Obama plan to pay for health reform

min0 lee · 06-16-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

An informed consumer cannot choose the level of care they want, an informed consumer can choose the level they can best afford. What good is top of the line technology when no one can afford it? I think the average faily pays 12k a year for medical insurance, and half of the people who file for bankruptcy from medical expenses have insurance. So tell me now, how is this good for Americans? It's not, Insurance companies are in business to make money, and once somebody becomes less profitable as an insured, they are dropped. Now, this is the way you want the people providing your healthcare to think?

Not a single one of you who is against national healthcare would be saying it wouldn't work if you had a child dying of cancer who had been denied coverage. The exact same reason why Nancy Reagan was for fetal stem cell research and Dick Cheney is against a constitutional ban on gay marriage, once it affects you personally it becomes a priority. Honestly, who's to say that there can't be basic coverage for all and supplemental coverage for those who want better care? Why does someone who has strept throat need to pay an MD $2000 to find this out when it is relatively easy to diagnose and the test is probably about 50 years old?

An even better question is how can you justify spending $1 trillion on the Iraq war to bring democracy to Iraqis and not spend the same on your own people who can't afford healthcare. Only a fool would use the WMD excuse now, they obviously never had them.

Will you have my children?

IronAddict · 06-16-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

An even better question is how can you justify spending $1 trillion on the Iraq war to bring democracy to Iraqis and not spend the same on your own people who can't afford healthcare. Only a fool would use the WMD excuse now, they obviously never had them.

And bingo was his namo!

If you can spend a trillion to kill people, you can spend a trillion to save people.

min0 lee · 06-16-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronAddict

And bingo was his namo!

If you can spend a trillion to kill people, you can spend a trillion to save people.

Same people against abortion are the first to send other kids to war.
Go figure.

IronAddict · 06-16-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Same people against abortion are the first to send other kids to war.
Go figure.

Isn't that the truth.

One could surmise that this is really meant for the poor and under privileged, so we can have a huge standing army.

**dg806** · 06-16-2009, 03:31 PM

Jesus H......how did this turn into a political thread??

bio-chem · 06-16-2009, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg806

Jesus H......how did this turn into a political thread??

obama is in the title. did you expect otherwise?

maniclion · 06-16-2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg806

Jesus H......how did this turn into a political thread??

Jesus Hernandez should be deported, and then we should hire him and his 200 cousins to build a wall greater than china's along the border, as deep into the earth as it would be tall, like 40ft high, 80 ft all together. Hell we might even find some oil out there while pounding the supports into the ground....

chobby192 · 06-17-2009, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

So wait, I thought every single Doctor and nurse in the U.S. would immediately get his or her pay cut in half if we went with "Socialized" healthcare. This would obviously lead to people no longer trying hard to be Doctors and without the competition involved with a capitalistic healthcare program, we would immediately revert back to bloodletting as a cure for every disease within the first 5-6 months.

What do you think about the hospitals that are run by county government? Are they socialized healthcare or capitalistic healthcare? I used to work at county hospital very long time ago and know that quality of care and the employee's wages aren't that different. I have seen the surgeons who work at county hospital also work at non government hospital.

**Dale Mabry** · 06-17-2009, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg806

Jesus H......how did this turn into a political thread??

It is a cogent point. 99% of the people against healthcare reform don't want to pay for it out of their taxes. It's an "entitlement". So, how can one justify spending $1trillion on democracy for Iraqis and not healthcare for a good portion of people who pay taxes?

bandaidwoman · 06-17-2009, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

So wait, I thought every single Doctor and nurse in the U.S. would immediately get his or her pay cut in half if we went with "Socialized" healthcare. This would obviously lead to people no longer trying hard to be Doctors and without the competition involved with a capitalistic healthcare program, we would immediately revert back to bloodletting as a cure for every disease within the first 5-6 months.

I wouldn't be able to guess it from your post, but I suspect that the under/uninsured are more of a problem to hospitals than the politicians are letting on.

