Why the U.S. Pays More Than Other Countries for Drugs

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Site Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟242,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am confused. In one post, you claim you don't trust doctors, because they are trying to line their pockets. Then you state, you don't know how to determine if a doctor is practicing good medicine.

I am familiar with BCBS. If they thought a doctor was "ripping them off", they would drop them like a hot potato and may even seek medical fraud charges against them.

I am in something of a quandary. If I had sufficient medical knowledge to determine which doctors are incompetent, then I most likely would be making a lot more money working in a hospital.

Specifics may be hard to come by but we know the overall picture is the US hands out 17% of it's GNP to medicine or medicines, forcing factories out into other counties, way more money per person than any other country, and overall get lousy results to show for it.
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Site Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟242,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Are you from Canada?

No, I've spent many years in England.

I think they have the training level there about right, perhaps now a bit too high, good pay fixed the problem of getting enough good practitioners.

But inevitably the EU will lead to large numbers coming in from other countries for free treatment in the UK so has put the waiting lists back up to where they used to be when England allowed the same doctors to work for the NHS and privately, leading to a tendency for some to go slow on the NHS work to get money from the private patients, so the EU has broken what Britain had fixed. Can't blame the doctors, it is now exclusively the fault of the government.

Despite that it works a lot better than the profit-oriented system here.

I have other examples to base that on. A neighbor was told by her doctor that she was infertile and terminated her 'health insurance' (she wasn't the brightest of cookies so she might have been told 'probably infertile'. Soon afterward she got pregnant and then had a pre existing condition she couldn't insure. The doctor opted for a caesarian so she and her husband were then left with a bill they would need a number of years to pay off. I did think she wasn't handling it very well but they were uneducated and didn't seem to understand their situation.

A relative here went into the emergency room with a panic attack. Before he got the bill he had another and did the same. He had no medical insurance and the bill was 17,000 dollars.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dogs4thewin

dog lover
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2012
30,465
5,634
32
Georgia U.S. State
✟900,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
You mean that man gets to play God and decide who lives and dies?
I mean that there is only so much money, this applies whether you are a family, state or nation.

Why can you not donate every penny you have to charity well because you have to live.

Same thing when there are limited resources at some point the decision MUST be made WHO would benefit most from that resource.

Take transplants, there are only so many right? Moreover there are only so many people both willing and able to donate his or her organs.

If I am 44 years old, and I have a liver problem, and suppose I drink alcohol once every quarter well I would not consider that to really hurt the liver enough to knock someone out of a transplant; particularly if their drinking has NOTHING to do with the liver issue .

Now on the other hand suppose you have someone like me. I am 24, but have been on medication that may or may NOT mess up my liver for a 1/3 of my life or better and will be on those drugs until they put me in the ground.

Moreover, if I was granted a transplant I would have to take anti-rejection medication ALONG with my other for life.

If that 44 year old is otherwise healthy, has no additional issues, and is not likely to ruin the liver by his or her furture behavior; even if the person HAD a heavy drinking history and quit several years earlier) who would be more likely to benefit from the new liver? The person who will have to take medication she has been taking since she was a minor and the anti- rejection medication or the person who is otherwise healthy ( even if that person is nearly twice my age?) that would be them. As a result, I have decided that even IF they would put me on a list I will die before I will go on one because the fact is that I would STILL have to do what likely messed up my first one,

When you have fewer resources than you have people needing them you HAVE to make decisions and it is better for THOSE people to make decisions than it is for the government to which they would HAVE to.
 
Upvote 0

morse86

Junior Member
Aug 2, 2014
2,215
619
37
✟60,258.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Do we really need these drugs? I'm sure there are some ancient plant/remedies that can treat most of the world's health issues.

1 Samuel 5:6:
But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof.
 
Upvote 0

dogs4thewin

dog lover
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2012
30,465
5,634
32
Georgia U.S. State
✟900,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Do we really need these drugs? I'm sure there are some ancient plant/remedies that can treat most of the world's health issues.

1 Samuel 5:6:
But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof.
Yes, there may well be the problem is that the drug companties do not want us to find them, and moreover we would still need some sort of thing like FDA as not all things that are "natural" are safe to take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stamperben
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yes, there may well be the problem is that the drug companties do not want us to find them, and moreover we would still need some sort of thing like FDA as not all things that are "natural" are safe to take.

Trust me, if there were adequate natural remedies to replace certain man made drugs, there are plenty of natural remedy companies, that would be touting the same and the drug companies could not stop them.

The problem has been, when many natural remedies are tested for efficacy (do they do what is claimed) very often, it is shown they are of no benefit.
 
Upvote 0

dogs4thewin

dog lover
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2012
30,465
5,634
32
Georgia U.S. State
✟900,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Trust me, if there were adequate natural remedies to replace certain man made drugs, there are plenty of natural remedy companies, that would be touting the same and the drug companies could not stop them.

The problem has been, when many natural remedies are tested for efficacy (do they do what is claimed) very often, it is shown they are of no benefit.
The point still remains that in order to test then would HAVE to be some group like the the FDA to do so.
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,893
6,572
71
✟322,459.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I agree the ability to negotiate better pricing is a big piece of this.

With that said, I would frown on any attempt, to remove the benefits of drug companies being motivated to perform the expensive R&D, to produce new drugs, that could have a dramatic impact on controlling disease.

Lastly, in the United States, about 50% of doctor prescribed medicines, are either not filled by the patient, or they are not taken as prescribed if filled. This is a huge issue and has been for a while.

Well I have contributed to not taking prescribed medication.

Take 2 every 4 hours for pain AS NEEDED.

Did not need it, but I filled it because I once did need it back when I was 18 and made a very bad mistake, I let mom go and get it filled. The Pharmacy took forever to fill it. I can promise they would have filled if quickly if I went, well that or someone behind the counter would have been hospitalized.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well I have contributed to not taking prescribed medication.

Take 2 every 4 hours for pain AS NEEDED.

Did not need it, but I filled it because I once did need it back when I was 18 and made a very bad mistake, I let mom go and get it filled. The Pharmacy took forever to fill it. I can promise they would have filled if quickly if I went, well that or someone behind the counter would have been hospitalized.

As needed means exactly that, take it as needed.

For pain purposes, if you don't need it, don't take it and you are following the prescription.

What I was referring to, are medications that must be taken every day, to do what they are designed to do and that would usually be; to control high blood pressure, keep diabetes in check, keep abnormal brain chemistry in check, etc. etc.

Many people, don't take medications as prescribed and they don't get the benefits from the same.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums