Ok NuRayz, I got you thinking, now think about this.
From the start Obama has said there would be no rationing of care. Now we see that if there is rationing of care, the weakest in society will be the least likely to get care and the CBO predicts the costs will far exceed what Obama has said all along. If there’s not enough money for this program because it’s exceeded predicted cost, as every government program ever proposed by either party has done, then there will be rationing based on this rationale.
The biggest problem I have with the new system is the forceful reduction in pharmaceutical costs. Now before you say it, yes I know they’re more expensive than they should be. A good chunk of the money paid for pills goes towards future drug research, which I don’t mind paying for. It makes sense that the more you depend on the current generation of drugs, the more you should be giving to help pay for the next generation of drugs. Now if the drug companies are forced to significantly lower their prices, that’s going to also significantly reduce or eliminate their research efforts. Besides laying off thousands of chemists and engineers, it puts the collective global society at a medical disadvantage when you shut down the world’s largest medical contributor.
Sure our current system is as expensive as hell and sure it’s way cheaper in other countries. What makes me ok with our system is that if I need a proceedure I can go someplace in my own country, have their doctors diagnose it one day and be treated the next. There’s no rationing.
I think the biggest contributor to the healthcare cost is that so few hospitals and treatment centers are actually run like businesses. It’s no longer about what is most efficient or cost effective, it’s about raw numbers. For example, the Cleveland Clinic is one of the most efficiently run hospitals in the world and also has extremely quick diagnosis to treatment turnarounds. It’s pricey, but you get the treatment that best suits you, not what makes the hospital the most.