Socialized health care is not the same as national health insurance.
I can order any test or procedure I want on my medicare patients ( national health insurance for the elderly) and refer to any specialist I want. I can't do that with most private plans who are in the business of denying procedures and referalls. In a socialized plan the government dictates what my medicare patient can get or who to see.

most doctors would favor a pay cut just save money on our insurance hassles Our practice has 4 doctors, and 30 employess. Most of them are office workers ( billers, coders, collections, precertifiers, prior authorization, PPo insurance specialist, etc.) all with salaries, 401 K, workmans comp, unemployment taxes i have to pay etc just to deal with the bureaucracy of insurances. ( I only have one person to deal with medicare medicaid but an army dealing with all the private insurance plans.)

there is a JAMA article that polled the doctors and a majority favor a single payer natioanl health insurance,Many doctors call for healthcare system with universal coverage | csmonitor.com we do not favor socialized medicine and here is another link for a journal agreeing with JAMA's results.

Majority Of US Physicians Favor National Health Insurance

If you don't believe how much doctors are paying for the overhead of dealing with multiple insurance plans:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110215547.htm

Quote:

The findings suggest that about $230 billion in health care spending nationally is devoted to insurance administration....

""The study points to the enormous waste in our health care system," said Kahn's colleague Thomas Bodenheimer, MD, MPH, a professor of family and community medicine at UCSF who was not involved in the study. "In 22 years as a private primary care physician, the financial and morale drain associated with billing multiple insurers has nearly sunk our practice."

The study showed that the largest billing- and insurance-related categories for private insurers are claims, sales and marketing, finance and underwriting, and information systems, each accounting for 1.1 to 1.6 percent of premiums.

Reading this study, people may well ask why our nation tolerates such an inefficient system where 45 million Americans lack insurance coverage."

by:
UCSF is a leading university that consistently defines health care worldwide by conducting advanced biomedical research, educating graduate students in the life sciences, and proving complex patient care.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bandaidwoman · 06-17-2009, 07:01 AM

Biochem

Let's not forget that close to 40% of all medical research funded in this country is through the NIH ( tax govt sponsored) and gets the most return. For three decades between 1965 -1995 7/21 life changing drugs were govt sponsored research , that's just drugs, not other biomedical advances. Everyone assumes that a " socialized" medicine" will stop any new advancements, heck the singular AIDs drug that altered the course if childhood aids was 3tc invented by canadian researchers and there are numerous numerous advances coming from that country published in my medical literature.

if you want to see what " socialized medicine is capable of.."

http://www.lhsc.on.ca/About_Us/LHSC/...akthroughs.htm

Quote:

Canadian first for totally endoscopic closed-chest robotic bypass surgery...

Media ReleaseCanadian first for totally endoscopic closed-chest robotic bypass surgery

On May 4, 2007, CSTAR (Canadian Surgical Technologies & Advanced Robotics) announced that a cardiac surgery team led by Dr. Bob Kiaii, cardiac surgeon and director of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Cardiac Surgery, performed a totally endoscopic closed-chest robotic coronary artery bypass surgery on a patient’s beating heart at University Hospital.

Canadian first for robotic assisted gallstone surgery..

LHSC physicians achieve a Canadian first in using new technology to treat atrial fibrillation......

A world first at CSTAR: surgical robot helps to reduce stroke in common cardiac disorder

Canadian first for robotic assisted gallstone surgery.... etc.

There is a famous dartmouth study that shows facilities that spend the most on expensive health care does not correlate with better outcomes
Dartmouth News - New study: states with higher medicare spending offer lower quality care - 04/07/04
Annals of Medicine: The Cost Conundrum: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

more expensive does not mean better.

The classic case is the use of bare metal stents vs drug eluting stents. ( the latter cost 3-5 times more than bare metal stents for angioplasty.) We are finding the latter have very high rates of "late" restenosis. Thus, in america where we were using predominantly drug eluting stents vs canada, our statistics for recurrent late MIs are much higher in these patients than a coressponding group who recieved bare metal stents at the same time. This is scarey, thus drug eluting stent patients need to take a very expensive drug thinner plavix for a much longer period of time, maybe even lifetime to prevent late restenosis vs. bare metal stent patients that only take plavix for one year. These patients got the "better " and "newer" technology.

