For example a generic drug prescription could be at a $5 co-pay but a brand name drug prescription would be costly enough to make the patient think again about demanding that drug — perhaps 50% co-insurance.
True, but we also have to be aware that if the threshold is too high, we lose innovation. How about generic being covered at median + 1 std deviation of all generics (to avoid crappy generics), brand name would only have the cost amounting to median+1std deviation of the generic being covered. Any amount above that would not be covered in the name brand. Too many drug companies ‘invent’ a new and improved product once their original goes off patent (they also call this innovation). There is really no significant difference between the earlier drug that went off patent and the new ‘improved’ drug.
I think that it’s better to go into debt for universal health care than it is for war and bank bailouts.
Hate to inform you, but the government is profiting from the bank bailouts. Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae is paying the government about $1B per quarter, $4Billion a year EACH just on interest payments under TARP. BofA is paying $405Million per quarter, $1.6Billion/year on interest payments to the government on their TARP money.. and the principal still needs to be repaid or the stock warrants become effective and the government owns a large block of stock… which they can sell for a gain because the strike price on the warrant will be lower than the stock price (the warrants have a decreasing strike price on them).
