Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=budw38;623783]Thats why I choose a female Dr. ..... cough , cough ... LOL ![/quote]

I was seeing a female doctor for a "check up". She asks me, "Do you mind having a female doctor examine you?" I told her that if I minded strange women handling my family jewels, I wouldn't be seeing a doctor. :FIREdevil

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;623928]I was seeing a female doctor for a "check up". She asks me, "Do you mind having a female doctor examine you?" I told her that if minded strange women handling my family jewels, I wouldn't be seeing a doctor. :FIREdevil[/quote]

Haha, nice.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;623928]I was seeing a female doctor for a "check up". She asks me, "Do you mind having a female doctor examine you?" I told her that if minded strange women handling my family jewels, I wouldn't be seeing a doctor. :FIREdevil[/quote] Ha , I know your Dr. Says she cannot wait to grab , I mean see you again .

Re: Obama Care
 

And so it begins:
[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33959759/ns/health-the_new_york_times/]NYT: Drug firms raise prices ahead of reform - The New York Times- msnbc.com[/url]

"Even as drug makers promise to support Washington’s health care overhaul by shaving $8 billion a year off the nation’s drug costs after the legislation takes effect, the industry has been raising its prices at the fastest rate in years.

In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992.

The drug trend is distinctly at odds with the direction of the Consumer Price Index, which has fallen by 1.3 percent in the last year."

12th - I read the article you referenced. It seems to cite the same concerns I (and others) have previously discussed here (and in the other 50 pages of health care discussion) without really saying anything other than "We'll see".

Saden - Other than the pledge from health care actors to find ways to lower costs and the issues you have cited concerning doctors, what other cost cutting methods are in teh bill? You cite the generic pooling that is to occur, that's fine but ignores that the increased pooling also creates increased costs. With HC costs rising steadily w/in the current framework, what systemic changes to the insurance based system are being proposed? I am aware of none. Rather, the public option included in the bill appears to be nothing more than a gov. run HMO which will be even further divorced from market forces than the current system. (See Schneed's various discussions as to how little market accountability [I]currently[/I] exists in the healthcare system).

I have read the various summaries you have provided. I do not see where the "downward pressure" on costs is coming from. Mandatory pooling will not cure the cost inflating ills created by the anti-market influences of the current voluntary pooling system.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;623684][B]Your assumption is that we're already at 100% capacity utilization of our health-care system and those 47 million new patients will utilize the capacity all at once.[/B] I don't believe this to be the case across the country. Furthermore you aught to be familiar with [URL="http://rules.house.gov/SpecialRules_details.aspx?NewsID=4498"]H. Res 903[/URL], which allocated 100 million dollar annual grant to organizations/institutions to develop medical schools in areas experiencing medical professionals shortage, was passed along with the Healthcare Bill (note that all your boys [URL="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll882.xml"]voted against it[/URL]).[/quote]

If there will be no increase in demand for health care services, then why was this bill needed? Isn't the presumption that demand for HC outstripped its supply so we needed to artificially mandate supply?

My assumption is that we are already experiencing a shortage of medical providers that will be excerbated as fewer doctors enter the system (again, per your own earlier citation - and a couple of my own: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/health/policy/27care.html?_r=2&em[/url]; [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE56M14E20090723)[/url]. At the same time, the same system is expected to provide care to more individuals. Based on these two events: generally, an increase in the demand for services and, generally, no increase in the supply of providers, I assert that physicians will charge more for there services in conjunction with the law of supply and demand ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand]Supply and demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] - which, by the way, incorporates your "Law of Demand", but see my discussion below).

Will the additional incentives assist in creating appropriate supply? Perhaps. That is one I just don't know the stats for and would be very suspect of anyone claiming that they did as it is simply speculative. Further, to be clear, I believe the physician shortage to be only one basis for the increased premiums (and thus decreased care) we should all expect w/in the next 4-8 years.

As for "my boys", let's get something straight - I don't believe any one was "my boy" in this past debate b/c no one exhibited real leadership and said "There are no sacred cows." Pharmaceuticals, Malpractice Lawyers and Insurance Companies have too much money to be ignored and were essentially untouched in this litigation. Only someone with political charisma and leadership could have pulled off real reform. No one - Republican or Democrat demonstrated this leadership.

[quote=saden1;623684]There's also the expectation on your part of perfection from this bill which I think is ludicrous. You also seem to completely ignore the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand"]law of demand[/URL]. Revamping the healthcare system is an incremental process and there's lots of good stuff in the bill and the kinks will get worked out. You can have a doom and gloom attitude but I don't think the substance of this bill warrants it.[/quote]

1. I did not expect perfection. I expected reform. This bill is not reform, it is a mandatory expansion of the existing system. A system that was market challenged from its inception and has become more so in the last 20 years with the growth of HMO's, medical malpractice litigation, and the increased expectation of full coverage from employer based insurance. You cannot "incrementally" untie Gordian's Knot and this bill does not even begin to do so.

2. I do not see how my assertion that increasing the number of insureds will cause a rise in cost ignores the "Law of Demand", please enlighten me. I assert that demand will increase due to the mandatory expansion of insureds, because of increased demand, costs will rise. As costs rise, people will be forced to pay more for their current coverage or choose a lesser coverage. Where am I ignoring the Law of Demand and how?

As people are forced to purchase lesser coverages, will demand decrease and thus, again, force prices down? Possibly - However, I believe it is more likely that the "incremental legislative" approach will cause legislative changes to the minimal coverage provide by the Public Option ("There are too many under insureds, the Govt. needs to ensure a better base coverage"). As more services are legislatively mandated, demand is artificially inflated and costs again rise, etc., etc. As insurers are unable to create profitable pools because they [I]must[/I] provide unprofitable coverages under the expanded "basic" services, fewer insurers will opt for that market and only the very wealthy will be able to afford the rich coverage provided to the vast majority of current insureds.

[quote=saden1;623684][B]I have no love for the insurance industry.[/B] Frankly they're going to reap what the sawed. They need to compete with the government and if they can't then their business model is dated. Honestly, I can not muster the emotion required to feel sorry for them or care for their wellbeing, kinda like how I don't give a shit what happens to a child molesters in prison.[/quote]

Neither do I. It is why I advocate reform, not expansion, of the current system. Insurers have a very simple business plan - collect as much as you can in premiums, pay out as little as possible in HC costs. Obviously, this plan is in direct conflict with the consumer purchasing insurance who would like the reverse to be true.

Unlike a standard arms length agreement, and due to pooling, however, the insurers have a distinct advantage inherent to the product being sold. We need them, they do not need any [I]one[/I] of us. Hell, they don't really need any [I]small group[/I] of us. Further, we need [I]several[/I] of them so that no one of them can set the market.

On one hand, the Public Option addresses this inherent market flaw - individually, we no longer need them - "You cost too much, I will go to the Public Option". On the other hand, and at odds with this, however, the Public Option addresses the second need only if it ensures the insurers continued existence which it can only do by offering an inherently uncompetitive product. If it does not ensure the continued existence of insurance companies, the Public Option becomes the [I]only[/I] option and the already flawed system becomes completely divorced from the market process. Once that occurs, a government entity, unconcerned with profitability, determines what services will be provided at what cost. You apparently trust such a system to be relatively cost efficient and sufficiently consumer friendly. I do not.

As for private companies competing with the govt., to me that is a ludicrous statement. In light of the surcharge and tax support, the Public Option is essentially given 50 yard head start in a 100 yard dash. What's your business? If your competitor receives an anually subsidy of 100M from the Govt. and you receive nothing, do you think your company could devise a plan that would compete with that? Or would it be driven into bankruptcy as, even at its most efficient, it can't generate 100M in cost cutting to remain competive?

Real reform would have attacked the market dichotomy presented by the current employer insurance based system, addressed the anti-market effects of pharmaceuticals R&D development/production costs, and the rising costs of malpractice (all the costs - litigation, premiums, excessive defensive medicine, etc.).

No one, not the President, not the Democrats, not the Republicans offered real HC reform with long term sustainability. Rather, the Dems & Obama protected the sacred cows and simply expanded the current system, costs be damned, and the Republicans adopted an opposition stance that simply said "No - Do Nothing". As I said earlier, each side has guilt and this act represents a massive fail for the people of America. We were ill-served.

Real leadership was needed. None was demonstrated.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;623838]This bill is very flawed, there's no doubt that. And I imagine once it comes out of conference the public option will be watered down a little more, but probably more budget friendly in terms of cost. I think Harry Reid is requesting two sets of scores from CBO and the Senate will more than likely move towards the one that has the more favorable score. That's just my speculation.

[B]At this point, unfortunately, I think it's becoming more and more about winning, getting Obama a legislative victory, and less about health care.[/B] I think it's solid first step though. But they will have to address the cost containment portion again down the road I suspect, as well as the number of uninsured that will ultimately go into the exchange option.[/quote]

I think that happened sometime over the summer when Obama essentially guarranteed the passage of a health care bill with the public option. He has consistently talked about cost containment and, initially, I was encouraged by his assertion that sustainability was important. My initial hope was snuffed when he touted the empty pledge from HC actors that they would cut costs as a real step towards sustainability. Quite frankly, other than "tax the wealthy, everybody must buy insurance", I have not seen any real steps towards cost containment from Obama or anyone else.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;626386]I think that happened sometime over the summer when Obama essentially guarranteed the passage of a health care bill with the public option. He has consistently talked about cost containment and, initially, I was encouraged by his assertion that sustainability was important. My initial hope was snuffed when he touted the empty pledge from HC actors that they would cut costs as a real step towards sustainability. Quite frankly, other than "tax the wealthy, everybody must buy insurance", I have not seen any real steps towards cost containment from Obama or anyone else.[/quote]

I think they're "betting" on cost containment happening as opposed to actually producing hardcore numbers to prove it. I mean numbers have been produced, obviously, but from what I've seen certain variables have to fall into place almost perfectly over a period of time for costs to be driven down. In fact, premiums are still likely to rise either way.

A robust public option or a single payer system, which is simply too expensive and cumbersome to implement, in my opinion, was the best shot. Pros and cons to both, but it looks like they are getting further and further away from either as this drags out.

More than likely, if this bill passes, the cost issue will be revisted down the road. Maybe under Obama's presidency, maybe not.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;626337]If there will be no increase in demand for health care services, then why was this bill needed? Isn't the presumption that demand for HC outstripped its supply so we needed to artificially mandate supply?

My assumption is that we are already experiencing a shortage of medical providers that will be excerbated as fewer doctors enter the system (again, per your own earlier citation - and a couple of my own: [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/health/policy/27care.html?_r=2&em[/URL]; [URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE56M14E20090723)[/URL]. At the same time, the same system is expected to provide care to more individuals. Based on these two events: generally, an increase in the demand for services and, generally, no increase in the supply of providers, I assert that physicians will charge more for there services in conjunction with the law of supply and demand ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand"]Supply and demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL] - which, by the way, incorporates your "Law of Demand", but see my discussion below).

Will the additional incentives assist in creating appropriate supply? Perhaps. That is one I just don't know the stats for and would be very suspect of anyone claiming that they did as it is simply speculative. Further, to be clear, I believe the physician shortage to be only one basis for the increased premiums (and thus decreased care) we should all expect w/in the next 4-8 years.

As for "my boys", let's get something straight - I don't believe any one was "my boy" in this past debate b/c no one exhibited real leadership and said "There are no sacred cows." Pharmaceuticals, Malpractice Lawyers and Insurance Companies have too much money to be ignored and were essentially untouched in this litigation. Only someone with political charisma and leadership could have pulled off real reform. No one - Republican or Democrat demonstrated this leadership.



1. I did not expect perfection. I expected reform. This bill is not reform, it is a mandatory expansion of the existing system. A system that was market challenged from its inception and has become more so in the last 20 years with the growth of HMO's, medical malpractice litigation, and the increased expectation of full coverage from employer based insurance. You cannot "incrementally" untie Gordian's Knot and this bill does not even begin to do so.

2. I do not see how my assertion that increasing the number of insureds will cause a rise in cost ignores the "Law of Demand", please enlighten me. I assert that demand will increase due to the mandatory expansion of insureds, because of increased demand, costs will rise. As costs rise, people will be forced to pay more for their current coverage or choose a lesser coverage. Where am I ignoring the Law of Demand and how?

As people are forced to purchase lesser coverages, will demand decrease and thus, again, force prices down? Possibly - However, I believe it is more likely that the "incremental legislative" approach will cause legislative changes to the minimal coverage provide by the Public Option ("There are too many under insureds, the Govt. needs to ensure a better base coverage"). As more services are legislatively mandated, demand is artificially inflated and costs again rise, etc., etc. As insurers are unable to create profitable pools because they [I]must[/I] provide unprofitable coverages under the expanded "basic" services, fewer insurers will opt for that market and only the very wealthy will be able to afford the rich coverage provided to the vast majority of current insureds.



Neither do I. It is why I advocate reform, not expansion, of the current system. Insurers have a very simple business plan - collect as much as you can in premiums, pay out as little as possible in HC costs. Obviously, this plan is in direct conflict with the consumer purchasing insurance who would like the reverse to be true.

Unlike a standard arms length agreement, and due to pooling, however, the insurers have a distinct advantage inherent to the product being sold. We need them, they do not need any [I]one[/I] of us. Hell, they don't really need any [I]small group[/I] of us. Further, we need [I]several[/I] of them so that no one of them can set the market.

[B]On one hand, the Public Option addresses this inherent market flaw - individually, we no longer need them - "You cost too much, I will go to the Public Option". On the other hand, and at odds with this, however, the Public Option addresses the second need only if it ensures the insurers continued existence which it can only do by offering an inherently uncompetitive product. If it does not ensure the continued existence of insurance companies, the Public Option becomes the [I]only[/I] option and the already flawed system becomes completely divorced from the market process. Once that occurs, a government entity, unconcerned with profitability, determines what services will be provided at what cost. You apparently trust such a system to be relatively cost efficient and sufficiently consumer friendly. I do not.[/B]

As for private companies competing with the govt., to me that is a ludicrous statement. In light of the surcharge and tax support, the Public Option is essentially given 50 yard head start in a 100 yard dash. What's your business? If your competitor receives an anually subsidy of 100M from the Govt. and you receive nothing, do you think your company could devise a plan that would compete with that? Or would it be driven into bankruptcy as, even at its most efficient, it can't generate 100M in cost cutting to remain competive?

Real reform would have attacked the market dichotomy presented by the current employer insurance based system, addressed the anti-market effects of pharmaceuticals R&D development/production costs, and the rising costs of malpractice (all the costs - litigation, premiums, excessive defensive medicine, etc.).

No one, not the President, not the Democrats, not the Republicans offered real HC reform with long term sustainability. Rather, the Dems & Obama protected the sacred cows and simply expanded the current system, costs be damned, and the Republicans adopted an opposition stance that simply said "No - Do Nothing". As I said earlier, each side has guilt and this act represents a massive fail for the people of America. We were ill-served.

Real leadership was needed. None was demonstrated.[/quote]

Your analysis is pretty exhaustive, if not exhausting:)

I just wanted point out, if it hasn't been already, that the public option will initially be funded with $2 billion government money to cover initial costs and claims. This is expected to be paid back over a ten year period. Then the operation becomes a self-sustaining entity paid for with premiums by those who want coverage just like any other insurance company. So in that regard, there's no unfair advantage.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;626393]Your analysis is pretty exhaustive, if not exhausting:)

I just wanted point out, if it hasn't been already, that the public option will initially be funded with $2 billion government money to cover initial costs and claims. [B]This is expected to be paid back over a ten year period. Then the operation becomes a self-sustaining entity paid for with premiums by those who want coverage just like any other insurance company.[/B] So in that regard, there's no unfair advantage.[/quote]

You bought that? :laughing2

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;626398]You bought that? :laughing2[/quote]

hook, line, and sinker.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;626401]hook, line, and sinker.[/quote]

I've some land in Florida you might be interested in?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;626406]I've some land in Florida you might be interested in?[/quote]

Too hot. Besides, too many RINOS down there.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;626281]And so it begins:
[URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33959759/ns/health-the_new_york_times/"]NYT: Drug firms raise prices ahead of reform - The New York Times- msnbc.com[/URL]

"Even as drug makers promise to support Washington’s health care overhaul by shaving $8 billion a year off the nation’s drug costs after the legislation takes effect, the industry has been raising its prices at the fastest rate in years.

In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992.

The drug trend is distinctly at odds with the direction of the Consumer Price Index, which has fallen by 1.3 percent in the last year."

12th - I read the article you referenced. It seems to cite the same concerns I (and others) have previously discussed here (and in the other 50 pages of health care discussion) without really saying anything other than "We'll see".

Saden - Other than the pledge from health care actors to find ways to lower costs and the issues you have cited concerning doctors, what other cost cutting methods are in teh bill? You cite the generic pooling that is to occur, that's fine but ignores that the increased pooling also creates increased costs. With HC costs rising steadily w/in the current framework, what systemic changes to the insurance based system are being proposed? I am aware of none. Rather, the public option included in the bill appears to be nothing more than a gov. run HMO which will be even further divorced from market forces than the current system. (See Schneed's various discussions as to how little market accountability [I]currently[/I] exists in the healthcare system).

I have read the various summaries you have provided. I do not see where the "downward pressure" on costs is coming from. Mandatory pooling will not cure the cost inflating ills created by the anti-market influences of the current voluntary pooling system.[/quote]

"Increasing costs" is better than "increasing risk" but it's still nonsensical as it does not allude to what this increased risk is beyond there are 47 million new customers. If a large portion of them were of poor health your concern might be valid. To be honest, insurance industry would like nothing more than to have more customers though for profit reasons they would much rather have more healthy ones than those who aren't.

The current bill also provides for the ability to negotiate drug prices and it also reverts the language in the Medicare Part D that barred the government from negotiating dug prices. As for the drug makers there is nothing free market about them as they enjoy a soft monopoly under the guise of the patent system and engage in price fixing ([URL="http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f4600/4688.htm"]Merck[/URL] and [URL="http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f4800/4884.htm"]Pfizer[/URL]) and fraud ([URL="http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/justice_090209.htm"]Pfizer[/URL], [URL="http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2005/September/05_civ_489.html"]GlaxoSmithKline[/URL], [URL="http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1999/March/084civ.htm"]Novertis[/URL], [URL="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18803138"]Merck[/URL], [URL="http://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2009/January/09-civ-038.html"]Eli Lilly[/URL]). They have been steadily [URL="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/538185"]raising prices every year[/URL] and their act is nothing more than price gouging with a blessing. Frankly you're not going to stop this price increase without some sort of government act (through patent reform or direct federal grants to universities to do drug research). This is one industry where the consumer simply can not vote with his dollars.

Calling it government run HMO doesn't make it so. The truth is this bill is still insurance industry friendly as it is not a bill that creates a single payer system. Divorced from market forces? Every industry in this country has enjoyed nurturing by the federal government. The initial cost of funding this exchange is no different, it is intended to a) provide means to those who can't afford insurance subsidy to purchase health care and b) to lower their cost by creating a platform where they can strengthen their negotiating power. There is nothing inherently anti-free market about that.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;626425]"Increasing costs" is better than "increasing risk" but it's still nonsensical as it does not allude to what this increased risk is beyond there are 47 million new customers. If a large portion of them were of poor health your concern might be valid. To be honest, insurance industry would like nothing more than to have more customers though for profit reasons they would much rather have more healthy ones than those who aren't.

The current bill also provides for the ability to negotiate drug prices and it also reverts the language in the Medicare Part D that barred the government from negotiating dug prices. As for the drug makers there is nothing free market about them as they enjoy a soft monopoly under the guise of the patent system and engage in price fixing ([URL="http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f4600/4688.htm"]Merck[/URL] and [URL="http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f4800/4884.htm"]Pfizer[/URL]) and fraud ([URL="http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/justice_090209.htm"]Pfizer[/URL], [URL="http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2005/September/05_civ_489.html"]GlaxoSmithKline[/URL], [URL="http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1999/March/084civ.htm"]Novertis[/URL], [URL="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18803138"]Merck[/URL], [URL="http://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2009/January/09-civ-038.html"]Eli Lilly[/URL]). They have been steadily [URL="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/538185"]raising prices every year[/URL] and their act is nothing more than price gouging with a blessing. Frankly you're not going to stop this price increase without some sort of government act (through patent reform or direct federal grants to universities to do drug research). This is one industry where the consumer simply can not vote with his dollars.

Calling it government run HMO doesn't make it so. The truth is this bill is still insurance industry friendly as it is not a bill that creates a single payer system. Divorced from market forces? Every industry in this country has enjoyed nurturing by the federal government. The initial cost of funding this exchange is no different, it is intended to a) provide means to those who can't afford insurance subsidy to purchase health care and b) to lower their cost by creating a platform where they can strengthen their negotiating power. There is nothing inherently anti-free market about that.[/quote]
A drug company only gets about 7 years from a patent because of the time to do the reserch and then get it approved eats up so much of the time on the patent. Take away the profit and we will loose because why risk they millions to produce a drug that might or might not work if you cannot make a decent profit. So if a person receives a goverment subsidy to purchase ins. is it just a discounted price in the goverment plan or can they use it anywhere?

Re: Obama Care
 

So let the BRIBES begin. first bribe 100,000,000
[url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html]The $100 Million Health Care Vote? - The Note[/url]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;628003]So let the BRIBES begin. first bribe 100,000,000
[URL="http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html"]The $100 Million Health Care Vote? - The Note[/URL][/quote]

Someone just emailed me this. I was going to post and call it how do you spell Louisiana in 2 pages or less.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;628003]So let the BRIBES begin. first bribe 100,000,000
[url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html]The $100 Million Health Care Vote? - The Note[/url][/quote]

just politians being politians=lame

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;628001]A drug company only gets about 7 years from a patent because of the time to do the reserch and then get it approved eats up so much of the time on the patent. Take away the profit and we will loose because why risk they millions to produce a drug that might or might not work if you cannot make a decent profit. So if a person receives a goverment subsidy to purchase ins. is it just a discounted price in the goverment plan or can they use it anywhere?[/quote]

These companies spend twice as much on marketing, bribing politicians and doctors than on research. Pfizer for example spent 16% of it's 2008 total revenue on R&D and 30% on drug pushing and administration. No question, the FDA approval process is cumbersome but let's not forget why...to keep these guys from [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502086.html"]knowingly pushing drugs that aren't safe[/URL].

If you partake in the public option you will get drugs at the prices the government was able to negotiate with the drug companies. If you decided to purchase insurance on your own and outside the exchange you'll get dugs at the rate your insurance company negotiated with the drug makers.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;628038]These companies spend twice as much on marketing, bribing politicians and doctors than on research. Pfizer for example spent 16% of it's 2008 total revenue on R&D and 30% on drug pushing and administration. No question, the FDA approval process is cumbersome but let's not forget why...to keep these guys from [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502086.html"]knowingly pushing drugs that aren't safe[/URL].

If you partake in the public option you will get drugs at the prices the government was able to negotiate with the drug companies. If you decided to purchase insurance on your own and outside the exchange you'll get dugs at the rate your insurance company negotiated with the drug makers.[/quote]
Yea if I was anyone wanting to sell something for top dollar the goverment would be the first person I'd want to negotiate the price. I've sold stuff to the goverment and its was always more then what I sold it to the person who just walked into the store.

If anyone here has one of those top HMO's if this get past the goverment will tax you for having great health ins. Thats the dumbest thing I ever heard in a bill to help peopl get better health ins. they tax the ones who have or get the best ins.

Re: Obama Care
 

Historic health care bill nears key Senate vote
By DAVID ESPO, AP
41 minutes ago


WASHINGTON — Invoking the name of the late Edward M. Kennedy, Senate Democrats sealed a 60-vote majority needed to advance health care legislation Saturday ahead of an evening showdown with opposition [B]Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama.[/B]

Two final holdouts, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, announced in speeches a few hours apart on the Senate floor that they would join in clearing the way for a bruising, full-scale health care debate after Thanksgiving.
this is pathetic. not worrying if this is a good or bad bill. just worrying about being the total opposite of what ever Pres. Obama is doing. down right disgraceful. and i know its both parties

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;628170]Historic health care bill nears key Senate vote
By DAVID ESPO, AP
41 minutes ago


WASHINGTON — Invoking the name of the late Edward M. Kennedy, Senate Democrats sealed a 60-vote majority needed to advance health care legislation Saturday ahead of an evening showdown with opposition [B]Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama.[/B]

Two final holdouts, [SIZE=4]Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana[/SIZE] and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, announced in speeches a few hours apart on the Senate floor that they would join in clearing the way for a bruising, full-scale health care debate after Thanksgiving.
this is pathetic. not worrying if this is a good or bad bill. just worrying about being the total opposite of what ever Pres. Obama is doing. down right disgraceful. and i know its both parties[/quote]

Hold out my ass she was bribed and knew she was going to vote for the bill. I still think its rather funny how people think that the goverment can make health ins. better and cheaper at the same time.

Re: Obama Care
 

i think its funny your paying such high premiums, with no relief in sight. and you really don't seem to care. and to say that woman was bribed, is down right slander. unless you have proof :)

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;628003]So let the BRIBES begin. first bribe 100,000,000
[URL="http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html"]The $100 Million Health Care Vote? - The Note[/URL][/quote]

How much more proof do you need when they just seem to add this to the bill and then she decides she is all for it. I'm cutting my health care cost by over $250 a month next year and I know enough about ins. to tell you what they are going to do will increase cost. Plenty of experts say the same. How can you add sick people to the pot, not allow co. to underwrite things, etc, etc, and not expect it to increase cost. I guess you could cut service or stoip allowing a women to get a mamogram (sp).

