In this case the costs would be burdened by those outside the single payer system.
The common folk - lost jobs and less choices.
you've completely lost me .. after all the MASSIVE price increases for drugs .. how in the world can big pharma NOT be part of the root problem of runaway, non sustainable costs?
almost ALL other modern countries except USA, operate on a single payer system at a tiny fraction of the healthcare costs in America .. most importantly they all have substantially better results in terms of a healthier population.
one of the main advantage of single payer is the ability to control costs while delivering better healthcare. is it perfect .. NO .. but it's worlds better than the unlimited profit/little to no competition paid by the USA government healthcare system in America. real costs are soooo high, it's non sustainable. IMHO they've made Obama care so complex that most folks don't have a clue that the non sustainable real costs are paid by the US taxpayers.
USA pays 2x+ per capita than rest of the modern world while deliver poorer results.
the argument that single payer cannot sustain it's self is completely backwards .. as single payer's much lower costs structure is the answer to long term survival of our healthcare system. Facts are single payer would also eliminate insurance companies which could reduce costs much as 40%+.
single payer would reduce overall healthcare cost in half or more
A Single-Payer System Would Reduce U.S. Health Care Costs | Physicians for a National Health Program
It's insane that people post on this board and are so delusional to believe that our government who is grossly incompetent, can even think that they can run a healthcare system.
Can anyone here who believes socialized medicine can control costs..... explain to me how Medicare for instance has "controlled costs?" Especially in reference to Part D..... since the fairy tale.... surrounds drug costs.
Can anyone here who believes socialized medicine can control costs..... explain to me how Medicare for instance has "controlled costs?" Especially in reference to Part D..... since the fairy tale.... surrounds drug costs.
Amen.
Price of Cancer Drugs Has Skyrocketed Since 2000
April 28, 2016
Researchers say initial prices of new cancer drugs are six times higher, raising the question of if patients are getting their money’s worth.
For some cancer patients, taking a new cancer drug is simply a matter of buying time.
It turns out, though, they are paying a lot for those extra months and years.
A study published today in JAMA Oncology reports that new cancer drugs taken in pill form have become dramatically more expensive in their initial year on the market than other drugs launched 15 years ago.
In addition, the researchers say, the prices of those drugs increase rapidly even after their first year on the market.
Dr. Alan Venook, an oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, notes that many of these drugs are not even cures. They simply delay the progression of cancer.
“It’s beyond me. I guess they do it [raise prices] because they can do it,” Venook told Healthline. “It’s a big, big problem.”
Read More: You Survived Cancer. Now How Do You Pay Your Bills? »
The Price of Treatment
Researchers looked at 32 orally administered drugs introduced since 2000.
They said the average monthly cost of the drugs approved in that year was $1,869.
That figure rose to $11,325 a month for new drugs introduced in 2014. That’s a sixfold increase, even after adjusting for inflation.
Patients are increasingly taking on the burden of paying for these high-cost specialty drugs as plans move toward use of higher deductibles and co-insurance.
Stacie Dusetzina, University of North Carolina
One of the drugs highlighted in the research was imatinib, also known by the brand name Gleevec. When it was launched in 2001, the average monthly cost was $3,346. In 2014, that monthly cost had risen to $8,479. That’s an average annual increase of 7.5 percent.
The researchers said the amount paid by health insurance companies was factored into the cost. They also pointed out that many patients are now paying a higher percentage of these expenses than they were 15 years ago.
Price of Cancer Drugs Has Skyrocketed Since 2000
April 28, 2016
Researchers say initial prices of new cancer drugs are six times higher, raising the question of if patients are getting their money’s worth.
For some cancer patients, taking a new cancer drug is simply a matter of buying time.
It turns out, though, they are paying a lot for those extra months and years.
A study published today in JAMA Oncology reports that new cancer drugs taken in pill form have become dramatically more expensive in their initial year on the market than other drugs launched 15 years ago.
In addition, the researchers say, the prices of those drugs increase rapidly even after their first year on the market.
Dr. Alan Venook, an oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, notes that many of these drugs are not even cures. They simply delay the progression of cancer.
“It’s beyond me. I guess they do it [raise prices] because they can do it,” Venook told Healthline. “It’s a big, big problem.”
Read More: You Survived Cancer. Now How Do You Pay Your Bills? »
The Price of Treatment
Researchers looked at 32 orally administered drugs introduced since 2000.
They said the average monthly cost of the drugs approved in that year was $1,869.
That figure rose to $11,325 a month for new drugs introduced in 2014. That’s a sixfold increase, even after adjusting for inflation.
Patients are increasingly taking on the burden of paying for these high-cost specialty drugs as plans move toward use of higher deductibles and co-insurance.
Stacie Dusetzina, University of North Carolina
One of the drugs highlighted in the research was imatinib, also known by the brand name Gleevec. When it was launched in 2001, the average monthly cost was $3,346. In 2014, that monthly cost had risen to $8,479. That’s an average annual increase of 7.5 percent.
The researchers said the amount paid by health insurance companies was factored into the cost. They also pointed out that many patients are now paying a higher percentage of these expenses than they were 15 years ago.
Price of Cancer Drugs Has Skyrocketed Since 2000
it's just as insane to think that it cannot be done .. as pretty much the rest of the modern world already operates with a single payer system at a fraction of the costs and with much better results.
for instance Canada has a single payer system .. are you saying we cannot do what the Canadians are already doing?
As I figured.... no answer.
Yes I am saying we cannot do what Canada has done. Their population is MUCH smaller and significantly healthier. Even then, they are not without their problems.
Want to explain why Canadians wait significantly longer for diagnostics we wait days for? How about the Prime Minister flying down here to get heart surgery.
Again.... use Medicare and especially Medicare Part D as an example of controlling health costs and explain how it would work. Since it's the closest thing we have.
Canada is not fully single-payer. It varies by province. Last I heard from my Canadian colleagues, Ontario was not, but Quebec was. Tons of patients wait months or even years for approval for simple diagnostics like an MRI.
Unlike many folks who advocate single-payer systems, I have actually worked and practiced in a socialized medicine system. While it wasn't gov't-mandated single-payer, there were definitely mind-boggling delays in care as well as flat-out denial of treatment for some serious conditions for those who were beneficiaries of the state-run system. It's no utopia, let me tell you, and the things I saw and dealt with every single day would have modern-day Americans nearly rioting in the street with the limitations imposed. There were good aspects and bad aspects of the system - just like everywhere else. Including here.
Unlike many folks who advocate single-payer systems, I have actually worked and practiced in a socialized medicine system. While it wasn't gov't-mandated single-payer, there were definitely mind-boggling delays in care as well as flat-out denial of treatment for some serious conditions for those who were beneficiaries of the state-run system. It's no utopia, let me tell you, and the things I saw and dealt with every single day would have modern-day Americans nearly rioting in the street with the limitations imposed. There were good aspects and bad aspects of the system - just like everywhere else. Including here.
Similar threads
