True about China-what has happened is that prices have eroded in the low end market, and jobs have been moved overseas to make OUR machine in China. Not such a happy ending. Governments on healthcare get the lowest prices. If we give a lower price to another customer (there are some limits such as order size) we have to rebate that price to the government, and that becomes the new government price. I cannot speak on buying anything but healthcare equipment, but after 35 years in the business, I can tell you governments get the lowest prices.

Didn't answer my question, oldschool, just called me a name. I guess you have no answer to my question, so just call me a warped communist. I take that as you agree with me, cant argue the other side.

Never said profits were evil. Reseach is based on profits, agreed. That being said, our drug delivery system, based on profit motive, has flaws. For one thing, a new drug is only tested against placebos-it has to be more effective than nothing in order to be approved. It does NOT have to be more effective than a cheaper, previously approved drug. It took a drug study from Canada to show that for hypertension, hydrochlorothiazide, a very old and very cheap drug, did the best job for hypertension. So the newer, expensive anti-hypertensive drugs were being prescriped in the US when a cheaper, safe alternative worked better. Health Canada did the research, and now we know. That would not have been done in the US, as the profit motive, the same motive that makes equipment more expensive in the US, would have us keep using the new expensive drugs instead of the old generic drugs.

They put out bids, but all the anesthesia machine companies charge the standard set US prices. We have recently seen some competition in the lower end, like surgerycenter equipment, because a company from China is making and selling medical equipment in the US.

Why would we charge more in the US? The profit motive. Our job is to get as much profit as possible. That is capitalism.

We are already paying for the uninsured to go to the ER, the costliest type of care, and since they cannot get chronic care, say for diabetes, they go to the ER when they need an amputation. ACA is trying to get healthcare, preventive healthcare (which has to be covered without a deductable under the ACA) that saves money in the long run. The congressional budget office (non-partisan) says ACA SAVES money, not costs money. In fact, the Ryan budget keeps the Obamacare savings in the budget, but says he is going to get rid of Obamcare.

Provider prices are often price shifting to make insured patients pay for care of the uninsured. With single payer, like Medicare, the government can bid for lower prices (except on drugs, because Bush junior gave them an unbid contract). Single payer systems are cheaper all around, because the high volume and bidding make things cheaper to purchase by a single payer, like Health Canada. I worked in marketing for an anesthesia machine company. The same anesthesia machine that we made and sold all over the world cost 70K in the US and 14K Euros in Spain, because the government bid the prices of anesthesia machines. Single payer is much more efficient. The machines were ALWAYS much cheaper in single payer countries, and belive me, we were always trying to get the most for the machines, but they were ALWAYS most expensive (and by a lot) in the USA.

We pay more for medical equipment in the US, and then there is a hospital markup, as you described, and then the formerly 33% profit (average prior to ACA) and now the 20% profit from the insurance companies. All of which makes the US one the most expensive healthcare systems in the world, along with poorer health outcomes than countries who spend much less.

BMAC, the minimum standards for insurance are part of the idea of insurance-spreading risk around-we are all in this together. Sure 25year olds don't need angioplasties, and 60 year old don't have babies, but over a lifetime it evens out. You pay premiums and the care you need for your age group is there when you need it. Where did you get the idea it was free?-people have to BUY insurance from the insurance companies. There is government assistance for the people who earn very little, just like right now the people who work for Walmart get food stamps because they earn so little. NOT FREE
Also where did you get the idea MDs are leaving the profession-it is still tough as hell to get into medical school so I think the profession still has appeal. Medicare has been working great for 60 years of single payer. Most of the baggers who post here are on it.

Food is not a fair comparison with healthcare-food is more affordable, people know more about food, buying it everyday. If it is bad, people won't buy it again. It is easy to compare prices and quality of food. Healthcare is delivered in a moment of crisis, typically, there is no easy way to compare prices and quality. Also, it is purchased by people who are not knowledgable about say the relative merits of an angioplasty vs medical treatment, and although it is not purchased everyday, sooner or later everyone needs it.

I see healthcare more like fire protection, police protection, armies and navies, social security, stuff that is better purchased by nations than by individuals. Just like medicare. When your house is burning down, you are not looking for the lowest bidder. (actually a reverse form of that was done in ancient rome, when speculators would rush to buy buring houses at rock bottom prices before they put out the fire, save the building and sell it at a profit)

Not at all against the profit motive, and perhaps comparing food to medical care is a perfect example of fuzzy thinking. My amazement is with the fuzzy thinking that the unbridled profit motive is a better protector of patient rights than the goverment mandating limits to insurance companies under the ACA.

You did not answer my question-why are we better off with drive by mastectomies and no limit to insurance companies profit? How is it that mandating insurance companies spend 80% of there premiums on healthcare a BAD thing?

I think that some people have an ideological idea-profit is always good, private enterprise is always better than government, that does not allow them to look at facts and change their opinions.

Bill, I hope Palin does run...we would both be happy. Seriously, Sarah thought Africa was a country instead of a continent. She is not smarter than a 5th grader. You seriously think she could hold her own against an Ivy league lawyer and secretary of state?

HEY EINSTEIN-the problem is the employers pay so little (by busting unions, by using political patronage to keep minimum wage down) the employees qualify for food stamps. The employees are not the problem, the government is not the problem, the employers ARE the problem. So...if someone only earns 8 bucks an hour you are blaming the GOVERNMENT for augmenting that income to make sure those people are fed. You are heartless as well as brainless.

Can't speak Danish. My hope to vote out all the baggers and make the US more like Denmark. Did you see anything you DID NOT like in that article? Those were all positive things we could be doing in the US if it were not for Koch brothers and the team doing their evil bidding.

Me too!!!! Hillary would wipe the floor with Palin's ignorant butt.

Well, you have to admire someone like Soros, who campaigns for higher taxes for himself for the good of the country. The Koch brothers trying to control goverment for their OWN benefit at the expense of others is not admirable, just selfish.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I think in a free and humane society, the profit motive should not have a role in the delivery of healthcare. The profit motive will always be on the side of less care, more profit. I really do not understand why ANYONE would think the profit motive is a BETTER champion of patient's rights, and why the same people who "want government out of healthcare" are happy to take medicare, happy to force unneeded vaginal ultrasounds on people. If the profit motive was the best champion of patient care, why did the government have to mandate no drive by mastectomies, requiring insurance companies to allow an overnight stay after a breast amputation or to mandate minimum stays after a delivery of a child? Insurance companies had to be FORCED by the government to provide a minium level of patient care, and THAT'S what you are complaining about??? Obamacare still uses insurance companies, but mandates minimum levels of care, maximum profit (80% of premiums must be used on patient care) and mandates giving insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, and does away with lifetime caps. This is a GOOD THING. The website is a mess, because so many people want to sign up. Websites get improved. This is good for the country.

These old farts already have single payer-Medicare. They just don't want anyone else to have any.