**Dale Mabry** · 06-17-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

Biochem

Let's not forget that close to 40% of all medical research funded in this country is through the NIH ( tax govt sponsored) and gets the most return. For three decades between 1965 -1995 7/21 life changing drugs were govt sponsored research , that's just drugs, not other biomedical advances. Everyone assumes that a " socialized" medicine" will stop any new advancements, heck the singular AIDs drug that altered the course if childhood aids was 3tc invented by canadian researchers and there are numerous numerous advances coming from that country published in my medical literature.

if you want to see what " socialized medicine is capable of.."

http://www.lhsc.on.ca/About_Us/LHSC/...akthroughs.htm

There is a famous dartmouth study that shows facilities that spend the most on expensive health care does not correlate with better outcomes
Dartmouth News - New study: states with higher medicare spending offer lower quality care - 04/07/04
Annals of Medicine: The Cost Conundrum: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

more expensive does not mean better.

The classic case is the use of bare metal stents vs drug eluting stents. ( the latter cost 3-5 times more than bare metal stents for angioplasty.) We are finding the latter have very high rates of "late" restenosis. Thus, in america where we were using predominantly drug eluting stents vs canada, our statistics for recurrent late MIs are much higher in these patients than a coressponding group who recieved bare metal stents at the same time. This is scarey, thus drug eluting stent patients need to take a very expensive drug thinner plavix for a much longer period of time, maybe even lifetime to prevent late restenosis vs. bare metal stent patients that only take plavix for one year. These patients got the "better " and "newer" technology.

How dare you cloud the issue with facts!

**Dale Mabry** · 06-17-2009, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

Socialized health care is not the same as national health insurance.
I can order any test or procedure I want on my medicare patients ( national health insurance for the elderly) and refer to any specialist I want. I can't do that with most private plans who are in the business of denying procedures and referalls. In a socialized plan the government dictates what my medicare patient can get or who to see.

most doctors would favor a pay cut just save money on our insurance hassles Our practice has 4 doctors, and 30 employess. Most of them are office workers ( billers, coders, collections, precertifiers, prior authorization, PPo insurance specialist, etc.) all with salaries, 401 K, workmans comp, unemployment taxes i have to pay etc just to deal with the bureaucracy of insurances. ( I only have one person to deal with medicare medicaid but an army dealing with all the private insurance plans.)

there is a JAMA article that polled the doctors and a majority favor a single payer natioanl health insurance,Many doctors call for healthcare system with universal coverage | csmonitor.com we do not favor socialized medicine and here is another link for a journal agreeing with JAMA's results.

Majority Of US Physicians Favor National Health Insurance

If you don't believe how much doctors are paying for the overhead of dealing with multiple insurance plans:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110215547.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, didn't know the difference between nationalized and socialized, I knew their was a difference, just not what its was. How much money do you think a person would save on insurance premiums if it were nationalized and all of the monetary waste from hospitals as well as the profit from the insurance companies were removed? It would have to be very significant, wouldn't it? Those insurance companies make a fortune.

IronAddict · 06-17-2009, 11:29 AM

Their are politicians that are successfully conflating these two terms, which seems to be working, but most industrialized countries have Nationalized healthcare, Not Socialized. Which is just a play on words, because when the Government began this Troubled Asset Relief Program or "TARP" which was just another term the Gov. used to advance a Socialistic practice of taking over financial institutions and bail out the banks, we selectively became Socialists. But, now that there can be a way to benefit the great people of the U.S., it's taboo.

So who exactly do these politicians work for anyway ?

The real reason insurance companies don't want this system is because they currently take, I believe 25 cents of every dollar spent on health care as profits or for administration costs. Billions upon billions of dollars.

Also, big pharma and doctors oppose this system too, because they know if there is this change, they are going to have to give up some money, in order to make the process cheaper.

Imagine if you will every part of the industry either becomming very efficient, far cheaper or whither away & die off.

But, in our capitalistic society profits for big insurance companies is the primary goal of our health care system.

bandaidwoman · 06-17-2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Wow, didn't know the difference between nationalized and socialized, I knew their was a difference, just not what its was. How much money do you think a person would save on insurance premiums if it were nationalized and all of the monetary waste from hospitals as well as the profit from the insurance companies were removed? It would have to be very significant, wouldn't it? Those insurance companies make a fortune.