Re: Obama Care
 

I think there's a good chance this Health Crae Bill will be defeated. Thank God. I don't what the Republicans would do without the Democrats. If they ever get a clue the GOP will be screwed. As it is, it's fun watching them crash and burn.


Ahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahha!!!!

Re: Obama Care
 

Crazy story here ... man in coma 23 years , trapped in .... read on ... [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34109227/ns/health-more_health_news/?GT1=43001]Man in ‘coma’ heard everything for 23 years - More health news- msnbc.com[/url]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=budw38;629916]Crazy story here ... man in coma 23 years , trapped in .... read on ... [URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34109227/ns/health-more_health_news/?GT1=43001"]Man in ‘coma’ heard everything for 23 years - More health news- msnbc.com[/URL][/quote]

What struck me is that everyone thought he was in a coma and could not hear or comprehend anything to find out now he heard everything people said in his room. I'm sure over those 23 years some stuff was said either by family or care givers that they didn't want anyone to hear.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;630504]What struck me is that everyone thought he was in a coma and could not hear or comprehend anything to find out now he heard everything people said in his room. I'm sure over those 23 years some stuff was said either by family or care givers that they didn't want anyone to hear.[/quote] Like a brother in-law saying , " I wish they would pull the plug on the bum " ? Hope he can have a " normal " as life possible .

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=budw38;630507]Like a brother in-law saying , " I wish they would pull the plug on the bum " ? Hope he can have a " normal " as life possible .[/quote]

Or a someone saying "How long can he live I'm getting tired of paying his life ins. as I thoght it was a good idea to pay that bill".

Re: Obama Care
 

Lobbyists pushed off federal advisory panels
Under the policy, which is being phased in over the coming months, none of the more than 13,000 lobbyists in Washington would be able to hold seats on the committees, which advise agencies on trade rules, troop levels, environmental regulations, consumer protections and thousands of other government policies.
taken from MSN. this is the type of change i want

Re: Obama Care
 

[url=http://www.cnbc.com/id/33993791?slide=16]The Richest Members of the US Congress - Slideshows - CNBC.com[/url] these very wealthy members of congress could pitch in ..

Re: Obama Care
 

Well now that all the bribes are in it looks like the only thing left to do is vote for the bill. I guess Obama's change is changing how much they will actually use to bribe members to vote for a bill they don't even like.

Re: Obama Care
 

I'm surprised that all of you supporting goverment run health care have not been celebrating the passing of the new "Bribe Care Bill" they just voted on.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;646977]I'm surprised that all of you supporting goverment run health care have not been celebrating the passing of the new "Bribe Care Bill" they just voted on.[/quote]

Oh, us liburals are celebrating.

But seriously this bill is far, far, far from goverment run health care. Republicans can't have it both ways - it can't be governement run and a give away to the insurance industry at the same time. By the way, insurance stocks recently hit a 52 week high. I doubt stocks are soaring on news that the government is taking over healthcare and stifling competition. Just doesn't add up, even to the most casual observer.

Re: Obama Care
 

good news for first, the rich get richer.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;646990]good news for first, the rich get richer.[/quote]
Its only good news if First gets richer.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;646988]Oh, us liburals are celebrating.

But seriously this bill is far, far, far from goverment run health care. Republicans can't have it both ways - it can't be governement run and a give away to the insurance industry at the same time. By the way, insurance stocks recently hit a 52 week high. I doubt stocks are soaring on news that the government is taking over healthcare and stifling competition. Just doesn't add up, even to the most casual observer.[/quote]
So are you saying this is more of a give away to the insurance industry?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;647040]So are you saying this is more of a give away to the insurance industry?[/quote]

I'm saying it's absolutely not a government takeover. Not even close. Anyone who says so is given to hyperbole.

You can slice it anyway you want, but anyday the insurance industry get's 30 million new customers that's hardly a bad day at the office.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;647048]I'm saying it's absolutely not a government takeover. Not even close. Anyone who says so is given to hyperbole.

You can slice it anyway you want, but anyday the insurance industry get's 30 million new customers that's hardly a bad day at the office.[/quote]

Yea and who is paying for these 30 million new customers?

Re: Obama Care
 

12th, you know better, don't you? :)

Re: Obama Care
 

You guys are no fun. I'm here at work and this week like last is always slow so I was trying to get something started.