Healthcare going forward

[Kulindahr]

That and the fact that they even claim that there are other side effects that they haven't mentioned. The listing of the side effects is necessary because of the advertising. The advertising isn't necessary because of the side effects.

But Benvolio will continue to use minimal advertising costs and even more minimal R&D costs to justify the 5,600% price increase. People are protected from userers, but certainly not from drug companies.

Because the drug companies are run by those belonging to the 0.25% who buy the elections.

We just need to amend the Constitution to make it clear that "free speech" only belongs to entities which have their own brains and mouths and can thus actually speak -- meaning human beings, specifically citizens and legal residents. That would clear this all up rather quickly.

 

[Benvolio]

Because the drug companies are run by those belonging to the 0.25% who buy the elections.

We just need to amend the Constitution to make it clear that "free speech" only belongs to entities which have their own brains and mouths and can thus actually speak -- meaning human beings, specifically citizens and legal residents. That would clear this all up rather quickly.

Dream on. George Soros is a real live person, spending billions to rule our country.

 

[Kulindahr]

Doesn't that entirely ignore the basic concept of what INSURANCE is...to spread risk among the entire pool?

But it's inevitable when you mix insurance with capitalism: capitalism always wants to push costs off on others and only deal with what is profitable. So private-sector health care is a contradiction in terms, an approach that became immoral the moment we lost the Judeo-Christian ethic Benvolio praises but pisses on consistently: to care for all, doing no harm.

There is no ethical argument that can support this travesty.

 

[Benvolio]

It gets even worse, as I remember last month seeing that somebody might have to pay $142,000 per year (or some absurd amount like that) if they have pre-existing cancer.

What I'm not sure and I don't remember, perhaps that would even mean that an insurance company could RAISE somebody's premiums, which perhaps were formerly barely affordable in the first place, to such a ridiculous amount AFTER THE FACT. This is tantamount to allowing insurance companies to rescind insurance contracts as soon as somebody actually gets sick, and therefore the insurance company becomes one of Sarah Palin's death panels (though she will never admit it).

Doesn't that entirely ignore the basic concept of what INSURANCE is...to spread risk among the entire pool?

No exactly. They don't charge people with small cheap houses higher premiums so the rich can pay less to insure their mansions. Nor charge safe drivers with cheap cars higher premiums so that dangerous drivers and those with expensive cars can pay lower premiums. Nor charge health young people high life insurance premiums so that sick old people can buy cheap insurance on the eve of their demise. One of the purposes of group insurance is to facilitate some degree of gouging of the young to charges lower premiums to older people, and the young don't realize what is happening.

 

[KaraBulut]

^ I'm guessing, then, that the info and news items we're getting posted in here aren't really 'common knowledge'. I suppose it would take something like Watergate to get the information out to the public.

I hear people say, "Senator so-and-so is a physician, so he knows about healthcare". The sad truth is that even the people in healthcare don't understand the American healthcare system. It's so complex that only a minority of consultants, healthcare executives, economists and legislators really have a handle on a complex, illogical and counter-intuitive system.

For anyone who is interested, I can recommend a few good books by journalists who have spent years investigating and trying to understand the system. When you read their writing, you'll spend most of your time saying, "WTF?".

The vote on the AHCA will probably be delayed until after the Senate recess.

The AHCA has passed. What the Senate is voting on is a different bill- the BCRA. If the BCRA passes, they will have to put together a committee of members from both the House and the Senate to negotiate a compromise bill that merges the two bills.

The negotiations will be tackling questions like, "Should 20 million people lose their insurance coverage or should 24 million people lose their coverage?".

I don't watch Fox, but I would almost be willing to bet my *LIFE* that they will never, ever truthfully talk about that aspect on that [STRIKE]news[/STRIKE] propaganda network.

Honestly, you should watch both. Just be careful what you watch on both networks.

Some of the shows like Fox & Friends or Lawrence O'Donnell's show are largely opinion and propaganda, although F&F has largely become the QVC for the Republican Party.

On the other hand, there are shows on both networks that present facts along with a particular viewpoint. For example, Steve Rattner's charts in the morning on Morning Joe are very helpful in understanding complicated subjects. Or better yet, watch PBS, listen to NPR and try to catch the good shows that take the deep dive on CSPAN (don't watch anything on CSPAN that has a call-in number, though).