CEOs of these insurance companies make more than CEOs of say Sony, panasonic etc. Now I don't mind those ceos making millions, they are making products , say a DVD player, that can electively be purchased or not.

Don't forget that employer purchased health care is one of the biggest ways employers suppress wages. If I have to pay $400, 000 a year for my employees' health insurance ( I am a small business), it is that much less I can use to pay into their salaries.

Employer based health insurance also prohibits job mobility ( especially if someone has an abusive employer), it imprisons someone with health problems or problematic diseases ( who can't take their health insurance with them or find they can't afford paying tremendous premiums) from up and leaving and finding a new job. I hear lamentations from my patients ( especially those who have had cancer) regarding this.

And don't forget, you and I are paying more in premiums to offset the cost of the uninsured..
Health costs rise as more go uninsured | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Quote:

On average, American families who buy health insurance pay an additional $1,017 a year in premiums to help cover health care costs for the uninsured, a new report released today says....

“As more people join the ranks of the uninsured, the hidden health tax is growing,” said Ron Pollack, Families USA executive director, in prepared statements released with the report.

“That tax hits America’s businesses and insured families hard in the pocketbook, and they therefore have a clear financial stake in expanding health care coverage

IronAddict · 06-17-2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

CEOs of these insurance companies make more than CEOs of say Sony, panasonic etc. Now I don't mind those ceos making millions, they are making products , say a DVD player, that can electively be purchased or not.

Don't forget that employer purchased health care is one of the biggest ways employers suppress wages. If I have to pay $400, 000 a year for my employees' health insurance ( I am a small business), it is that much less I can use to pay into their salaries.

Employer based health insurance also prohibits job mobility ( especially if someone has an abusive employer), it imprisons someone with health problems or problematic diseases ( who can't take their health insurance with them or find they can't afford paying tremendous premiums) from up and leaving and finding a new job. I hear lamentations from my patients ( especially those who have had cancer) regarding this.

And don't forget, you and I are paying more in premiums to offset the cost of the uninsured..
Health costs rise as more go uninsured | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

All very poignant points. I guess in a way we're all subtly subjugated without even realizing it.

**Dale Mabry** · 06-17-2009, 12:55 PM

I think you could partially satisfy the Pharm companies by increasing the length of time they hold a patent or by getting rid of generics altogether and finding a middle ground on price. The insurance companies are screwing them over too. It just seems to me that most people don't want to solve this problem because it involves a little bit of work and god forbid a politician does a little bit of that.

min0 lee · 06-17-2009, 02:12 PM

I really don't know the details about this issue but it's good to have a person like bandaidwoman who is in the field explain the details of this issue.

min0 lee · 06-17-2009, 02:14 PM

I really don't remember our current health plan being this way before 1986....most companies like my former employer started to lay off or subcontract employees because of medical benefits.

diablomex · 06-17-2009, 07:20 PM

i like to see in congress, who ever fights not to fix healthcare. i wanna see who contributed to their campain.a lot of people are arguing about dumb things.seriously,the people are not arguing about getting free healthcare.just make it affordable.i think if we have a public option,at low cost.that would make the other insurance companies go down on cost.thats who's really messing things up.we got to be real, we keep making the same money,and everything else goes up.thats not right!its easy for people that can afford good healthcare to wanna oppose the rights for other people that cant afford it. a lot of people listen to these people , that love to rant.and believe them.and those are the people that have money.we have to listen to are own people.and not to politicions.

maniclion · 06-18-2009, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I think you could partially satisfy the Pharm companies by increasing the length of time they hold a patent or by getting rid of generics altogether and finding a middle ground on price.

I have no problem with them keeping the patent forever as long as they sell it at a reasonable price. It's funny how the same exact chemicals have such a broad range in price just because one packed their pill tighter or used blue dye and had to buy a machine to stamp a logo on it none of that could cause the cost of producing it to be more than 10x what the plain white pill with a letter and numbers on it. costs If there were some regulation to keep the pharms from raping because they are the only ones making a drug then we wouldn't need a generic alternative and they would save money in advertising. They could still make a less expensive generic version of their own drug for third world countries or people on gov. funded health programs.....

bandaidwoman · 06-18-2009, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diablomex

i like to see in congress, who ever fights not to fix healthcare. i wanna see who contributed to their campain.a lot of people are arguing about dumb things.seriously,the people are not arguing about getting free healthcare.just make it affordable.i think if we have a public option,at low cost.that would make the other insurance companies go down on cost.thats who's really messing things up.we got to be real, we keep making the same money,and everything else goes up.thats not right!its easy for people that can afford good healthcare to wanna oppose the rights for other people that cant afford it. a lot of people listen to these people , that love to rant.and believe them.and those are the people that have money.we have to listen to are own people.and not to politicions.

The public option as you have phrased it so that private insurance companies will have to compete with it is pretty much the language obama is using.

**Dale Mabry** · 06-18-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maniclion

I have no problem with them keeping the patent forever as long as they sell it at a reasonable price. It's funny how the same exact chemicals have such a broad range in price just because one packed their pill tighter or used blue dye and had to buy a machine to stamp a logo on it none of that could cause the cost of producing it to be more than 10x what the plain white pill with a letter and numbers on it. costs If there were some regulation to keep the pharms from raping because they are the only ones making a drug then we wouldn't need a generic alternative and they would save money in advertising. They could still make a less expensive generic version of their own drug for third world countries or people on gov. funded health programs.....

The stamp and color don't impact the price, it's all from the research. GSK or Bristol Squibb do all of the research, jump through all of the FDA ICH guidelines in terms of researching the drug ($Billions$) through multiple phases. 10 years later, the patent runs out and a generic company starts manufacturing the same drug it never had to fund research for, all they have to do is make it. It would be like getting they plans for the Iphone 10 years after it's introduced and being given carte blanche to make it yourself and rake in as much money as you can after Apple does all of the leg work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

The public option as you have phrased it so that private insurance companies will have to compete with it is pretty much the language obama is using.

That is why I don't get why people are against this, it will force the insurance companies to play fair. Having a public option will force the Insurance companies to get their shit together and force them to play nice on both sides. On the one hand, they will have to trim profit margins because people will have an affordable option, on the other hand they won't be able to just walk in to a hospital and say, "We will give you $6 for every X-ray you take." I imagine $6 doesn't even cover the cost for the radiologist to read the x-ray, let alone pay for the equipment and supplies.

maniclion · 06-18-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

The stamp and color don't impact the price, it's all from the research. GSK or Bristol Squibb do all of the research, jump through all of the FDA ICH guidelines in terms of researching the drug ($Billions$) through multiple phases. 10 years later, the patent runs out and a generic company starts manufacturing the same drug it never had to fund research for, all they have to do is make it. It would be like getting they plans for the Iphone 10 years after it's introduced and being given carte blanche to make it yourself and rake in as much money as you can after Apple does all of the leg work.

That was my point, making a prettier product isn't why they are so expensive and the R&D is an ongoing thing in all manufacturing. I think the biggest mark-up comes from the knowledge that once the patent is up they start losing money so to make up for it they jack up the prices. Also who know how much of the cost constitutes bribe payoffs to FDA officers....

**Pirate!** · 06-18-2009, 08:01 PM

Degregulation and tort reform has immediate savings and no upfront cost. Perhaps that's too easy to consider.

TrojanMan60563 · 06-19-2009, 01:01 AM

they need to stop the huge upcharge in services. I was in the hospital for a week due to a stomach issue and my blood pressure medicine was $800 for the week. I pay like $120 for a year supply. That is retarded. They do this sort of thing with everything, and ever service. Hospital charges you, and then the health providers bill their own, labs bill their own, its all getting billed twice...its a joke. When I was a kid I remember my parents paying a couple dollars for a prescription. And $5-$10 copays. Surgery was covered. What happened I don't know, but the obvious thing I see is more greed.

