Trumpcare

[KingVamp]

Just because you want to see naturally again, without glasses, doesn't make it "cosmetic surgery". It is another option to restore sight. Not some kind of eye color change. That said, if it cost too much even with universal healthcare or it isn't deemed safe enough, it is reasonable to wait until it gets safer and cheaper.

Someday, we are just going to be able to replace eyes with some equal, if not better, ones altogether.

As for private businesses, I think they should still be around even if/when we get universal healthcare.

 

[Viri]

Just because you want to see naturally again, without glasses, doesn't make it "cosmetic surgery". It is another option to restore sight. Not some kind of eye color change. That said, if it cost too much even with universal healthcare or it isn't deemed safe enough, it is reasonable to wait until it gets safer and cheaper.

Someday, we are just going to be able to replace eyes with some equal, if not better, ones altogether.

As for private businesses, I think they should still be around even if/when we get universal healthcare.

You think that's bad? My medical card considers a root canal to be a "cosmetic surgery" I just wanted to save one of my poor molars. I had to get it pulled, or fork up nearly 1 grand.

 

[Localhorst86]

Just because you want to see naturally again, without glasses, doesn't make it "cosmetic surgery".

If you want to be able to see properly, healthcare will gladly pay you glasses without question. If you want to see without glasses, healthcare will gladly pay your contact lenses for the most part (the ammount is capped on a per year basis, depending on the lenses you choose, you might have to pay money on top from your own pocket). And let me re-iterate: I had LASIK eye surgery and insurances see it (rightfully, imho) as a cosmetic surgery (and yes, both the insurance company and the clinic called it that) which in turn means they are not going to pay for it and the doctor can not free you from work for the healing process* so you'll have to take vacation days if you want to not work during that time.

*(it takes about two weeks for your eyes to heal and while you could go to work, doctors recommend waiting at least three days and - now from experience - I can tell you that you might want to stay at home for about a week with seriously dark sunglasses)

EDIT: but let's no longer argue about LASIK eye surgery as it really seems to not be relevant or at least a bad example in the argument for/against universal healthcare or obamacare.

 

[SG854]

There is, though, it's just not from within the U.S. And so far as I can tell, it's not due to restrictive regulations, it's due to patents and lawsuits preventing any startups from gaining traction. If anything, more regulation in this case would be better, as it would at least define a price that companies would need to hit to be able to work with Medicaid. Alternatively, patent laws on pharmaceuticals would need to be completely abolished (which would be great), but realistically what are chances of that actually happening?


I suppose I don't know how much of an argument that actually is. There are scientists that genuinely want to improve the quality of human life and aren't just in it for the money. Either way, though, pay is pay; if it comes from Big Pharma and they can do what they perceive is helping, then clearly that's where we're at now. Other countries have clearly shown that government employed biologists and chemists are clearly an effective option as well.


This is true, but also something that constraining regulatory definitions would fix

I was talking about no competition in the U.S. which is what the article is about. That caused prices to be high.

Patents and lawsuits from patents are regulation. Patents are government administered, corporation can’t use patents without government, they use government to regulate what drugs people can sell and prevent new competition from coming in, restricting the market.

When people say they want a free market that means to get government and corporate interests out.

There are scientists that do want to help people and not do it for money, but they can’t do much if they don’t have the funds to pay for R&D.

And the U.K and Israel has a shortage of doctors, and have to import doctors from foreign countries that graduate from lower standard colleges. Medical school is a long excruciating process, if they see no benefit for going through hell to get little pay, when they can do something else that’s easier, they would do the easier thing. Their system does not reward doctors and it shows with the doctor shortage.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Lasik eye surgery is not a medical necessity, it's a cosmetic operation because you don't want to wear glasses. And when people have to choose between a $100 pair of glasses and a $20.000 surgery (which, mind you, might not have permanent results*) it is clear that most people would not chose to pay such an ammount of money and either LASIK clinics have to drop their prices or be out of clients. It became cheap because it had to, otherwise no one would have wanted.