But to answer your question, the overall tone at Fox has been to distort what the ACA is doing (which is why a lot of Fox viewers say things like they love Medicare and the ACA but hate Obamacare because it's socialized medicine).

...The irony here is the fact that U.S. R&D is so expensive proves that what Ben is supporting is NOT a free market...

There's a lot that is wrong with "R&D" in the US. Some of what is being charged off as "R&D" is just normal cost of operating a business. Many of the drugs that come to market are drugs developed by universities or the NIH using taxpayer funds or private grants. Many of the drugs that come to market are just analogs to drugs developed in other countries.

There's a good analysis here.

Basically, what the writers concluded was that the excess pricing in the US market far exceeded the entire R&D global budget for the pharmaceutical companies. In other words, US consumers finance not only the R&D budget for the US market, they're covering the R&D budget for the rest of the world and the pharmaceutical companies are still making 100% to 250% of their R&D budget in profit.

 

[frankfrank]

The AHCA has passed. What the Senate is voting on is a different bill- the BCRA. If the BCRA passes, they will have to put together a committee of members from both the House and the Senate to negotiate a compromise bill that merges the two bills.

Thank you for the correction and, yeah, that's right.

Of course they could come back from the one-week recess and simply introduce the text of the passed House (AHCA) bill intact and vote on that, and there wouldn't even need to be any reconciliation between the two.

We both know that they would just ram it through with no hearings at all, as they originally were trying to do with BCRA last week. They won't make the same mistake again.

 

[Stardreamer]

So with the delay announcement today the BCRA is all over the Disqus boards with the usual partisan banter. But I hit a point where I had to rant so here is my comment that posted on one of The Hill's discussions:

I'm getting sick and tired of our representatives taking matters that affect every single American, a sixth of our economy, and a major impact on our national budget drafting legislation on it in secret, rushing it through the legislative process so fast that no one has the time to read it much less reasonably debate the consequences and then passing it along a party line vote.

Health care is too important a matter to be playing these pathetic US vs THEM partisan games with. On an issue, this important to the American People I expect no less than the majority to fully engage across the aisle with the minority, spend MONTHS not weeks debating the issue and reaching the best possible solutions for everyone and passing the final bill with a clear bipartisan majority in both houses. If you can't do that you don't deserve to be a US Congressman.

 

[KaraBulut]

...We both know that they would just ram it through with no hearings at all, as they originally were trying to do with BCRA last week. They won't make the same mistake again.

In addition to the people who have been relentless in their protests at Town Halls and in addition to lobbying groups like the AMA and AARP, credit should also be given to governors who have been vocal in their protests. In states like Ohio, Nevada and Kentucky, they're being pragmatic and saying, "We need to make this work".

Fortunately, there's also a difference between House members who are in gerrymandered districts vs Senators who are elected by all the citizens of their state. The Senators from states that accepted the Medicaid expansion are less likely to vote for repeal until they have assurances that their constituents aren't going to be left high and dry by a full repeal of the ACA.

 

[Benvolio]

You might like to know that the Constitutionsl Convention wasslso kept secret, for the same reason. They did not want screeches of outrage over every proposal until the delegates had completed their own discussion and compromising, and the public could see the document as a whole.

 

[Stardreamer]

You might like to know that the Constitutionsl Convention wasslso kept secret, for the same reason. They did not want screeches of outrage over every proposal until the delegates had completed their own discussion and compromising, and the public could see the document as a whole.

Note the highlighted above And it should be noted they all signed it. And it was discussed for months in the press, you know those Federalist Paper's thing. The states didn't suddenly wake up and find they had a constitution that they didn't know about 2 weeks before. And it wasn't passed by partisan majority over the objections of a partisan minority. There is so many things wrong with this comparison it is laughable.

 

[ballcaphair]

Note the highlighted above And it should be noted they all signed it. And it was discussed for months in the press, you know those Federalist Paper's thing. The states didn't suddenly wake up and find they had a constitution that they didn't know about 2 weeks before. And it wasn't passed by partisan majority over the objections of a partisan minority. There is so many things wrong with this comparison it is laughable.