BoneCrusher · 06-19-2009, 03:43 PM

The most important step we can take in improving our national health care system is to remove political identity from the issues surrounding the crisis. Hard line Republicans will argue against this all day long primarily because it's been a Dem based initiative.

bandaidwoman posted her initial comments and imedidatly received a political response completly lacking a factual premis. Even as she backed her comments with fact-based research, she was still rallied against with rhetoric ... why? Sadly, because the political identity of Rep vs. Dem comes into play here overshadowing the actual importane of the issue. Socialized medicine has been a project of the Clinton admin for almost two decades ... so by default ... every card carrying Repub is going to be opposed to the transition ... factless and clueless ... hands down with a "Them damn Democrats just want to blah blah blah" mindset.

Yes I'm beating my "Bi-partisan politics is bullshit" drum again ... I'll stop. Hopefully those of you opposed to this because it comes from the other side of the isle will also stop. There is a solid solution evolving here and we as Americans need to ALL of us get up to speed and get with it ...

**Dale Mabry** · 06-19-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

The most important step we can take in improving our national health care system is to remove political identity from the issues surrounding the crisis. Hard line Republicans will argue against this all day long primarily because it's been a Dem based initiative.

bandaidwoman posted her initial comments and imedidatly received a political response completly lacking a factual premis. Even as she backed her comments with fact-based research, she was still rallied against with rhetoric ... why? Sadly, because the political identity of Rep vs. Dem comes into play here overshadowing the actual importane of the issue. Socialized medicine has been a project of the Clinton admin for almost two decades ... so by default ... every card carrying Repub is going to be opposed to the transition ... factless and clueless ... hands down with a "Them damn Democrats just want to blah blah blah" mindset.

Yes I'm beating my "Bi-partisan politics is bullshit" drum again ... I'll stop. Hopefully those of you opposed to this because it comes from the other side of the isle will also stop. There is a solid solution evolving here and we as Americans need to ALL of us get up to speed and get with it ...

Shut up, Douche.

**Dale Mabry** · 06-19-2009, 03:55 PM

On a slightly more serious note, I have always wondered how people on the other side of this talk about it in public. I wonder if they are just hanging out with a couple of friends chatting away and say, "You know what would suck? If people were no longer able to go bankrupt because they can't afford their medical bills. That would have to be just about the worst thing that could ever happen to this country."

Or better yet, just bust out with, "You know who I feel sorry for? The insurance companies that ran this country in to the ground. First, they are hit with massive losses, next you have an Islamic socialist president making sure that they can no longer take $100 from Mr. Jones, give the hospital $25 on a $75 procedure, and pocket the rest for doing essentially nothing other than burdening the hospital with paperwork. You really can't feel anything but compassion for those guys."

min0 lee · 06-19-2009, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Sadly, because the political identity of Rep vs. Dem comes into play here overshadowing the actual importane of the issue. D

06-16-2009, 03:31 PM	#35
dg806 Guardian of The Homeland Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Charlotte NC Posts: 18,197	Jesus H......how did this turn into a political thread?? 1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

06-17-2009, 11:29 AM	#44
IronAddict YOU ME WE Elite Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: In my skin Posts: 2,801	Their are politicians that are successfully conflating these two terms, which seems to be working, but most industrialized countries have Nationalized healthcare, Not Socialized. Which is just a play on words, because when the Government began this Troubled Asset Relief Program or "TARP" which was just another term the Gov. used to advance a Socialistic practice of taking over financial institutions and bail out the banks, we selectively became Socialists. But, now that there can be a way to benefit the great people of the U.S., it's taboo. So who exactly do these politicians work for anyway ? The real reason insurance companies don't want this system is because they currently take, I believe 25 cents of every dollar spent on health care as profits or for administration costs. Billions upon billions of dollars. Also, big pharma and doctors oppose this system too, because they know if there is this change, they are going to have to give up some money, in order to make the process cheaper. Imagine if you will every part of the industry either becomming very efficient, far cheaper or whither away & die off. But, in our capitalistic society profits for big insurance companies is the primary goal of our health care system. The journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.

