this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
-22 points (19.4% liked)
Conservatives
110 readers
19 users here now
Pro-conservative discussions
Rules
- Pro-conservative or crazy liberal post.
- We are a discussion forum. No low effort, trolling comments.
- Everyone is welcome to opine, but be civil.
- Attack the topic, not the person
- Report violations of the rules
- Downvotes are disabled
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I am not a huge fan of price controls but drug companies need some rails as they shouldn't charge Americans more then other countries.
You know what would really do that? What would ACTUALLY do that?
Single-payer healthcare, AKA socialized medicine. Then you have the gov't negotiating the price for ALL drugs for EVERYONE. That is exactly how every other first-world country does it, and that's the reason why they all pay lower prices. Until 2022, with the Inflation Reduction Act, Medicare wasn't allowed to negotiate, and the IRA only allows the gov't to negotiate some very high-dollar drugs.
And executive order does abso-fucking-lutely nothing. EOs can--at best--only directly affect gov't agencies. You can't use an EO to force a private corporation to give you better prices.
So you’re for taxing the living shit out the poor and middle class like other countries ? Glad to hear it.
We pay far, far more, as a proportion of our income, for medical care than any other western country, and that's when you consider the taxes that other countries pay. We also have, by far, the worst medical outcomes. Socialized healthcare costs less, and has better outcomes, than paying on your own or using private insurance, and allows for better control over ballooning healthcare costs.
Your belief that it would cost more proves that you fundamentally don't understand how medical care is priced. We're paying Bugatti prices and getting Yugos. We have hundreds of insurance companies negotiating prices with thousands of medical groups, and a handful of massive pharmaceutical companies; they simply don't have the leverage to control costs or negotiate better rates, and none of them have a risk pool large enough to make the costs truly cheap for every single person.
And, BTW, yes, I AM in favor of raising taxes. On everyone. Because we deserve more from our gov't than what we're getting. Things like a public education system that works, criminal justice that isn't for-profit and actually reforms people, infrastructure that isn't crumbling, public services that are owned by the public, and so on. Privatising everything has been a disaster; we pay more and get less.
Everyone doesn’t need their taxes increased. If we want to be like Europe. The poor and middle class neeed large tax increases and the wealthy need to have their taxes lowered. Our outcomes are not always worse. It’s a mixed bag. Some are. Some are much better.
Weird I never said it would cost more. Were you speaking with someone else? What I said it would require much larger taxes on the middle and low class and I doubt they want to pay them. Americans as a whole hate taxes
Those damn Europeans, with their longer life expectancy, higher quality of life, cheaper medical end education systems, and cleaner environment. Who needs any of that?
High quality of life? I think not. They make less money, higher taxes and live in cramped conditions. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
Good news, that's what Trump is already doing.
The only--ONLY--medical metric that we lead the world on is per capita spending on healthcare. In 2022, we spent an average of $15,222 per person in the US. The next worst country--Switzerland--spent about $8000 per capita. When you compare outcomes, Switzerland gets very nearly identical outcomes to the US, but spends far less per person. And Switzerland does NOT have single-payer healthcare. Canada spends $6000 per capita on healthcare coverage, and leads the US in most outcomes.
Yes, more in taxes, less (none) in paying premiums, co-pays, or deductibles. So as far as income in your pocket goes, and in terms of medical outcomes, you come out ahead in a single-payer system. Think about it for a second; what's your annual deductible? The insurance I can get through my workplace has an annual deductible of $7000 per person. That means that, aside from visiting my GP, I need to spend $7000 before insurance covers anything at all. That's on top of the $6500 I would have to pay in premiums. After I hit my deductible, insurance covers 80% of my costs, until I've paid a total of $11,000 out of pocket, then it covers everything. So I would have to pay at least $17,500 in a calendar year before insurance picked up everything. If I don't have insurance because I can't afford $250 every two weeks? Then I get the whole hospital bill for everything, which, in most cases, means people declaring bankruptcy. What I'm saying is that you can take that --OR-- you can take $50 out of everyone's paycheck (scaled to income level probably, and based on a risk pool of 330M people) and just be covered, period, no copays, no deductible, no worries that you're gonna be bankrupted by a hit-and-run driver that sends you to the ER.
Sounds like you have a high deductible plan.
No. It's a basic silver PPO, and my employer would pay more per month than I do. And HDHP (bronze level) would have a higher individual deductible, and lower premiums.
Agreed