UnitedHealthcare: Jackal Barkings vs. Reality

@spruce112358 said
Slight amendment... "Fact is, there is absolutely nothing efficient about a highly regulated privatized healthcare system whatsoever."

A completely deregulated healthcare "free market" would be efficient because that's what free markets do best - match up supply and demand.

Few people are willing to absorb the risks of deregulated healthcare, though. They want lots and lots of regulations to reduce risk.

I don't want healthcare to kill me.

Shocking, I know.

@AverageJoe1 said
Sorry, watching football with a few guys not very clean on my typing and dictating. You may be putting me on, that’s OK, but the issue is that Republicans give more money than do the Democrats. This is so simple that you cannot understand it, which is a trait, a thread, which runs through all of the liberals.
You and the KING👑 have shifted to add several other items ...[text shortened]... , where the money goes, voters, etc etc, and I am waiting for you to discuss your uncle‘s dog house.

Total, maybe so.

On average, as a percentage of income? No way.

@Metal-Brain said
Obama gave you the republican's health care plan. Then the republicans pretended they were against their own idea. Then the democrats supported the republican health care plan because they thought republicans were against it.

People have short memories, especially in politics.

Well said, and true. Decisions of the magnitude of the health care in this country will always be fraught with.....___fill in the blank, it cannot please everyone. Some people think that folks should be self reliant, provide for themselves, and in the case of insuring their health care, shop around for the best fit among the many programs available. United Health has so many that they are lettered, A, B , C, etc.
On the other hand, some think that the government should provide universal health care, for everyone. I do think it impossible to please everyone.
Take Daylight Savings time, in the news. Quite impossible for it to please everyone.

Uncle Joe.

@Suzianne said
I don't want healthcare to kill me.

Shocking, I know.

But you *are* willing to risk death in order to feel better. 😆

So then it is just a matter of "how much risk"?

@Suzianne said
Drugs are safe and effective because of regulation.

And drugs are expensive for the same reason: regulation. 😆

Protecting drugs with patents, preventing companies from referring to data of chemically similar compounds in their submissions, preventing generic and biosimilar competition, and restricting manufacturing and distribution does not make drugs safer or more effective. All those regulations do is protect profits.

Why do you think the Biden administration could cap the charge for insulin at $35/mo? When it had been ~$800? That is because the few companies with deep enough pockets and experience enough to produce the medication had formed a cartel - with the collusion of insurance companies - to charge "whatever they wished." Turns out the cost to make the insulin was ~$5/mo.

So even at $35/mo, the companies were turning a handsome profit. Normally, the free market would have taken care of this. Another company would have undercut at $30, then yet another at $25 until the price landed around $10/mo.

Insulin perfectly illustrates what economists like Milton Friedman have always said:
- a completely free market will always produce the lowest cost goods
- a highly regulated, price-controlled market will have "ok" prices (e.g. Europe)
- a crony-capitalist market will have the highest prices (e.g. The United States).

@spruce112358 said
And drugs are expensive for the same reason: regulation. 😆

Protecting drugs with patents, preventing companies from referring to data of chemically similar compounds in their submissions, preventing generic and biosimilar competition, and restricting manufacturing and distribution does not make drugs safer or more effective. All those regulations do is protect profit ...[text shortened]... es (e.g. Europe)
- a crony-capitalist market will have the highest prices (e.g. The United States).

Is this a good thread to ask.....What in the hell is RFK about Polio? Why stop there, RFK? How about the other vaccines, protecting us from the many poxes.??
Can anyone share here the reasons this has come up?

@AverageJoe1 said
Is this a good thread to ask.....What in the hell is RFK about Polio? Why stop there, RFK? How about the other vaccines, protecting us from the many poxes.??
Can anyone share here the reasons this has come up?

If you are into rankings, vaccines are far and away the safest and most effective medicines ever developed by humanity - by a wide margin. 😆

Second is probably antibiotics - not as effective, but often safe.
Third, steroids - quite effective, not really that safe, esp. long term.
etc.

One thing I am damn sure of is, I don't want RFK jr. making ANY healthcare decisions for anyone but himself! 😆

@spruce112358 said
And drugs are expensive for the same reason: regulation. 😆

Protecting drugs with patents, preventing companies from referring to data of chemically similar compounds in their submissions, preventing generic and biosimilar competition, and restricting manufacturing and distribution does not make drugs safer or more effective. All those regulations do is protect profit ...[text shortened]... es (e.g. Europe)
- a crony-capitalist market will have the highest prices (e.g. The United States).

