9 in 10 seems low to me.
Note that here in Canada the Governments of Alberta and of Ontario are considered “On the right”.
Even at that both Governments act to try to limit the spread of COVID even if it affects their economies. They are doing this because the Provinces foot most of the bill for health care costs. In order to “Balance their budgets” they have to ensure these costs kept under control.
In spite of their bluster as to the nature of deficits and the need to address them in the United States of America , the Government of the United States of America is not all that concerned about deficits as made evident by their Military spending and as made evident by their various COVID relief packages which are much higher as a percentage of GDP then most other Countries.
The Government of the United States of America, Democrat and Republicans both are far more concerned about ensuring Corporations profits are minimally impacted and that more and more wealth flows to the 1 percent.
They are not a Democracy. They are a Lootacracy and the US citizen should be alarmed. The Government will NOT act to limit Corporate profits.
Well GOOD GRIEF, of course they will! It is what corporations DO to us every effing time! And if you are seriously whining about that possibility maybe re-think your hatred of progressives and what THAT means to exactly this !!! THIS !!! who the hell are you voting for? OlJoe ? then sit down and STFU,
It’s not fear. It’s acknowledgment of empirical data based on past experience.
Pharma are scum that must been crushed and brought to heel
Let me think this through. The government says, “We’re simply not honest. So, because we know that we’re not going to be honest with the money, we’re giving vast amounts of R&D money to our close friends so they can make some big profits. Then if they’re not honest with the money we can blame them and hand all the loot to somebody else.”
Interesting logic. I’m going to suggest that the government itself has to invent some more honest ways of distributing the R&D money, rather than shoveling it over for Big Pharma’s profits.
Could R&D be more democratized? Could various stakeholders have seats at the table? Are the consumers stakeholders in all this?
We’re seeing the following crazy things happening:
- Somebody bought an improved injection pen and jacked the price up to the sky just to make money. Wouldn’t it be nice if that were impossible?
- Perdue Pharma got to become a drug kingpin. Isn’t there some law about that?
- Certain specific seniors need a weak sister type of vaccine with less adjuvant dumped into it. So do babies if they absolutely have to get vaccinated that early. The vaccine wouldn’t be quite as 100% effective but it would still somewhat reduce the chance of getting the disease and/or make the disease more survivable, and it would be far less likely to itself kill or disable the person getting the vaccine. Wouldn’t that make sense in certain cases, to not kill the victim?
- Vaporized mercury in mercury-silver dental fillings kills dentists and dental assistants or leaves them in the memory care ward to die. Cheap jokes aside, we don’t want dead dentists. That mercury is certainly not good for the patients either. We need a certain amount of freedom of speech on all medical issues, not to push cult behavior in the general public but as a check and balance on bizzare and rather draconianly enforced belief systems now circulating within the medical community.
- Part of this limited freedom to discuss medical issues should be a removal of the words, “This supplement is not intended to treat any disease” from bottles in the supplements aisle at Whole Foods. Of course they’re intended to treat some disease or condition, that’s why they’re being sold and everybody knows that.
Medicare competing with commercial products is intended to make it impossible to maintain as a subsidized entity under GATS. See the excerpt from the Patricia J. Arnold /Terrie C. Reeves paper on healthcare I posted earlier.
So, basically Massachusetts care and Obamacare’s purpose was in no small part to get rid of the public hospitals and free clinics thats still exosted to build the basis of legal case that could be brought by a friendly country like India (friendly in a conspiratorial way, like they did with their demonetization) to help us get rid of Medicare. Right now they are likely helping us lower wages, too with their WTO dispute case.
“With friends like these who needs enemies”.
The question of whether the GATS threatens
public services, such as public hospitals or public
health insurance programs, is one of the most
controversial and contested issues surrounding the
GATS. Although GATS Article I(3)b) exempts
public services from the Agreement’s rules, the
exemption does not apply in cases where public
service providers compete with private service
providers on a commercial basis. The viability of
public health services or public health insurance,
thus, depends on the degree of competition within
the sector. As long as public hospitals and VA
hospitals provide free care to uninsured, indigent
patients, and do not compete on a commercial
basis with private sector hospitals, they appear to
be exempt from GATS. If they become commer-
cially viable providers of choice, develop profitable
lines of business to supplement operations, or
expand in ways that draw market share away from
the private sector, the GATS exemption is jeop-
ardized. Similarly, the federal Medicare program
appears to be exempt from the GATS rules at the
present time. However, proposed Medicare
reforms 18 that would allow private health insurers
to compete against the government program could
disqualify the Medicare program from the GATS
exemption (Belsky et al., 2004). To the extent that
public health insurance programs compete on a
commercial basis with private providers (now or in
the future), public health insurance plans are vul-
nerable to challenge as a violation of the GATS’
national treatment rule. 19"
Covered Calif just raised my monthly payment by 30%----this has zero covrage for doctor visits and zero covrage for prescriptions----6000 dedutable----I am locked into this plan—and I thought the rate was locked for a year----I made no changes
And none of these people can answer questions because they are workng at home.
It seems to me that the only sane answer is to nationalize the entire phamacutical industry. Force all investors to sell their shares to the government, fire all of upper management and marketing, and sell all drugs at cost of production and distribution plus 25%. Enough of the profiteering!
That, would be a very progressive move.