Democratic control and the implications for healthcare?

Question

ok so I know generally speaking people say that democratic control (like we now have) is bad for certain stakeholders within healthcare. Can someone explain to me who loses, who wins and why? Aka...bad for pharma companies....

Answer 1

It is difficult to gage what the Dems will do. They ran the show in Congress for 30 years prior to 1994. When Republicans have attempted to address problems with National Heathcare, the Dems have filibustered the bills. I don't believe enough people are aware that the United States and the States combined Healthcare budgets are a larger amount per capita than many fully socialized Countries. Many Pharma companies are concerned about the United States seizing control of their pricing authority because several Nations use our pricing in their equation. Canada pays the average price between the U.S. (highest) and Italy (lowest). I believe there is a place for the Government to negotiate pricing for those on Public assistance, but I think the real culprits are countries who leverage their prices against us, thus shifting the burden on this country. (i.e. I need to make 2 cents on a cup of lemonade, Giovanni will only pay 1 cent, so I have to charge Joe 3 cents) If the U.S. approaches the problem by trying to limit the return on investment to Pharma Co.s, then their stockholders will flee with their money and leave little for investment. This was the problem during the "Dot Com" boom, where the failure was that the President appointed FEC Chairman didn't investigate these hollow companies, and allowed them to lure away and squander investment dollars. Many of the scandals we now know of were attempts to keep the investors happy, but it was impossible for real companies to compete with fake ones. Pharma stocks plummeted, and with a new President's FEC Chairman, many are now going to jail. If we wrongly target Pharma as the problem, they will be forced to do "creative bookkeeping" just to keep investors interested, just like the real companies all did in the "Dot Com" thing.

Answer 2

The democrats better understand that with the costs of medical insurance premiums rising faster than inflation and no restrictions on insurance premiums, more and more companies are making tough decisions on offering healthcare benefits.

So, the losers on universal healthcare depend on whether the lobbyists win or the people win.
If lobbyists win, the pharmaceutical and insurance companies will benefit and the solution will have limited benefit for Americans.

If the lobbyists don't win, there is now a better chance of having healthcare insurance available. But if it's anything like when the laws changed so that Medicare now offers part d (prescription drug benefits), the lobbyists will most likely win.

Answer 3

The Democrats have been pushing for a long time, a standardized Healthcare system that excludes nobody.

It is conceivable that within a decade, something similar to the U.K. system will be adopted by the U.S., thanks to the efforts of important Democratic leaders like the Clintons.

If what results requires more taxes on gasoline to offset the enormous costs of healthcare, well that may very well be a plan in the making.

Big pharmaceutical companies have been significant contributors to the Republican Party, and now with the tide turning, the pressure will be on them to cut prices of their products and make them more affordable.

Answer 4

this should probably be in the finance section... here in the politics section you will mostly hear a bunch of stuff about the "issues" and not much about the actual earnings situation...

but, from what I can tell, Dems may make a move to give those who are under 18 and in low income situations health care...

I don't think that would have a huge effect on overall health care stocks though... may even be good, since the government will be most likely buying medication that the children may not have been buying before... granted it won't be at the highest price, but still may be buying more...

universal health care would be bad for you, but that won't happen with Bush in the white house... so you have at least 2 years before that would even start to become a worry...

Answer 5

The Democrats have long wanted our Government to negotiate for lower rx drug prices. Now we will.

The Democrats have long worked to try to see that all Americans had Health Insurance, now perhaps we have hope.

The Dems have long supported and tried to educate the public about the reality of Stem Cell Research, about it's potential. Now many gravely ill people have renewed hope for cures.

Bad for US Pharma companies because now they will have to actually Compete in the World Economy. Lobbies all over DC are in mourning.

Perhaps the stranglehold Business has had on our Government will now ease and allow All Americans to feel a little more cared about...........not just the top 10%.

Answer 6

Scares the hell out of me. I work in the pharm. business, sounds like job loss