The Insanity Of Medical Costs

[MarkF48]

I was curious what a common brand name insulin med would cost me through my CVS/Silverscript Medicare Part D plan. The breakdown of the costs are shown below. Without insurance pretty costly.

 

[Travelover]

I was curious what a common brand name insulin med would cost me through my CVS/Silverscript Medicare Part D plan. The breakdown of the costs are shown below. Without insurance pretty costly.

Cost has tripled in the last ten years - for no added benefit or reason. The skyrocketing cost of insulin over the past decade in one chart - Business Insider

 

[Steppenwolfe]

I mentioned earlier that it is crazy that Medicare is legally prevented from negotiating drug prices. Today a bill passed in the House to allow just that. I don't understand why there is not bi-partisan agreement on this, but there is not. House empowers Medicare to negotiate drug costs - Columbian.com

Bush 2 did that.

 

[Travelover]

Bush 2 did that.

Whatever. That was then and this is now. It seems like politicians talk a good talk, but when it comes to actually doing something to bring down the price of drugs to what other developed countries pay, it is all excuses and stonewalling. Don't be afraid to send an email or letter to YOUR Senator and ask for some help on this.

 

[Chris616]

Bush 2 did that.

Whatever. That was then and this is now. It seems like politicians talk a good talk, but when it comes to actually doing something to bring down the price of drugs to what other developed countries pay, it is all excuses and stonewalling. Don't be afraid to send an email or letter to YOUR Senator and ask for some help on this.

Isn't this to be expected when there are no limits on spending for US congressional and senate seat elections?

1. The candidate who spends the most more often than not wins the election, and;
2. Spending the most usually requires solicting the most contributions, and;
3. It is rich individuals and corporations who overwhelmingly fund political campaigns, so;
4. Incumbents are inclined to vote in favour of those who contributed to their campaigns, in order for that to continue into the next election cycle.

So, in order to be re-elected isn't it predictable that senators and congressmen will say the right things to get votes from the 99.5% who don't fund their campaigns, but vote on bills the way that those that do fund their campaigns want them to?

(I suppose that this belongs in the "Friendly Politics" forum, but I visited there for the first time today. Didn't find any discussions, just a bunch of guys throwing insults at each other)

Chris

Support documentation:
1. Did Money Win? • OpenSecrets
2. My opinion
3. Donor Demographics | OpenSecrets
4. My opinion

Media Bias/Fact Check report on that website:
Center for Responsive Politics (Open Secrets) - Media Bias/Fact Check

 

[Jstpssng]

^^^^
Is your assessment limited to the US, or are things also that way in Canada?

Your assessment of FP seems to be spot on based on what I saw before it was an invitation only forum. Nobody listens, they just talk... much like the way that our government is run.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

Whatever. That was then and this is now. It seems like politicians talk a good talk, but when it comes to actually doing something to bring down the price of drugs to what other developed countries pay, it is all excuses and stonewalling. Don't be afraid to send an email or letter to YOUR Senator and ask for some help on this.

Typical response. To solve a problem one needs to find what started the problem in the first place. In this case, Bush 2 wrote an open check to big pharma that you and I are expected to pay. Greed takes the day...

 

[Chris616]

^^^^
Is your assessment limited to the US, or are things also that way in Canada?

No, they are hugely different...

"Other countries, such as Canada, placed limits on both contributions and spending. In contrast to its American counterpart, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in such landmark cases as Libman v. Quebec (1997) and Harper v. Canada (2004) that restrictions could be implemented not only to prevent the undue influence of donors on officeholders decisions but also to counteract the capacity of affluent members of society to exercise a disproportionate influence on the election by dominating the debate. Whereas the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized individual liberty, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the government can also legitimately intervene to preserve the equality and fairness of the electoral process. In addition, many countries placed more-stringent restrictions on the financial participation of foreigners, both individual and corporate, in political campaigns."

From:
Campaign finance | politics | Britannica

 

[Jim Nelson]

Whatever. That was then and this is now. It seems like politicians talk a good talk, but when it comes to actually doing something to bring down the price of drugs to what other developed countries pay, it is all excuses and stonewalling. Don't be afraid to send an email or letter to YOUR Senator and ask for some help on this.

I don't think there is any such thing as "your" or my senator. They are all for sale and big pharma and the medical profession as a whole have a whole lot more money than you and I. Our political system needs to be overhauled before the drug and medical systems ever will be.

 

[Travelover]

Typical response. To solve a problem one needs to find what started the problem in the first place. In this case, Bush 2 wrote an open check to big pharma that you and I are expected to pay. Greed takes the day...

I don't disagree with you, but focusing on political individuals just invites defensive arguing as opposed to actual problem solving. The ultimate solution lies where Chris has identified - getting huge corporate donations out of politics so voters can be heard.