We Must have Health Care Reform to reduce the Financial Burden

[lupi]

....or so I've been told.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...6/AR2009071602242.html

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2...ficantly-reduce-costs/

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/1..._care_reform/index.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31.../politics-cq_politics/

I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year."-BHO



So I must say I am surprised to learn that not only is it not reducing our individual cost as we will now pay taxes on it, it will still increase the cost on the government/economy. How can something "free" cost so much? Obviously the CBO must be wrong and pushing some agenda here. The prescription drug plan has gone smooth sailing reducing how much we pay, we must believe this will too.

 

[Engineer]

Why link 4 articles all pointing basically to the same story (CBO)?

Wouldn't one suffice?

I get a bad feeling from all of this. I guess I'll wait and see what happens.

 

[theeedude]

Do we really need another thread on this? It's been explained countless times that we already pay to treat people, except that we do it at the most expensive place, ER, at the most expensive and least beneficial time, too late.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: lupi
The prescription drug plan has gone smooth sailing reducing how much we pay, we must believe this will too.

The prescription drug plan was a scheme by Republicans to give taxpayer money to their biggest donor industry. The Democrats need to fix what they did.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: lupi
The prescription drug plan has gone smooth sailing reducing how much we pay, we must believe this will too.

The prescription drug plan was a scheme by Republicans to give taxpayer money to their biggest donor industry. The Democrats need to fix what they did.

Like the mortgage plan is to give taxpayer money to the banking industry? And the GM garbage is meant to give taxpayer money to big Dem supporters, aka unions?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: lupi
The prescription drug plan has gone smooth sailing reducing how much we pay, we must believe this will too.

The prescription drug plan was a scheme by Republicans to give taxpayer money to their biggest donor industry. The Democrats need to fix what they did.

Like the mortgage plan is to give taxpayer money to the banking industry? And the GM garbage is meant to give taxpayer money to big Dem supporters, aka unions?

No, not like that.

The key corruption in the drug bill was the addition of a sentence saying the government is prohibited from negotiating the prices it pays for the drugs - it has to payl full price.

The government has enormous leverage to get discounts, as the VA does for its drugs.

This clause did nothing but add $150 billion in extra profits - in addition to the profits the companies would make at negotiated prices.

The mere fact that a policy or bill benefits a group allied with the politicians doesn't prove corruption. Groups are often the beneficiaries of legitimate good policies.

It takes more to prove corruption, and adding that prohibition on price negotiation that has no legitimate purpose at all, but only serves to steal taxpayer dollars for big pharma donors to the GOP, is the sort of clear corruption I'm talking about (the fact that the Republican Congressman who led the bill's passage resigned from Congress weeks later to join the industry gives a clue where his loyalties were, not to mention the outrageous all-night arm-twisting the leadership did to get it passed.)

Oh, and don't forget the threatening of the government official who had calculated the real cost of the bill, that he'd be gone if he told Congress the truth.

You don't seem to get the idea of corruption. No surprise, since your leaders don't care to inform you much.. Building a weapon system we 'legitimately need', using the solid competitive bidding practices, profits companies and workers that might be allied with the political leadership. That doesn't make it corrupt. Building an *unnecessary* system, or picking a worse system over a better, or evading competitive bidding to pay more to an ally over a cheaper competitor, those are more corrupt.

Your examples such as the banking industry are a lot more complex - they're hardly a clear traditional Democratic ally, there was a real need to take some action as economists said, a lot of the assistance was in the form of loans, and so on - but I'm not saying the banking bailout wasn't pretty corrupt as well. It's just a lot harder to sort out than the drug situation. I have some suspicions about both parties and the banking bailout being corruptly implemented - read the Rolling Stone article on Goldman-Sachs.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Why link 4 articles all pointing basically to the same story (CBO)?

Wouldn't one suffice?

you must not have read many threads around here lately, the new thing is to attack the story because of which news site you posted from, so I took a wide collection lest so many post be wasted on the source of the story rather than dealing with the article.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need another thread on this? It's been explained countless times that we already pay to treat people, except that we do it at the most expensive place, ER, at the most expensive and least beneficial time, too late.

Totally agree...

Where is the sticky for health care only thread? Tho, it's not getting out of hand so maybe we don't need one yet since, the majority of us somewhat agree it's a good thing and that it needs to be done sooner not later.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need another thread on this? It's been explained countless times that we already pay to treat people, except that we do it at the most expensive place, ER, at the most expensive and least beneficial time, too late.

"

the health reform measures being drafted by congressional Democrats would increase rather than reduce public spending on health care

"

It it's the most expensive place now, I'd hate to know where they will be getting care in the future.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need another thread on this? It's been explained countless times that we already pay to treat people, except that we do it at the most expensive place, ER, at the most expensive and least beneficial time, too late.

Totally agree...

Where is the sticky for health care only thread? Tho, it's not getting out of hand so maybe we don't need one yet since, the majority of us somewhat agree it's a good thing and that it needs to be done sooner not later.

Arent you the guy said that eating fruits and vegetables is the same as eating Mcdonalds?


I highly doubt your finger is on the pulse of what the majority wants.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
No, not like that.

It never is with you. Your side is always the hero. The other side is always the villain.

You can't see the similarity because you're a partisan hack.

Next.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need another thread on this? It's been explained countless times that we already pay to treat people, except that we do it at the most expensive place, ER, at the most expensive and least beneficial time, too late.

Totally agree...

Where is the sticky for health care only thread? Tho, it's not getting out of hand so maybe we don't need one yet since, the majority of us somewhat agree it's a good thing and that it needs to be done sooner not later.

I personally will stop following the story. I believe that every news story has the right to 1 thread. This way each story can be debated on its own within the larger issue.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: lupi
The prescription drug plan has gone smooth sailing reducing how much we pay, we must believe this will too.

The prescription drug plan was a scheme by Republicans to give taxpayer money to their biggest donor industry. The Democrats need to fix what they did.

And coincedently enough, on the way home from work I heard a radio ad from some drug manufactury industry advocate thanking Representative Gene Green (D).

 

[lupi]

Still researching where we are sending people for care to make it more expensive than current ERs?

 

[Genx87]

Without addressing these two issues any public option plan is going to fail on a grand scale to reduce costs.

1. Disconnect between consumer and the true costs of health care
2. How to address the final stages of life spending that consumes a high % of a persons lifetime healthcare costs. I have heard upto 80% of a persons health costs are incurred in their last two years of life.

If these arent addressed just forget it. This will be a run away train wreck of a program.

My personal opinion is get a catastrophic public option. Something with a 2000-3000 dollar deductible. If people want to have 15 dollar copays then let them source out a private option. We treat a risk tool(insurance) like an entitlement. It is out of control.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You don't seem to get the idea of corruption.

Hilarious, coming from you, who can't ever seem to see that your side is equally corrupted. Let us know when the Dems get around to fixing the flaws in the drug benefit plan (as if they'll ever defy their masters at Big Pharm, who've bought off both sides of the aisle, not that you'll admit that).

 

[quest55720]

Told ya so this corrupt inept government can't do any thing right. They completely screwed this up by not addressing getting costs down. There goes that the government can do it better theory some love to spout around here.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87
My personal opinion is get a catastrophic public option. Something with a 2000-3000 dollar deductible. If people want to have 15 dollar copays then let them source out a private option. We treat a risk tool(insurance) like an entitlement. It is out of control.

I actually think this is a great idea. :thumbsup:

 

[lupi]

A weird thing happened on the way to changing our constitution...looks like reality hit.


Was pretty funny coming home to see cnn has a breaking news banner for health care reform in peril, and best was the reason. Moderate democrats seem to have been shaken enough by the CBO announcement to come out publicly with the concerns and some voted against in the committee vote. While the good ole' progressive democrats still think the reform doesn't go far enough because it doesn't cover every person under a government plan.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

One of the greatest scams of the decade has been the illogical linkage of our economic woes to healthcare costs in the United States.

The truth is that the costs and other problems associated with U.S. healthcare system have next to nothing, at all, to do with the global economic crisis we've been experiencing in recent years.

Don't drink the koolaid.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: lupi
The prescription drug plan has gone smooth sailing reducing how much we pay, we must believe this will too.

The prescription drug plan was a scheme by Republicans to give taxpayer money to their biggest donor industry. The Democrats need to fix what they did.

Like the mortgage plan is to give taxpayer money to the banking industry? And the GM garbage is meant to give taxpayer money to big Dem supporters, aka unions?

No, not like that.

The key corruption in the drug bill was the addition of a sentence saying the government is prohibited from negotiating the prices it pays for the drugs - it has to payl full price.

The government has enormous leverage to get discounts, as the VA does for its drugs.

This clause did nothing but add $150 billion in extra profits - in addition to the profits the companies would make at negotiated prices.

The mere fact that a policy or bill benefits a group allied with the politicians doesn't prove corruption. Groups are often the beneficiaries of legitimate good policies.

It takes more to prove corruption, and adding that prohibition on price negotiation that has no legitimate purpose at all, but only serves to steal taxpayer dollars for big pharma donors to the GOP, is the sort of clear corruption I'm talking about (the fact that the Republican Congressman who led the bill's passage resigned from Congress weeks later to join the industry gives a clue where his loyalties were, not to mention the outrageous all-night arm-twisting the leadership did to get it passed.)

Oh, and don't forget the threatening of the government official who had calculated the real cost of the bill, that he'd be gone if he told Congress the truth.

You don't seem to get the idea of corruption. No surprise, since your leaders don't care to inform you much.. Building a weapon system we 'legitimately need', using the solid competitive bidding practices, profits companies and workers that might be allied with the political leadership. That doesn't make it corrupt. Building an *unnecessary* system, or picking a worse system over a better, or evading competitive bidding to pay more to an ally over a cheaper competitor, those are more corrupt.

Your examples such as the banking industry are a lot more complex - they're hardly a clear traditional Democratic ally, there was a real need to take some action as economists said, a lot of the assistance was in the form of loans, and so on - but I'm not saying the banking bailout wasn't pretty corrupt as well. It's just a lot harder to sort out than the drug situation. I have some suspicions about both parties and the banking bailout being corruptly implemented - read the Rolling Stone article on Goldman-Sachs.

Prohibition of price negotiation lessens the time it takes to recoup R&D and increases ROI on Pharmacueticals. It's also one reason why many of the world-leading pharma companies reside in, research in, and market first to the US.

The clause serves a purpose, Craig, however much you doubt its utility.