Obama Care

[budw38]

Originally Posted by saden1

Good morning. It's not asking much, if you're going to criticize at least have your T corssed and I dotted. You simply cannot complain without having facts on your side and the best way to do that is to read the bill. I spent all day Saturday watching the house debate and sifted through the bill...it's pathetic but first hand info be best hand info.

As for members of congress it is as 12thMan said. They got their staff reading it and raising red flags for them. There is no problem with this process. There is a problem however if you proclaim something is in the bill and do not verify or whine about how many pages it is. Supreme Court Justices have their clerks, members of congress have their staff.

I do not mean to complain , I'am just stating a concern for a bill that could < I stress could > , lower the quality for some < those who have paid their fair share in taxes/HC-Ins > . 2 could lead to higher debt < yes the Rep's have as bad a record as Dem's , maybe worse > . As I have stated many times , I hope congress passes a bill that will not lower care for the millions that have worked and paid taxes/Ins . for 30 -40 years . I'am not saying that the White House or Dem's in congress are wrong in this matter , the truth is our elected officials do not have a track record IMO for me to just trust the " bill " will benefit us all .... I hope that is does . Only time will tell .

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by budw38

I do not mean to complain , I'am just stating a concern for a bill that could < I stress could > , lower the quality for some < those who have paid their fair share in taxes/HC-Ins > . 2 could lead to higher debt < yes the Rep's have as bad a record as Dem's , maybe worse > . As I have stated many times , I hope congress passes a bill that will not lower care for the millions that have worked and paid taxes/Ins . for 30 -40 years . I'am not saying that the White House or Dem's in congress are wrong in this matter , the truth is our elected officials do not have a track record IMO for me to just trust the " bill " will benefit us all .... I hope that is does . Only time will tell .

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.

At this point, unfortunately, I think it's becoming more and more about winning, getting Obama a legislative victory, and less about health care. 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.

[budw38]

Lets just hope whatever gets passed < something will sooner than later > , that it is for the better of all Americans , as we are one nation .... have a nice Veterans Day to all .

[12thMan]

Here's a good article about how lawmakers are grappling with the rising cost of premiums and overall healthcare savings.

Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com

[JoeRedskin]

And so it begins:
NYT: Drug firms raise prices ahead of reform - The New York Times- msnbc.com

"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 currently 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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

And so it begins:
NYT: Drug firms raise prices ahead of reform - The New York Times- msnbc.com

"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 currently 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.

"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 (Merck and Pfizer) and fraud (Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novertis, Merck, Eli Lilly). They have been steadily raising prices every year 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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

"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 (Merck and Pfizer) and fraud (Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novertis, Merck, Eli Lilly). They have been steadily raising prices every year 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.

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?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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?

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 knowingly pushing drugs that aren't safe.

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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 knowingly pushing drugs that aren't safe.

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.

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.

[firstdown]

So let the BRIBES begin. first bribe 100,000,000
The $100 Million Health Care Vote? - The Note

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So let the BRIBES begin. first bribe 100,000,000
The $100 Million Health Care Vote? - The Note

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

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So let the BRIBES begin. first bribe 100,000,000
The $100 Million Health Care Vote? - The Note

just politians being politians=lame

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So let the BRIBES begin. first bribe 100,000,000
The $100 Million Health Care Vote? - The Note

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).

[70Chip]

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!!!!

[dmek25]

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 Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama.

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