Healthcare going forward

[Benvolio]

As a conservative, this is where I part ways with the Right. A conservative government does not intrude into a woman's private life. It also endorses no religion, they're seperate. It is none of the government's business.

If you were a conservative, you would agree that employers should not be required to buy contraception for employees. Providing health care is one thing. Pregnancy is not an illness, and contraception is not the cure or treatment of an illness. It is no business of the government. Nothing in the constitution remotely authorizes the government to require businesses to provide free birth control. Worse, it facilitates the democrat plan to discourage white reproduction while increasing immigration.

 

[Benvolio]

As a conservative, this is where I part ways with the Right. A conservative government does not intrude into a woman's private life. It also endorses no religion, they're seperate. It is none of the government's business.

A conservative government would not require businesses or organizations to provide contraception. Pregnancy is not an illness nor is contraception a cure for an illness. Contraception is none of the government's business. Nothing in the constitution authorizes the government to require businesses to provide contraception.
The fact that some churches, organizations and people have a religious objection merely confirms the inappropriateness of the government intrusion into the business.

 

[KaraBulut]

I thought that contraception coverage was part of the law, not something Obama did by executive power. If so, then we have Trump being as much or more a dictator here than Obama ever was.

Well...

So, there was a ruling about 20 years ago that said that insurance companies could not restrict benefits based upon gender. Many states already mandated that contraception be covered.

Two things changed with the ACA:

1. Contraception is considered a preventative service that has to be covered without a copay (similar to the way that screening colonoscopies are covered at 100% when they are for cancer screening).
2. There are specific religious carve-outs. For example, religious organizations aren't required to fund insurance plans that cover contraception; many, like the Catholic Church, offer employees a second insurance policy that can be purchased for contraception coverage. If a religious organization provides health insurance to persons who are NOT employees (i.e. students at a Catholic school), then contraception must be included.

I would grant a company a legitimate religious position if and only if it is owned and staffed 100% by people who hold to that religious position -- owners and staff being the same.

The carve-outs (#2) had been negotiated with representatives of organizations like the Catholic Church. Then Hobby Lobby decided that it wasn't happy with the preventative service mandate (#1) because of the owners' religious beliefs, even though they were a for-profit company and were not a "faith-based organization".

The Hobby Lobby issues over the past few years have revealed somethings about the evangelical thinking for certain religious groups on the rights of for-profit employers to impose their religious beliefs on employees and sadly, how they often have a relativistic view of morality and legality. Both are things that we should keep in mind as Trump & Co continue to rollback protections for LGBT people.

 

[gsdx]

Celebrex is $27 at Kroger for 30 count.

That's one isolated example, but you still can't explain the insanely-high prices for prescription drugs in general, and your explanations of R&D and Advertising have been debunked here time and time again.

The simple answer is that the drug companies charge those prices because they're allowed to. When profits come before human lives, there is something wrong with the system.

 

[Benvolio]

That's one isolated example, but you still can't explain the insanely-high prices for prescription drugs in general, and your explanations of R&D and Advertising have been debunked here time and time again.

The simple answer is that the drug companies charge those prices because they're allowed to. When profits come before human lives, there is something wrong with the system.

Two examples including Nexium. You have not debunked R&D you have merely disagreed.
Where do you think new drugs come from? Profits from previous drugs of course.

 

[KaraBulut]

That's one isolated example, but you still can't explain the insanely-high prices for prescription drugs in general, and your explanations of R&D and Advertising have been debunked here time and time again.

The simple answer is that the drug companies charge those prices because they're allowed to. When profits come before human lives, there is something wrong with the system.

For Nexium, he's quoting the over-the-counter version. For Celebrex, it's the generic version cost.

Nexium has two formulations- one that is prescription and another than is over-the-counter. It's the same drug in a different package. The prescription version costs quite a bit more for some unknown reason (probably because a few insurance plans still cover most of the cost of the brand version).

Celebrex (celecoxib) went generic about 2 years ago. The generic version is a lot cheaper than the brand name version.

Two examples including Nexium. You have not debunked R&D you have merely disagreed.
Where do you think new drugs come from? Profits from previous drugs of course.

The evidence has been presented multiple times from reputable sources using the companies' own public filings. It's a fact that the pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than on R&D. You're wrong and you continue to ignore the facts.

Pharma is good at marketing and this claim about R&D costs is coming directly from their marketing department, not from the actual numbers in their governmental filings. Not many others have bought the industry's BS about the need to charge Americans 10 times as much for drugs as they charge everyone else.

As as Kaiser put it in a recent analysis:

Drug companies are in the midst of a glossy publicity campaign to stop attempts to control rising pharma costs...
What settles the argument is drugmakers’ audited financial statements, which show that costs of all kinds are far below what they collect in revenue. Ten of the top publicly traded U.S. drug companies earned profits of $83.6 billion last year on revenue of $306 billion, regulatory filings show. That’s a 27 percent pretax profit margin — accomplished even after spending billions on TV ads and salespeople.

 

[gsdx]

You have not debunked R&D you have merely disagreed.

We have disagreed with proof. You simply ignore it or disagree with it. We proved to you several times that, on average, twice as much money is spent on advertising than on R&D, and profits are hundreds of millions above both combined. It is nobody's fault but your own to deny the proof.

 

[Benvolio]

We have disagreed with proof. You simply ignore it or disagree with it. We proved to you several times that, on average, twice as much money is spent on advertising than on R&D, and profits are hundreds of millions above both combined. It is nobody's fault but your own to deny the proof.

You have so little grasp of usiness and economics, think that advertising is a waste of money which causes drugs to cost more. You think drug companies are so stupid that they just waste money on advertising. You think that you know more about the drug business than the drug companies and management.

 

[Benvolio]

As I have pointed out part of the purpose of the advertising expense is to infor of possible side effects, real or speculative. Judgments have been awarded against Johnson and Johnson in amounts of 70 million and 417 million for failure to inform women that talcum powder might cause ovarian cancer-- even thought that is not proven. That is part of the reason drug companies need large profits and prices are so high It is the reason trial lawyers are among the biggest donors to the democrat party and why democrat block tort reform.

 

[KaraBulut]

You have so little grasp of usiness and economics...

And once again, confronted with facts, you drop into ad hominem and baiting...

 

[Benvolio]

And once again, confronted with facts, you drop into ad hominem and baiting...

Look again. I was responding to gsdx ad hominem, devoid of facts.

 

[gsdx]

You have so little grasp of usiness and economics, think that advertising is a waste of money which causes drugs to cost more. You think drug companies are so stupid that they just waste money on advertising. You think that you know more about the drug business than the drug companies and management.

I don't think any of those things, but I can recognise usury when I see it, not to mention 'buying the government'.

 

[Benvolio]

And once again, confronted with facts, you drop into ad hominem and baiting...

Plaintiffs trial lawyers donate to democrats to block tort reform. http://freebeacon.com/politics/trial-lawyers-spend-big-on-democrats/
Hence humongous judgements such as the 70 million and 417 million for talcum powder. It is not baiting it is fact and an important part of the medical and drug cost question.l

 

[Benvolio]

I don't think any of those things, but I can recognise usury when I see it, not to mention 'buying the government'.

Obviously you do not recognize usury. It is limited to charging excessive interest rates.Lol,lol.

 

[ballcaphair]

A conservative government would not require businesses or organizations to provide contraception. Pregnancy is not an illness nor is contraception a cure for an illness. Contraception is none of the government's business. Nothing in the constitution authorizes the government to require businesses to provide contraception.
The fact that some churches, organizations and people have a religious objection merely confirms the inappropriateness of the government intrusion into the business.

Respectfully, You are missing my point. I am encouraging the government to not intrude into a woman's private life, or the workings of a business. Healthcare and what it includes should be a private business decision.

 

[Benvolio]

Respectfully, You are missing my point. I am encouraging the government to not intrude into a woman's private life, or the workings of a business. Healthcare and what it includes should be a private business decision.

Indeed, but government requiring the providing of contraception is intrusion into the workings of the business and usurping what should be a private business decision. No one is trying to prevent businesses from voluntarily providing contraception coverage.

 

[Kulindahr]

The carve-outs (#2) had been negotiated with representatives of organizations like the Catholic Church. Then Hobby Lobby decided that it wasn't happy with the preventative service mandate (#1) because of the owners' religious beliefs, even though they were a for-profit company and were not a "faith-based organization".

The Hobby Lobby issues over the past few years have revealed somethings about the evangelical thinking for certain religious groups on the rights of for-profit employers to impose their religious beliefs on employees and sadly, how they often have a relativistic view of morality and legality. Both are things that we should keep in mind as Trump & Co continue to rollback protections for LGBT people.

It's a symptom of what theologically is called "triumphalism", where since Christianity is the one true religion it can rightfully use temporal (worldly, secular) power to both increase and hold power. To them, it doesn't matter what beliefs employees or even stockholders may hold, because imposing Christianity is right and proper.

That this is starkly contrary to what Jesus taught somehow escapes these folks.

Wikipedia has a nice list of some of the symptoms of triumphalism:

• "+Impaired ability to judge the value or morality of the group's actions;
• +Cessation of creativity and innovation within the group;
• +Blindness to other groups’ strengths and innovations;
• +A tendency to over-reach against the group’s competitors, based on an inflated sense of the likelihood of triumph in conflict."

It's very accurate as far as the religious right, but I'll add another:

• +An inability to regard one's own sources of teaching objectively.

In this case, the desire to triumph precludes being able to see what Jesus actually said on various matters.

 

[Kulindahr]

The evidence has been presented multiple times from reputable sources using the companies' own public filings. It's a fact that the pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than on R&D. You're wrong and you continue to ignore the facts.

Pharma is good at marketing and this claim about R&D costs is coming directly from their marketing department, not from the actual numbers in their governmental filings. Not many others have bought the industry's BS about the need to charge Americans 10 times as much for drugs as they charge everyone else.

As as Kaiser put it in a recent analysis:

It's interesting that the government has lied to us about drugs for decades, and the drug companies lie to us as well.

 

[Kulindahr]

Two examples including Nexium. You have not debunked R&D you have merely disagreed.
Where do you think new drugs come from? Profits from previous drugs of course.

No, they don't -- according to the IRS, R&D is a business expense, which means it doesn't come out of profits.

 

[Kulindahr]

You have so little grasp of usiness and economics, think that advertising is a waste of money which causes drugs to cost more. You think drug companies are so stupid that they just waste money on advertising. You think that you know more about the drug business than the drug companies and management.

I think he has a perfect grasp of the economics -- he just disagrees with the morality of how they do things.

And it's a good criticism: pharma companies don't research because they're looking for things to help people, but because they want a profit. THus many things that could be highly beneficial go unresearched because the companies see no big profits from them.