Drug prices

[Scot Dutchy]

Here you cant get OTC drugs on prescription. There is a list drawn up every year for which drugs you have to pay for.

[Forty Two]

Oh Britain, you rainbow pissing, gumdrop shitting bastids. I long to run beneath your blueberry skies.

I have to say that our system seems to be under a lot of pressure these days and creaking a bit.

That's because the old and decrepit would rather see their GP to get a free prescription for paracetamol rather than paying 18 pence over the counter for it.

You mean...when something is offered for free, people would rather take the free stuff than pay for it? That... why, that... that's remarkable.

These are the people clogging up the system..

This is exactly what anti-single-payer folks in the US are saying. When you make it absolutely, or nearly, free to go to the doctor, people just go. One fights through a cold if you have to pay $75 to get checked out. If it's free, though, and if the medicine will be free, then why wouldn't demand increase? Of course, it will. Who in the world would think it wouldn't? So, the system is clogged with exactly the people who the system was set up to provide free services to.... why should they be scorned for using it? What's the solution? Limit their health services? Start charging them? How much should they be charged? Why not just have a vibrant, competitive market, if you're going to charge people....?

[pErvinalia]

Just don't write prescriptions for over the counter stuff.

[JimC]

Yes, you'd think there was a pretty simple solution to this particular issue for the NHS...

But I bet the doctors get some sort of additional fee for writing 'em...

[Strontium Dog]

Yes, you'd think there was a pretty simple solution to this particular issue for the NHS...

But I bet the doctors get some sort of additional fee for writing 'em...

I think they do, but I'm not familiar with the GP contract terms. I know that pharmacists definitly do for fulfilling them (my dad is a pharmacist, and my grandfather was a GP).

I am sure there is a simple solution that could eliminate the millions of hours and pounds wasted prescribing cheap OTC drugs, the NHS is supposed to be run by smart people.

[Tero]

This is exactly what anti-single-payer folks in the US are saying. When you make it absolutely, or nearly, free to go to the doctor, people just go. One fights through a cold if you have to pay $75 to get checked out. If it's free, though, and if the medicine will be free, then why wouldn't demand increase? Of course, it will. Who in the world would think it wouldn't? So, the system is clogged with exactly the people who the system was set up to provide free services to.... why should they be scorned for using it? What's the solution? Limit their health services? Start charging them? How much should they be charged? Why not just have a vibrant, competitive market, if you're going to charge people....?

" $75 to get checked out."

No, 180 dollars. My doctor. Every appointment.

[Scot Dutchy]

Yes, you'd think there was a pretty simple solution to this particular issue for the NHS...

But I bet the doctors get some sort of additional fee for writing 'em...

I think they do, but I'm not familiar with the GP contract terms. I know that pharmacists definitly do for fulfilling them (my dad is a pharmacist, and my grandfather was a GP).

I am sure there is a simple solution that could eliminate the millions of hours and pounds wasted prescribing cheap OTC drugs, the NHS is supposed to be run by smart people.

Just draw up a list like we do. Then doctors know where they are. All our GP's appointment are paid for by the insurance. You do have to speak to the assistant first though and if it is for prescription only or some minor ailment, she will tell you to speak to the doctor during his consulting hour on the telephone. Any repeat prescriptions has to be made on the prescription line which is open 24/7. The prescription will be sent to your pharmacist the next day and you can pick it up or have it delivered (at no cost).

A new on-line appointment system has started but the assistant does vet them and you will be informed by email if it is accepted.

[Forty Two]

This is exactly what anti-single-payer folks in the US are saying. When you make it absolutely, or nearly, free to go to the doctor, people just go. One fights through a cold if you have to pay $75 to get checked out. If it's free, though, and if the medicine will be free, then why wouldn't demand increase? Of course, it will. Who in the world would think it wouldn't? So, the system is clogged with exactly the people who the system was set up to provide free services to.... why should they be scorned for using it? What's the solution? Limit their health services? Start charging them? How much should they be charged? Why not just have a vibrant, competitive market, if you're going to charge people....?

" $75 to get checked out."

No, 180 dollars. My doctor. Every appointment.

LOL, what a rip-off. Aren't you glad Obamacare made healthcare more affordable, through the Affordable Healthcare Act....

I've never had to pay anything close to $180 for an appointment, though. But, then again, I have health insurance coverage which I pay through the nose for already, so the per visit co-pay is not $180 for an office visit with my doctor.

However, I have like a $7,000 deductible, thanks to Obamacare, so I have to pay my $1200 per month premium, and then exhaust the $7k deductible before I can have most medical expenses covered. That's how Obama's Affordable Care Act made it more affordable for me. He was so nice. Maybe the ACA is a law which "identifies as" a law making things more affordable.

My wife and daughters get a bunch of stuff exempted from deductibles, though, which is nice, but for sick visits for the kids, there is still a hefty chunk to pay (about $75 per sick visit during the day, more if it's after hours, and if it's an emergency room visit, they basically rape you in the ass, no lube, and no kiss on the cheek).