AND: The Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare more than 40 times since it was passed. Who would guess that they did not have a repair figured out. This secret scramble is shocking. This is the party that has had years to repair and/or repeal the ACA in broad light of day! Shame on them! Our clinic is running on bear bones. Their fix is to close our clinic. Shame on them!

 

[rareboy]

 

[rareboy]

Go to 2:54 and get prepared to laugh at this guy's pain. What a fucking idiot. He voted for a guy who has no actual ideas of his own and doesn't give a shit if people like this have no coverage.

Love to be there when he or his wife are lying in an emergency department somewhere and have someone lean over and tell them that ....'yeaahhh...here's the thing...you didn't qualify for insurance....would you prefer cremation or interment?'

 

[smokeshadow]

The Senate version of the "repeal & replace" for the ACA is even less approved of than the House version

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...han_house_gop_s_bill_just_released_poll_shows

 

[ballcaphair]

^ER is an awfully expensive place to receive primary care, but 75% of the people we receive are there because they could not afford insurance or primary service. If our clinic closes, they will have an hour and a half drive to the nearest clinic. This just makes a horrible system even more tragic. This is does nothing for healthcare. This is destructive. Shame on them all!

 

[gsdx]

^ Well, they have to save money somewhere to make up for the tax cuts to Trump's friends.

 

[rareboy]

^ER is an awfully expensive place to receive primary care, but 75% of the people we receive are there because they could not afford insurance or primary service. If our clinic closes, they will have an hour and a half drive to the nearest clinic. This just makes a horrible system even more tragic. This is does nothing for healthcare. This is destructive. Shame on them all!

ER is the worst place to receive episodic care...particularly if the problem has progressed to the point that it becomes catastrophic intervention.

My heart goes out to all the health care providers out there who will be devastated by this Act.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's a simple way to stop this: Senate rules allow ANY Senator to put a hold on a bill so he can investigate it. All it takes is one Senator, and the bill is frozen. Wikipedia describes it this way:

"The original intent of these sections was to protect a Senator's right to be consulted on legislation that affected the Senator's state or in which a senator had a great interest. The ability to place a hold would allow that senator an opportunity to study the legislation and to reflect on its implications before moving forward with further debate and voting."

--as taken from the Congressional Record.


Everyone with a Democrat Senator, email -- tell them to put a hold on this!

 

[Kulindahr]

There's a lot that is wrong with "R&D" in the US. Some of what is being charged off as "R&D" is just normal cost of operating a business. Many of the drugs that come to market are drugs developed by universities or the NIH using taxpayer funds or private grants. Many of the drugs that come to market are just analogs to drugs developed in other countries.

There's a good analysis here.

Basically, what the writers concluded was that the excess pricing in the US market far exceeded the entire R&D global budget for the pharmaceutical companies. In other words, US consumers finance not only the R&D budget for the US market, they're covering the R&D budget for the rest of the world and the pharmaceutical companies are still making 100% to 250% of their R&D budget in profit.

And they can only do that because they're not operating in a free market -- they have the government on their side.

 

[Kulindahr]

So with the delay announcement today the BCRA is all over the Disqus boards with the usual partisan banter. But I hit a point where I had to rant so here is my comment that posted on one of The Hill's discussions:

I'm getting sick and tired of our representatives taking matters that affect every single American, a sixth of our economy, and a major impact on our national budget drafting legislation on it in secret, rushing it through the legislative process so fast that no one has the time to read it much less reasonably debate the consequences and then passing it along a party line vote.

Health care is too important a matter to be playing these pathetic US vs THEM partisan games with. On an issue, this important to the American People I expect no less than the majority to fully engage across the aisle with the minority, spend MONTHS not weeks debating the issue and reaching the best possible solutions for everyone and passing the final bill with a clear bipartisan majority in both houses. If you can't do that you don't deserve to be a US Congressman.

I'd go further: a bill of such importance shouldn't be allowed to the floor until five accredited universities, two chosen by proponents, two by opponents, and one drawn from a hat, do independent analysis and modeling of the impact over the next decade.