I have to agree with seebee. In countries with universal health care the government, through our taxes, is the consumer. There is only so much money in the pot so when it comes to dealing with health professionals and pharmaceutical companies it is in the governments best interests to drive the price down.
Also, because it is an entrenched system, just as the one in the US is, a doctor or pharmaceutical company wouldn't survive if they don't compromise. The ultimate aim for a doctor/health professional is to obtain a provider number and a drug company to get a product on the PBS. Without them they have limited patients/consumers as they would be locked out of the Medicare system and that is the system that our health care revolves around. That is why the costs are cheaper outside of the US.
Our system is based around the public hospitals not private, therefore the vast majority of high cost medicine is based in those public hospitals. That does not stop a doctor having beds in a private hospital if they wish and of course most doctors have a private practice but to access the beds and services for his private patients in a public hospital he/she has to then take on a certain amount of public patients.
I hope that makes sense!
Dusty.
Well, that would be nice. Sadly though that is not how politicians often think , (nor world wide Fed money printing chiefs increasing the pots size at record rates.), when it comes to controlling costs with our health care system or other government services for that matter. Additionally, in America already a majority of medical costs are paid by government organizations such as Medicaid and Medicare, yet medical costs keep rising. The opportunity for cost reform is there, and has been for decades.
I was chuckling the other day when reading about government expenditures outside of medical care. Our Post Office for example is in need of large reforms. Even officials in charge of the Post Office seem to be begging to be allowed to make cuts, and modernize the mail system. Each time ideas of modernizing are brought up our politicians turn down the ideas. Politicians want to keep things the same as they have been.
Modernization of the USPS is needed simply because fewer Americans have been mailing letters because of the internet. Bills can be paid online, friends and family can be contacted through e-mail, text messages, face book, etc. advertising is sent through the internet.
The last time the Senate turned down the idea of modernizing the post office the reason given by the head of the Senate was that grandmas' love to receive junk mail. That is what was said. Having an older grandma, that hates junk mail, I have doubts.
The real reason why the USPS is not reformed is due to it being a convenient place for political patronage. It's a good place to gain votes (union lobby efforts), and political donations. Modernizing Post Office services leads to bad press too - interviewed upset grandmas apparently.
Another example off the top of my head - decades ago new regulations where made for building codes. As a result, buildings have become less prone to catching fire. That's a good deal. I believe there are now around 70% fewer fires since the building regulations were enacted. In theory, with less fires there would be fewer fire departments. Of course that has not happened.
Another common example read yesterday was this idea to save a billion dollars in military expenditures. In theory the government should look into this food saving cost idea. It is in the nations best interest to do so. The money could be spent better elsewhere. Of course though, doing so would be common sense but not political sense.
"The Challenge of Making Commonsense Cuts to the Pentagon"
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2...e-of-making-commonsense-cuts-to-the-pentagon/