Just an observation, surely we all think about the unintended consequences in many scenarios.
When does 'govt control' go just a bit too much? Milton Friedman was right, of course. It All sounds well and good, lower prices and all that. If govt tells Ford that their cars should be cheaper, and caps what they charge for a chevrolet, who will run THAT program, as Ford shuts its doors?
Your new signs to carry: "Support Govt Regs That We Like!"

@spruce112358 said
If you are into rankings, vaccines are far and away the safest and most effective medicines ever developed by humanity - by a wide margin. 😆

Second is probably antibiotics - not as effective, but often safe.
Third, steroids - quite effective, not really that safe, esp. long term.
etc.

One thing I am damn sure of is, I don't want RFK jr. making ANY healthcare decisions for anyone but himself! 😆

But how can they justify taking a chance of polio returning? I assume that it will?

@AverageJoe1 said
Well said, and true. Decisions of the magnitude of the health care in this country will always be fraught with.....___fill in the blank, it cannot please everyone. Some people think that folks should be self reliant, provide for themselves, and in the case of insuring their health care, shop around for the best fit among the many programs available. United Health has s ...[text shortened]... Take Daylight Savings time, in the news. Quite impossible for it to please everyone.

Uncle Joe.

Remember when Seth Rich was shot in the back and murdered?
Did his murder get anywhere near the attention Luigi got? Of course not, because Seth Rich was not a CEO.

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/eyewitness-seth-rich-shooting-seth-rich-shot-didnt-even-know-shot/

The corporate news media cares about corporate CEOs, not the guy that leaked the DNC emails.

@Suzianne said
The ACA, or Obamacare, was never a Republican idea. You give them far too much credit, like you always do. They've tried to rescind it many times and failed each time. They WISH they had an idea as good.

The individual mandate was a republican idea. Democrats were against it until Obama adopted it. The democrat plan was single payer. Obama fought for the republican individual mandate plan.

@AverageJoe1 said
But how can they justify taking a chance of polio returning? I assume that it will?

We switched from OPV to IPV polio vaccines in 2000 because they are safer. 🙂

IPOL is the trade name for Sanofi-Pasteur's IPV. IPOL replaced their previous IPV, POLIOVAX, discontinued because it used an aborted fetal cell line. IPOL uses an "ethical" animal cell line.

If IPOL administration were halted then it would take time to create a different vaccine. Polio could return in the interim.

I don't know how they justify that. 😆

@AverageJoe1 said
Just an observation, surely we all think about the unintended consequences in many scenarios.
When does 'govt control' go just a bit too much? Milton Friedman was right, of course. It All sounds well and good, lower prices and all that. If govt tells Ford that their cars should be cheaper, and caps what they charge for a chevrolet, who will run THAT program, as Ford shuts its doors?
Your new signs to carry: "Support Govt Regs That We Like!"

Europe caps the price of drugs that national health will pay for. And everyone in Europe has the national health. So drugs cost what Europe decides they will cost - usually around 30% of what they cost in the US. This is for the SAME, IDENTICAL drug. 😆

But do companies refuse to sell drugs in Europe? Of course not! The alternative is to earn nothing in a huge market - and 30% of US price is still more than cost of production. So of course they sell in Europe. They just don't make as much money there. 😆

@spruce112358 said
We switched from OPV to IPV polio vaccines in 2000 because they are safer. 🙂

IPOL is the trade name for Sanofi-Pasteur's IPV. IPOL replaced their previous IPV, POLIOVAX, discontinued because it used an aborted fetal cell line. IPOL uses an "ethical" animal cell line.

If IPOL administration were halted then it would take time to create a different vaccine. Polio could return in the interim.

I don't know how they justify that. 😆

IPOL replaced their previous IPV, POLIOVAX, discontinued because it used an aborted fetal cell line.
How dare they save peoples lives. That's the pro-lifers for you; use pig cells and risk millions of people lives of getting Polio. We will see how long that works. 🙄 I suspect an outbreak of Polio again soon. An outbreak of the virus that will now be resistant to meds and vaccines and make millions suffer unto death. But hey, we need to protect those eggs with a sperm-cell in it from an un-wanted pregnancy, or in a test tube because that's pro-life; somehow.

@Metal-Brain said
The individual mandate was a republican idea. Democrats were against it until Obama adopted it. The democrat plan was single payer. Obama fought for the republican individual mandate plan.

Because he knew that a socialistic insurance enterprise would not pass muster, and thus he would lose. He wanted to be in a postion of winning. He was a good politician, no doubt.
I'm right, man, I hate it.
Citizens like me would be wring letters to our congressmen saying things like....I don't want to pay for Metal Brain's medical care. Which prompts a question...Do you think that AvJoe should be required by law to pay for heatlh care of MJetal Brain? There is no such provision in the Constitution.