each time a transaction is made, it is evident that the buyer and the seller have decided the acceptable price, regardless of profit margin. When I call for pizza delivery, I don't ask "what's the profit margin on the pizza?", I ask "what's the charge?" Is it smarter or more right to pay an inefficient business more because their profit margin is less than to pay an efficient business less because their profit margin is more? I guess it can be (eg. girl scout cookies, mmm) but somehow that doesn't seem like a successful business or consumer model for long
In most cases, this is true. When it comes to health care, we usually don't have much of an option, especially being agreeable to it. What kind of option is, pay our outrageous price, or stay sick, or injured, or die? Practically every other industry, there is competition that offers a choice of savings, usually to the point of saving a great amount of money. Is there competition in health care? When is the last time you saw an ad for a buy one appendectomy, get a tonsilectomy free? Or 0% financing available? Or a mail in rebate? Nah, they got you by the short hairs, and you will PAY. It's force fed. You would think that each Corporation would police their own by saying %500 profit is enough. Should they get five times that, just because they can? I believe what is morally right needs to be factored in to the profit factor. I guess I'll never get my appointment to CEO of MERCK, now!
Apparently it's the government to many of these folks, Mike. They must all be for the nanny state. I just wonder how they would feel if their fields of endeavor were put under the same scrutiny that so many industries have over the past several years. It's a crime, for example, that Exxon made Billions selling gasoline — never mind that the margin was less than 10%. Same deal for health insurance companies that have, understandably, denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Maybe these folks would like for the government to nationalize everything then pay everybody (and I do mean everybody) $7.00 an hour. Last I heard the USA isn't a communist country yet, hard as they try.
I agree. My father had a liver transplant a few years ago and has to take anit rejection meds. Luckily, he has insurance, but he still spends a few 100 probably a month for pills. He has no choice, he takes these pills or dies. I have a close friend who a college professor that has battled a nasty pill addiction for opiates for a long time. Very successful guy with a doctorate, and you would never know it, but he is an addict. Since he has a good job, this is something that had to be fixed. He decides to go on a maintenance drug called "Suboxone". From what I understand it is a pill you take everyday that dissolves under your tongue. It does not get you high, but fills the opiate receptors in the brain. You can get it prescribed from a doctor, but it costs a lot of money. Its like 9 dollars a pill and no insurances cover it. So he has the option of not taking it and possibly dying or ruining his career, or pay the money and take the pill. Not much of a choice in that one.
I know I kept the discussion going by contributing, but I'd encourage everyone (myself included) to remember this is a shaving board. Not that we can't discuss important topics like grown ups, but recall how much diversity there is on the shaving discussions (which blade/razor/cream/soap is best?) and then extend that diversity to the current topic.
Just because there's a product that can improve my quality of life doesn't mean the government is suddenly obligated to make sure that product is available to me at a less than outrageous cost. I don't really know enough to intelligently debate or understand the current situation of health care in the US. So my chiming in is just my general opinion as per the government regulating costs of non-commodities. Is healthcare a commodity? Maybe it is. Anyway, if it is as has been said that there is no competition, and the profit margins are so high, then why isn't there any competition? Ideally that would be a fine regulator. Something practical needs to be done, but it would be nice if it didn't require the federal government having to step in and tell people how much profit is unacceptable - that seems like a very slippery slope to me
Sorry if it sounded like I want the govt. to step in, they've done enough, already! All I'm implying is that these Corporate CEO's step up to the plate and regulate their own, in a more morally responsible way other than greed. Make a healthy profit. It's required to keep businesses going forward, but at an obscene rate? C'mon! That's it from me on this subject. I'm here to enjoy the Den with fellowship and general bantor.
Since I am saddled with several prescription drugs that aren't covered by my insurance, I thought seriously about buying them from Canada. I even did so once, but then relented when those pills had run out. Partially, the reason was that I was required to acknowledge that since I was breaking the law by importing these drugs, there was no recourse available to me should my parcel be confiscated by customs authorities; there was no insurance against loss available either.
Yeah I think they ought to do that on their own as well - but unless the government steps in I don't see it happening