But, the point still stands as noted above - if you want to make a health insurance system where everybody can just go to the doctor and nobody pays out of pocket when they go, then you are, naturally, going to have a massive spike in demand. Now people are complaining that people are visiting doctors and getting prescriptions filled on the public dime? Isn't that what the system was set up to do in the NHS? Take care of everyone's health care needs, right?

I guess the next step will be to ration care, or to add copays and deductibles so that people have an incentive not to come in for minor things. then the amount of care available drops...people who need certain care won't get it, and then the copays and deductibles will go up and up until eventually people are looking at the system going "what the fuck, man - we could be paying these kinds of costs if we just had a private system. Why do we have this government run behemoth on our backs?"

[pErvinalia]

This is exactly what anti-single-payer folks in the US are saying. When you make it absolutely, or nearly, free to go to the doctor, people just go. One fights through a cold if you have to pay $75 to get checked out. If it's free, though, and if the medicine will be free, then why wouldn't demand increase? Of course, it will. Who in the world would think it wouldn't? So, the system is clogged with exactly the people who the system was set up to provide free services to.... why should they be scorned for using it? What's the solution? Limit their health services? Start charging them? How much should they be charged? Why not just have a vibrant, competitive market, if you're going to charge people....?

" $75 to get checked out."

No, 180 dollars. My doctor. Every appointment.

LOL, what a rip-off. Aren't you glad Obamacare made healthcare more affordable, through the Affordable Healthcare Act....

It made it more affordable for those that couldn't afford it.

[Forty Two]

It did? How so? LOL.

Recall that the uninsured, previously, were mostly making median income or higher, and that income level does not get any subsidies at all. Another 1/4 of the uninsured were illegal aliens, who are not eligible for subsidies now either. And, another 1/4 of the uninsured were already entitled to coverage under a government provided health plan like Medicaid or SCHIP before.

So, very few people who "couldn't afford" insurance then are paying less for insurance now than was the case in 2009. For the most part, most of the 2009 uninsured are ineligible for subsidies and therefore are paying double or triple what they would have paid then - because that's what happened to the private market. Obamacare had little effect on anyone's premiums covered under group health care plans through employers and such, because that cost is mostly borne by the employers.

The proObamacare folks cannot get around the fact that most of the unininsured when the law was passed were at an income level at which subsidies are wholly unavailable. Moreover, of the small percentage who made less than median income, they only get a partial subsidy, and given the fact that premiums tripled, the insurance cost per month to those people for the most part increased, even with the partial subsidy they got.

It's something proObamacare folks refuse to admit, but it's absolutely accurate. It did not reduce costs for people who "couldn't afford" insurance before. It raised premiums drastically, and very few people who were uninsured before were actually covered by plans receiving subsidies and which are now paying LESS than they were before.

It's a massive clusterfuck and a monumental waste of money, and it helped very few people, as far as premiums, copays, deductibles, etc. are concerned.

[pErvinalia]

It did? How so? LOL.

By literally making it more affordable in the lower income ranges. LOL.

[Tero]

Not true at all. Most of future Obamacare users 2020-2030 will be early retirees 62-65 years of age. Hillary was going to give them Medicare. That then would have left young peiple who are neither full time college or full time working as users.

[Forty Two]

It did? How so? LOL.

By literally making it more affordable in the lower income ranges. LOL.

But, it literally didn't. Medicaid existed before, and Medicaid expanded, so the low income people are still covered mostly by medicaid.

Lower income ranges, but above Medicaid, generally are covered through employer group plans, and Obamacare did nothing to make that more affordable. Regarding those making between, say $25k and $35k, if they are purchasing on the private market - which is a very very few of them, the average premium doubled or tripled under Obamacare, and the subsidies are a sliding scale down, so most people don't get a 100% subsidy - hardly anyone does. They get a percentage down, and the result is that they net higher than they were paying before.

Above about $35k for an individual, subsidy goes down to negligible and zero. The vast majority of people who were uninsured before Obamacare made too much money to be entitled to any subsidies. So, they just pay three times more than what they could by the stuff for before Obamacare, if they buy insurance, which they haven't because that's why even after Obamacare there are still 35,000,000 uninsured (conservatively). LOL.

[Tero]

Then we must ban employee subsidized healthcare. Put everybody on Berniecare.

[Forty Two]

Then we must ban employee subsidized healthcare. Put everybody on Berniecare.

"If we expanded Medicaid [to] everybody. Give everybody a Medicaid card—we would be spending such an astronomical sum of money that, you know, we would bankrupt the nation." - Bernie Sanders. Now, of course, he wants to expand Medicare (far more generous and costly than Medicaid) to everyone. LOL.

Put everyone on Medicare, also, doesn't guarantee your doctor will accept the insurance. Medicare is not obligatory. Doctors are free not to accept Medicare.

EDIT: Regarding banning things. If there is one thing we should ban, it's bicycle helmets. There is nothing more gay than a bicycle helmet...with the sole possible exception of bicycle pants.