Would you support price controls on medication, surgeries, hospital income…

[Kingpoleon]

Would you support price controls on medication, surgeries, income of hospital nurses/doctors/staff/etc., and other things, in order to bring down the price of health insurance?

[nicholas.slaydon]

Enthusiastically.

[Sumner 1868]

I'd do single-payer instead.

[JA]

I'd do single-payer instead.

^^ This

And after that's achieved, when people see the unnecessary expensiveness of pharmaceuticals and how that's driving up cost for the ill and the government's public healthcare program, then nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry will follow. Single-payer and nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry will truly expand coverage, access, and affordability for all Americans by eliminating the costly and burdensome profit-motive from health care.

[parochial boy]

I'd do single-payer instead.

^^ This

And after that's achieved, when people see the unnecessary expensiveness of pharmaceuticals and how that's driving up cost for the ill and the government's public healthcare program, then nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry will follow. Single-payer and nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry will truly expand coverage, access, and affordability for all Americans by eliminating the costly and burdensome profit-motive from health care.

Nationalising the pharma industry would be complicated by the fact that most big Pharma companies are multinational, and conduct their R&D and operations across borders - if you tried to nationalise only the US entities you would disrupt their operating ability massively; and if you tried to nationalise, say GSK or Roche, which are UK and Swiss based companies. Well... I don't think their is a way you legally could...

Sigh, yet another way in which nationalism is a curse on humanity.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I'd do single-payer instead.

^^ This

And after that's achieved, when people see the unnecessary expensiveness of pharmaceuticals and how that's driving up cost for the ill and the government's public healthcare program, then nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry will follow. Single-payer and nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry will truly expand coverage, access, and affordability for all Americans by eliminating the costly and burdensome profit-motive from health care.

Nationalising the pharma industry would be complicated by the fact that most big Pharma companies are multinational, and conduct their R&D and operations across borders - if you tried to nationalise only the US entities you would disrupt their operating ability massively; and if you tried to nationalise, say GSK or Roche, which are UK and Swiss based companies. Well... I don't think their is a way you legally could...

Sigh, yet another way in which nationalism is a curse on humanity.

That sounds like more of a curse of internationalism.

[parochial boy]

I'd do single-payer instead.

^^ This

And after that's achieved, when people see the unnecessary expensiveness of pharmaceuticals and how that's driving up cost for the ill and the government's public healthcare program, then nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry will follow. Single-payer and nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry will truly expand coverage, access, and affordability for all Americans by eliminating the costly and burdensome profit-motive from health care.

Nationalising the pharma industry would be complicated by the fact that most big Pharma companies are multinational, and conduct their R&D and operations across borders - if you tried to nationalise only the US entities you would disrupt their operating ability massively; and if you tried to nationalise, say GSK or Roche, which are UK and Swiss based companies. Well... I don't think their is a way you legally could...

Sigh, yet another way in which nationalism is a curse on humanity.

That sounds like more of a curse of internationalism.

I think R&D in pharma is alot more succesful as a result of being global. The issue with "nationalism" is it stops governments from co-operating in a way that mitigates the most nefarious aspects of privatised pharma.

If we were willing to accept the idea that national sovereignty isn't the utmost priority, then we would be able to set worldwide rules to prevent the worst abuses.

In any case, I'm not sure nationalisation is the best route - pharma is the kind of industry that I think should be mutualised; and owned by its employees and its customers, the people who have the most direct interest in its success.

[vanguard96]

No. It's worked so well for rent control (sarc).

And it will mean that
1) care levels would probably decline as they look to cut costs
2) fraud will increase even with expanded rules and regulations
3) supply will decrease as fewer people enter the medical field
4) wait times will increase
5) only the big players will thrive - the small guys will be weeded out of the market due to compliance and regulatory burden

We need accurate signals of prices - with the current system with insurance people did not know the true price and providers could just charge an arbitrary price and people would seek coverage without taking cost into the equation even for elective surgeries, and so on. There is so little incentive for pricing to the actual market like medicine in the 1960's or say alternative medicine like chiropractic or elective surgery like LASIK, knee replacement, and cosmetic surgery.

[MasterJedi]

Yes, it's a needed service, not something like a flat screen TV, plus it really doesn't cost anywhere near what they charge for healthcare, most of that cost is profit.

[Kingpoleon]

No. It's worked so well for rent control (sarc).

And it will mean that
1) care levels would probably decline as they look to cut costs
2) fraud will increase even with expanded rules and regulations
3) supply will decrease as fewer people enter the medical field
4) wait times will increase
5) only the big players will thrive - the small guys will be weeded out of the market due to compliance and regulatory burden

We need accurate signals of prices - with the current system with insurance people did not know the true price and providers could just charge an arbitrary price and people would seek coverage without taking cost into the equation even for elective surgeries, and so on. There is so little incentive for pricing to the actual market like medicine in the 1960's or say alternative medicine like chiropractic or elective surgery like LASIK, knee replacement, and cosmetic surgery.

So what I'm hearing is that you would be more willing to support it if smaller, private hospitals were exempt or had their controls lessened?