3 ms·

Isn't the biggest part of health cost is from drug company and insurance company? If that's the case, addressing the cost is the foremost issue, instead of for

Isn't the biggest part of health cost is from drug company and insurance company? If that's the case, addressing the cost is the foremost issue, instead of forcing everyone to join a universal plan. That does not help addressing the root problem above.

misnome 10y ago
So basically, your argument is to do nothing to help anybody unless you have a magical fix-everything-in-one-go plan? Good luck trying to get political support for anything that hurts the insurance companies.
- justicezyx 10y ago
  Isn't there plenty of fixes demonstrated many places already?
beat 10y ago
The biggest cost driver is complexity, not profiteering. The Japanese system is not terribly different from ours - it still depends on private employer-provided health insurance. But per capita costs are less than half the US cost, with higher utilization and far better outcomes. The key difference is that Japan has strict national-level price controls. The price of identical products and procedures is identical in every facility. This eliminates both complexity and negotiation between insurance and providers. A government board carefully tracks costs for profiteering and makes adjustments. Do that, and you get rid of the whole "in network/out of network" nonsense of the American system.
maxerickson 10y ago
No. Insurance companies have to spend a majority of premiums on healthcare or rebate them to consumers. So the money goes to providers and drug companies. We spend several times more in hospitals and clinics than what we spend on prescription drugs: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/17-fascinating-statistics-on-the-current-state-of-us-healthcare-spending-finances.html http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/17-fascinating-... (nearly $1.6 trillion to large providers, $300 billion to drugs) So the costs are not concentrated in drugs and insurance. There are certainly some drugs that are very lucrative, it's just that they aren't the dominant spending.

misnome 10y ago

So basically, your argument is to do nothing to help anybody unless you have a magical fix-everything-in-one-go plan? Good luck trying to get political support for anything that hurts the insurance companies.

justicezyx 10y ago
Isn't there plenty of fixes demonstrated many places already?

beat 10y ago

The biggest cost driver is complexity, not profiteering. The Japanese system is not terribly different from ours - it still depends on private employer-provided health insurance. But per capita costs are less than half the US cost, with higher utilization and far better outcomes. The key difference is that Japan has strict national-level price controls. The price of identical products and procedures is identical in every facility. This eliminates both complexity and negotiation between insurance and providers. A government board carefully tracks costs for profiteering and makes adjustments. Do that, and you get rid of the whole "in network/out of network" nonsense of the American system.

maxerickson 10y ago

No. Insurance companies have to spend a majority of premiums on healthcare or rebate them to consumers. So the money goes to providers and drug companies. We spend several times more in hospitals and clinics than what we spend on prescription drugs: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/17-fascinating-statistics-on-the-current-state-of-us-healthcare-spending-finances.html http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/17-fascinating-... (nearly $1.6 trillion to large providers, $300 billion to drugs) So the costs are not concentrated in drugs and insurance. There are certainly some drugs that are very lucrative, it's just that they aren't the dominant spending.