For the record, I had LASIK eye surgery about three years ago and it was 2.000€ (about $2.200 back then) for both eyes (mind you, I could have gotten it a lot cheaper in other countries like turkey, I know a few colleagues of mine who paid 800€ for both eyes over there, but I chose to do it localy where I live). I had to pay all by myself as even my additional private insurance (on top of our mandated health insurance) would not cover cosmetic operations like that and I understand that. They would have payed me glasses and they would have payed a majority of the costs for contact lenses if I chose that. If it hadn't been affordable for me to get the surgery, I'd just have lived with glasses or contact lenses.


*Your eyesight can always shift, that's why LASIK clinics recommend to only get surgery when your eyesight likely has settled in and not changed for at least three years. And even then, they'll let you know that as you get older, you might need to wear reading glasses.

It’s not a medical necessity but it’s part of the medical field. The point I made was when you don’t regulate something and provide healthy competition it gets better and cheaper.

Compare communist countries with free market competition ones. The free market has lifted more people out of poverty then any other system in the world.

And what your describing is unregulated supply and demand. Which caused Lasik Eye surgery to be cheaper.

 

[FAST6191]

European countries are relocating R&D to the U.S. which means their current system isn’t enough to fund medical research. So if we imitate that system then we won’t get much innovation anymore.


U.S. is expensive because we aren’t running it as efficiently as we can from restrictive regulations.

A good comparison is X-Rays and Lasik Eye Surgery. There is no competition in the X-ray business. It’s regulated. You can’t look up a list and choose and X-Ray technician and find one for the lowest price. If you ask a doctor for price they won’t give it to you. They would have to check their system and call the insurance company. They won’t give a price till after you get the X-Ray. And you get the charge master problem.

Lasik Eye surgery is really unregulated. Insurance companies won’t cover it. It use to cost $20,000 an eye. Till the free market brought it down to $4,000 through competition. Lasik Eye surgery became cheap because of unregulated competition and not because government subsidized it.

I can't this being a this therefore that type of setup. Similarly we have stuff like https://www.theguardian.com/society...rials-other-countries-envious-getting-results to contemplate. I would refer back to the earlier numbers as well -- the US is doing well for it, no doubt there, but it is not streets and streets ahead of other places, and this for pharma which you can email to somewhere else in the world, unlike most other fields.



Is it the surgery or the equipment? Laser prices, especially high end laser prices, have fallen off a cliff in the last decade* and a bit whilst reliability, size and such have got far far better, to say nothing of control systems.
*the move from cooled pumped CO2 to solid state -- no need to have a ground/reinforced floor, no need for dedicated room to house it all (think old school valve computer vs transistors affair), no need to have a technician working at the levels they had to previously, I don't know if they would have used three phase power for the medical side of things but possible, fewer ongoing/just for existing costs (pumped CO2 static costs are far from nothing), lower initial outlay, lower disposal costs, control systems such that fewer people needed for oversight (plus probably a few more trained operators in the techniques)... that is going to drive costs down all day long.

Spin it the other way as well -- US prices for medicines are insane, many consider this owing to said small groups of 5-10 hospitals having way less collective bargaining power than a state. You say it is Europe does not pay R&D costs? What kind of accountant does not spread things out like that and I once again would point to the charts -- R&D is so very far from absent/token efforts in other regions.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

The tax rate in Finland is 51% would you like giving half your income to the government?

If I didn't have to pay for any kind of medical services or higher education? And I could be guaranteed that public services are quality and on-demand? Hell yes I would. On top of that, I can't claim to know the intricacies of Finland's tax system, but if the US implemented a similar system then I guarantee the average person would NOT be paying over 50% of their income; that would be reserved for people in the higher tax brackets. And I'll remind you that we have American citizens making more in an hour than most anybody makes in a year; realistically speaking, they won't miss the increased tax dollars