Reddit Neoliberals think I'm a "Fascist"

submitted by [deleted] from reddit.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Comatoast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If it weren't a constant fight between insurance companies, the middlemen deciding cost factors on what can be approved (who are inevitably in pockets on both sides), pharmaceutical companies and providers then we wouldn't have the issues that we have. Trying to receive treatment in this damns-given-devoid system of providers in the US is a joke, they typically don't want anything to do with a case if it goes beyond a basic infection. Insurance costs are an absolute travesty. When you have people that would rather die than bankrupt their families to get treatment, the system has failed.

I could see socialized medicine working if we didn't have people living into their 80s and 90s being kept alive by a wardrobe full of pharmaceuticals.

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Forgive me but I think you're ready to take my radical position: abolish non-catastrophic insurance. Suddenly drug prices are forced to be transparent, no middle men, both providers & consumers get un-pick-pocketed thus costs go DOWN and far fewer people getting bankrupted (remember, the catastrophic insurance will still exist after shed all the wasteful other parts).

No socialized medicine needed. Deregulate and what the competition. Enjoy cheap health service just like we have cheap health products.

[–]Comatoast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Most people over 30 in the US are going to require more than 3 primary care visits provided in base level catastrophic insurance, and I have an idea that it's why only those under 30 (outside of extenuating financial circumstances) are eligible for many of those plans right now. Until everyone's weight is within a range that doesn't immediately throw them into health issues caused/exacerbated by obesity, we're going to have problems with insurance companies trying to make that money back by spreading the cost out to everyone else. Many Americans require more than a few visits a year and basic preventative care, so would have to pay out of pocket for all of those visits until the high deductible cost is met. This doesn't even factor in psychiatric care, which is usually considered to be specialist care.

One problem with the cost of prescriptions right now is the amount of time that brand name drugs are allowed to be exclusively on the market before generic drugs are allowed to be put out there. Many plans will only cover the cost of generics, so you'll have older and less effective medications available at shittier quality that cause side effects to tie back into the loop of needing more healthcare visits.

I'm not really able to work out what you're explaining to be beneficial or reduce costs, outside of for a low percentage of the population. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Whoa there. That was a lot at once. 1) any desired, possible product not available to consumers is always held back by government intervention, so thank your closest Democrat. 2) Yes, fat people are going to have to get their act together and having transparent costs is a good motivator.

3) People that know they have scheduled visits should budget for those things. Insurance companies are not budgets: you lose efficiency by doing that since now you are paying someone else to budget for you. If you're lazy (or rich) then it's fine to have someone else do that, but those who need the money should be encouraged to spend their own time and not be forced to pay for an actuarialist employed by an insurance company to do it for them.

4) I am so on board with lower patent/copy right terms it's not even funny. As far as head-meds, very few people need them. Epileptics, those with genetic disorders, etc. Your average person with a shitty life who wants to use Prozac as a crutch should be cared for by their family and church, not a shrink or the government. And yes, they have huge side effects which those shrinks conveniently forget to bring up ... and hey, look at that now the person hooked on their drugs needs them even more! Funny how that works.

5) I'm assuming some economic education there. My point was for all BUT a small portion of the population, not the inverse. the tl;dr is that forcing up front price advertisement allows people to make informed decisions and rewards more efficient competition which reduces costs. Well at least for 99% of the population. Think food prices. Sure maybe 1% of the population does get a bit screwed (gluten free diets are expensive) but everyone else benefits enormously, and even that 1% still can benefit from economy of scale and sector parallels to meet their needs better than in a non-free market. Note that the US healthcare system is NOT free. If you want to haggle over price with a patient and insurance, even beforehand for elective procedures, you will get fined/thrown in jail. This is why prices aren't transparent, and thus, very high.