Reply With Quote
I never heard of a forign client sue a USA company. Part of the contract to get the goods at the claimed 1/3rd price I bet.
Example of a lawsuit please.
Compe ion pricing.
Only one on here is guaranteed by the Cons ution.
I never heard of a forign client sue a USA company. Part of the contract to get the goods at the claimed 1/3rd price I bet.
Example of a lawsuit please.
Compe ion pricing.
Here come the unicorns and mermaids again. I'm really not sure how those graphics pertain to the issue at hand in any way shape or form.
It doesn't cost less. You have not proved anything. These people are using products and resources. Someone has to fit that bill.
THEN PROVIDE DATA THAT SAYS OTHERWISE!
Jesus! It so ing simple. You remind me of those Fiber One commercials.
What are the liability differences? What are the coverage differences?
Do you really want nationalized benifits limited to what medicare provides?
Medicare cliants are all paid for, and the doctors don't have to deal with people's checks bouncing or insurance companies wiggling out. They know they get paid for what procedures, without question.
You did nothing of the sort.
You know it's absolutley amazing how well you can run a bussiness when you don't have to balance any books.But's it's not cheaper. It's just cheaper to the patient because Ours, our children, and our grandchildren's taxes are going to pay for it.
Yeah....what planet are you on again.
Do you have proof of that? I actually have evidence to the contrary:
Medial Malpractice Liability in Germany
LINK
But prices have only gone up... As a consumer, all I have is a middleman actually increasing my costs... I still don't understand how you justify that for-profit middlemen...
You're telling me you're two different posters?
What are the projected health cost savings for the GOP bill, micca? Surely they've had enough time to calculate them.
The one where posting graphics on the breakdown of the national debt do not prove something is cheaper or more expensive.
Is that the one where a bankrupt enity is providing great service.
Sure. Public health care is a huge unfunded liability going forward. We didn't save for the future, or offset our obligations with new taxes.
Still, the bill you get from Medicare is smaller, i.e., it is cheaper. That's primarily because it negotiates and standardizes prices systemwide, i.e., it rationalizes and reduces costs. It delivers the service more cheaply.
In a just world, we'd see drastic reductions in our welfare-warfare state combined with tax increases, to pay down our staggering debt and mitigate our structural trillion dollar deficits. But that's not gonna happen. The D's are pretend pacifists and the R's are pretend communitarians: the two will only make the state bigger and bigger.
Tell me, SnC: who was the last Republican president to preside over a shrinking state?
No. But the focus on cost is important. We can tweak the system of payment without socializing the delivery system. We can have price transparency and rationality like the rest of the free market. Are you against that?
Another ringing endorsement of Medicare's efficiency.
That says nothing about German citizens suing USA drug makers.
This was a drug trial test, not drugs in bulk bough for distribution in the medical system, at a reduced cost with a no-sue agreement.
Part of the reason health care is so expensive is that nobody goes unserved. Hospitols and doctors charge as much as they can get away with to cover their losses on the uninsured and unable to pay patients. In theory, the individual cost will decrease if you insure everyone. However, unless everone pays a decent co-pay, those not paying a co-pay will abuse the system and drive the overall costs up.
I will never be for full coverage as liberals want it. The only way I can conceiveable change my mind is to first try other things to bring costs down, starting with serious tort reform. When that is done, and if it doesn't work, then come back and I'll be ready to talk. Untill then, stay out of my wallet.
So every country with universal coverage (single or multi-payor) should have higher health care costs than the US, right?
How much will "serious" tort reform reduce health care costs?I will never be for full coverage as liberals want it. The only way I can conceiveable change my mind is to first try other things to bring costs down, starting with serious tort reform. When that is done, and if it doesn't work, then come back and I'll be ready to talk. Untill then, stay out of my wallet.
How much did the "serious" tort reform in Texas reduce health care costs?
Profit = incentive to develope the newest and best hot product.
All I see is people with nothing to back up what they're saying. How do people arrive at their beliefs if they can't substantiate them?
THere is a reason why they cannot get doctors to sign up.
I'm not sure I agree with your timeline, Manny. Arriving at one's beliefs first and only afterward substantiating/modifying them would seem to be the normal procedure to me. But many of our most prolific posters here seem to be allergic even to giving any support to their beliefs after the fact.
I'd put most of that down to laziness and self-love, in that order. However, to lazy and unsupported believers, the self-love that attaches to slightly more scholarly opinions must be galling. Surely the self-love of the learned is no more warranted than that of the ignorant or the shiftless.
It deserves to be said that adducing factual support for one's opinion no more assures it is correct, than failing to assures that it is incorrect.
That said, backing up your own bs is a courtesy to others, good practice for oneself, and can do wonders for one's credibility.
No, it explains that the liability is the same as the US system. Meaning, you can be sued by any german citizen as long as you conduct business in the country (like every other country in the world).
YOU are the one that claimed that all these drug companies have no-sue agreements in all these countries and failed to show ANY such agreement.
You keep saying no-sue agreement but you're not showing any...
I don't know that there is actually a no-sue agreement. Point is, the government is purchasing these drugs at a reduced price. Exactly what concessions are involved, I don't know, except there are no lawsuits over the same drugs we see US lawsuits over.
OK, it is an assumption. A well founded one. How else do you explain no lawsuits for tested and approved presription drugs?
I'm still waiting for proof I'm wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