06-17-2009, 12:55 PM	#47
Dale Mabry Moderator Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: Elsewhere Posts: 14,335 Photos: 10	I think you could partially satisfy the Pharm companies by increasing the length of time they hold a patent or by getting rid of generics altogether and finding a middle ground on price. The insurance companies are screwing them over too. It just seems to me that most people don't want to solve this problem because it involves a little bit of work and god forbid a politician does a little bit of that. If sense were common, everyone would have it. 4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

06-17-2009, 02:12 PM	#48
min0 lee Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: The Bronx, NYC Posts: 38,792 Photos: 542	I really don't know the details about this issue but it's good to have a person like bandaidwoman who is in the field explain the details of this issue. How To Do The Perfect Bench Press Rep Bodybuilding and Lifting Weights, the Difference ironmagazine-frapper

06-17-2009, 02:14 PM	#49
min0 lee Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: The Bronx, NYC Posts: 38,792 Photos: 542	I really don't remember our current health plan being this way before 1986....most companies like my former employer started to lay off or subcontract employees because of medical benefits. How To Do The Perfect Bench Press Rep Bodybuilding and Lifting Weights, the Difference ironmagazine-frapper

06-17-2009, 07:20 PM	#50
diablomex blood and sweat Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: alabama Posts: 281	i like to see in congress, who ever fights not to fix healthcare. i wanna see who contributed to their campain.a lot of people are arguing about dumb things.seriously,the people are not arguing about getting free healthcare.just make it affordable.i think if we have a public option,at low cost.that would make the other insurance companies go down on cost.thats who's really messing things up.we got to be real, we keep making the same money,and everything else goes up.thats not right!its easy for people that can afford good healthcare to wanna oppose the rights for other people that cant afford it. a lot of people listen to these people , that love to rant.and believe them.and those are the people that have money.we have to listen to are own people.and not to politicions.

06-18-2009, 08:01 PM	#55
Pirate! Gatekepper Moderator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 6,173	Degregulation and tort reform has immediate savings and no upfront cost. Perhaps that's too easy to consider. My 1-Andro RX Journal

06-19-2009, 01:01 AM	#56
TrojanMan60563 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: The U-S of A Posts: 3,393 Photos: 1	they need to stop the huge upcharge in services. I was in the hospital for a week due to a stomach issue and my blood pressure medicine was $800 for the week. I pay like $120 for a year supply. That is retarded. They do this sort of thing with everything, and ever service. Hospital charges you, and then the health providers bill their own, labs bill their own, its all getting billed twice...its a joke. When I was a kid I remember my parents paying a couple dollars for a prescription. And $5-$10 copays. Surgery was covered. What happened I don't know, but the obvious thing I see is more greed.

06-19-2009, 03:43 PM	#57
BoneCrusher Lift or Die Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Austin Texas Posts: 8,589	The most important step we can take in improving our national health care system is to remove political identity from the issues surrounding the crisis. Hard line Republicans will argue against this all day long primarily because it's been a Dem based initiative. bandaidwoman posted her initial comments and imedidatly received a political response completly lacking a factual premis. Even as she backed her comments with fact-based research, she was still rallied against with rhetoric ... why? Sadly, because the political identity of Rep vs. Dem comes into play here overshadowing the actual importane of the issue. Socialized medicine has been a project of the Clinton admin for almost two decades ... so by default ... every card carrying Repub is going to be opposed to the transition ... factless and clueless ... hands down with a "Them damn Democrats just want to blah blah blah" mindset. Yes I'm beating my "Bi-partisan politics is bullshit" drum again ... I'll stop. Hopefully those of you opposed to this because it comes from the other side of the isle will also stop. There is a solid solution evolving here and we as Americans need to ALL of us get up to speed and get with it ...

06-19-2009, 03:55 PM	#59
Dale Mabry Moderator Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: Elsewhere Posts: 14,335 Photos: 10	On a slightly more serious note, I have always wondered how people on the other side of this talk about it in public. I wonder if they are just hanging out with a couple of friends chatting away and say, "You know what would suck? If people were no longer able to go bankrupt because they can't afford their medical bills. That would have to be just about the worst thing that could ever happen to this country." Or better yet, just bust out with, "You know who I feel sorry for? The insurance companies that ran this country in to the ground. First, they are hit with massive losses, next you have an Islamic socialist president making sure that they can no longer take $100 from Mr. Jones, give the hospital $25 on a $75 procedure, and pocket the rest for doing essentially nothing other than burdening the hospital with paperwork. You really can't feel anything but compassion for those guys." If sense were common, everyone would have it. 4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode