The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Healthcare going forward

Benvolio said:
If government agencies negotiate prices for government programs, including medicaid and medicare and Obamacare they are controlling much of the prices and profits. Hardly free market pricing; just a form of socialism, and it will limit the development of new drugs.
Click to expand...

That is exactly free market pricing, now if they were dictating the price though legislative power then you might have a socialist argument. Does the GSA prevent the development of new and improved automobiles when the negotiate to purchase new cars at a fleet price? No. Innovation, research and development are an important part of the overall healthcare discussion but it is NOT the only or even most important aspect of the issue. Cost and resource management is just as important.
 
And Ben I will ask you again, though you ignored my earlier question. The intent here is how to move forward so what is your solution to managing medical and drug prices while enabling research and development?
 
Benvolio said:
Your figures are phoney. Nexium for instance costs nothing like $305. I have bought it, but usually buy Prilocsec or previcid which are similar. All about $25 a month. The real problem is that research and development come from profits from sales in the US. If the bureaucrats limit profits, the supply of new drugs here and in other countries will be limited.
Click to expand...

Then why can Canada charge 90% less than the same drug in the United States and still make enough profit to do R&D?

Your drug companies are not in it for the R&D. They are in it for the profits, up to 90% more than a lot of other countries. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a new class-action suit against the company which got rich with a drug that killed people almost every week.

Oh, and a lot of their profits go to advertising. Think of all the R&D they could do with the millions and billions they spend on advertising. In 2015, Pfizer spent $7.7 billion dollars on R&D. Their reported profits for that year were $43.1 billion. My kitchen colander holds more water than your argument. https://www.statista.com/statistics...l-companies-sales-and-rundd-spending-in-2010/

By the way, prescription medicine advertising isn't even allowed in Canada.
 
Stardreamer said:
And Ben I will ask you again, though you ignored my earlier question. The intent here is how to move forward so what is your solution to managing medical and drug prices while enabling research and development?
Click to expand...

See 4 below. I would add that we should stop free medical care to illegal invaders, which is part of the problem.
 
Benvolio said:
See 4 below. I would add that we should stop free medical care to illegal invaders, which is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Everybody's fault except the drug companies.
What a joke.

Follow the money every time to see the root of pricing problems.

Ignore the fawning sycophants who believe an individual's meagre investment in healthcare stocks might offset a single medical bill that would bankrupt almost any citizen.
 
Benvolio said:
See 4 below. I would add that we should stop free medical care to illegal invaders, which is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

The best solution was the old one with Medicaid to take care of the uninsured. Then require people to buy insurance without expecting the premiums to cover pre existing. Eventualy the people with preexisting will decrease by attrition
Click to expand...

So they should just get on with dying and reduce the surplus population. Pre-existing conditions are not going to go away by attrition, new people develop these conditions all the time and under the old system insurance companies found excuses to drop them.

You suggest that the uninsured be put on Medicaid which would be a viable approach but in your next post object to any increases in funding Medicaid to provide that coverage. You say taxpayers should not have to pay for it but they pay for it anyway in the costs uninsured introduce to the healthcare system that wind up increasing medical and insurance costs even more for those selfsame tax payers. Does it not make sense to address those costs by providing a more cost effective means of managing that care?

Providing Medicaid coverage for anyone unable to get insurance including pre-existing conditions is one approach to do this and yes it would be 'charity'. You know that thing our moral teachings tell us we should provide to those in need. But in the big picture, that charity is still cheaper for the tax payers.
 
Benvolio said:
Almost by definition, insurance cannot cover preexisting illnesses. No premium can be commensurate with the risk, so it is charity from someone. Forcing healthy people to pay gouge premiums to give the charity won't work because people cannot afford the premiums. Even socialized medicine won't work because we are already running nearly a trillion dollar deficit. About half the -eople get welfare now, and more comming in every day, so taxes won't work. The best solution was the old one with Medicaid to take care of the uninsured. Then require people to buy insurance without expecting the premiums to cover pre existing. Eventualy the people with preexisting will decrease by attrition
Click to expand...

Yes, let them die. That has been the GOP's plan all along, though you don't often see it admitted quite this openly.
 
Stardreamer said:
Note that Trump is promising to keep the ability for people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance. So Ben's position is to the right of Trump.
Click to expand...

As i said covering preexisting illnesses is charity, not insurance. I don't know what Trump has in mind.
 
Benvolio said:
As i said covering preexisting illnesses is charity, not insurance. I don't know what Trump has in mind.
Click to expand...

That is alright I don't think Trump does either, he just knows what is good press and taking health care away from people suffering from cancer isn't it. He and the Republicans keep talking of keeping everything that people like about the ACA including the pre-existing conditions protections and getting rid of what people don't like. The problem is what people don't like, like the universal mandate, is what pays for the good stuff.
 
Fascinating reading.

The GOP will never be able to enact it.

One of the most delicious parts though, is the notion of a High Deductible plan.

So all the bitching about rates going up would disappear if you just make the consumer pay out of pocket.
 
This entire system is a conservative plan. The Democrats and Obama compromised endlessly to get this plan and justified it by claiming it was a framework on which to build..and it could have been I suppose but I had my doubts....

Now the Republicans are repealing their own plan. When it was called Obamacare..I wondered why he wanted his name on it?

The only acceptable plan would have been a single payer plan...

This entire process is the SWAMP at it's finest..and Republicans once again wasting all the time and energy and money to appease their owners....and once again we will have emergency rooms used for office visits that they can't afford due to being uninsurable or too poor to purchase insurance.

I wonder when the citizens of the United States of America will have had enough of these Republican thugs....and thugs they are....
 
[STRIKE][/STRIKE]
It was not a Republican plan. The GOP never endorsed it an opposed it at all times. If a few maverick Republicans liked it, that does not make it a Republican plan.
 
It's a tragedy when the right to live comes with a price attached.
Hard right Republicans appear to be willing to sign their own and others' death warrants in exchange for the promise of higher shareholder returns and lower insurance premiums.

Even when they don't get them.
 
Stardreamer said:
Which in the long run would still be cheaper than what they would have to pay under the original 'let them go to the emergency room' approach.
Click to expand...
Mark my words...I'm saying this AGAIN. I've been saying it for years, probably at least since 2007 or 2008. I have NEVER seen anybody else predict this.

Ronald Reagan signed a law, I think in 1986 or 1987, which was bipartisanly passed in Congress, which MANDATED that hospitals must offer emergency treatment to people who need it and may be badly harmed or killed without that care, even if they are uninsured.

I fully expect that Republicans will repeal that law, after Obamacare is also repealed...and people will start simply dropping dead, due to lack of health care, just as they are in India, Chad, etc.

Now that all of Congress AND the Oval Office are majority Republican - under the new 21st Century rules in which ANYTHING GOES, even including mass deaths, if it makes Republicans happy - I can so easily see this happening.
 
Benvolio said:
Almost by definition, insurance cannot cover preexisting illnesses. No premium can be commensurate with the risk, so it is charity from someone. Forcing healthy people to pay gouge premiums to give the charity won't work because people cannot afford the premiums. Even socialized medicine won't work because we are already running nearly a trillion dollar deficit. About half the -eople get welfare now, and more comming in every day, so taxes won't work. The best solution was the old one with Medicaid to take care of the uninsured. Then require people to buy insurance without expecting the premiums to cover pre existing. Eventualy the people with preexisting will decrease by attrition
Click to expand...
giant budget for
What crap whats your answer should we establish concentration camps I have had enough of peopl like you no answers just disgusting oppinions. My partner and I now live in Spain because we are not retired UK citizens we pay for Private Health Insurance t costs each of us $140 a month. This is possible because unlike the United Shits that is America we have no large military budget. Yo are welcome to your right to be here and express your opinion I like many thinks its crap, you do not have to be gay to be on here you fit all of that. To others on here with a brain read this the lies you hear about welfare are just that.

http://groundswell.org/7-lies-about-welfare-that-many-people-believe-are-fact/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top