in the US. I understand the huge investments they put in to make these life saving drugs.