House GOP on health care: For repeal, not replace

[frankfrank]

^ Now it's morphed into PLEASE die quickly.

 

[Kulindahr]

Most Americans already have health care, while we have Medicaid for those who do not or cannot not buy their own. Perhapse it needs adjustment, but authoritarianism is not the answer. Let us reduce poverty so people can afford health care.

Want to reduce poverty?

Get corporations to pay people what their work is actually worth.

 

[cm98059]

I didn't have health insurance, because it was not included as a benefit from my employer, so when I was diagnosed with Stage 4 Hodgkin's Lymphoma, I ended up at the state's premier Cancer Research Institute, because that is where my state's Medicaid program told me to go. I could pick up the binder that contains the copies of my medical bills and add them up and give you an exact total, but I do not feel like doing that right now. But each week, I received a bill for over 10,000 dollars for my chemotherapy treatment. This came up to roughly 240,000 dollars in Chemotherapy drugs for the course of my treatment. In Finland, each of those treatments would have cost 250 Euros or $329.82 US, or about $3,000.00 for a six month course of treatment. One of the biggest reasons for this is because other countries who have socialized medicine do not let the drug companies inflate their prices about 30 times. Also, countries with Socialized Medicine do no have several different prices for the same drug. In the U.S. the drug companies send representatives to doctors and insurance companies trying to sell their drug and offering deals to insurance companies to sell their drug. A few months ago, my health care quit paying for my cholesterol drug. My doctor actually called the insurance company to find out why they were denying the prescription, and they told him that basically, they had a deal with the company that sells one cholesterol drug, and they were getting this specific drug at a specific price, so thy were denying prescriptions for other cholesterol drugs. If you wanted the prescription covered prescribe the drug they wanted to sell.

 

[rareboy]

BASELESS? the entire PLANET knows that the United States has by far the most unaffordable health care system of any country in all of human history. Somebody needs to exist their entire life in a cave, or perhaps be part of the cannibal tree-people tribe on New Guinea far removed from modern civilization, or be entirely and absolutely brainwashed by the teabaggers, to not know this or think it's a lie. There are many thousands of comparisons, and they all point the same way, but your Fox News, Rush, etc. will always sweep it under the magic carpet. Google is your friend.

http://www.hcmarketplace.com/prod-1...=5974164&spUserID=ODk0MTcxNDEwMwS2&spJobID=71



http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/08/01/fighting-medicaid-expansion

HUMAN SURVIVAL is impossible on $2,256 per year in the United States, unless you're living as one of 17 people jammed into a one-bedroom apartment. I am in touch with somebody in Florida who has been homeless for years (he uses library computers), and he puts together a financial report monthly detailing his income and expenditures TO THE PENNY, and he receives well more than $2,256 per year - yet, having reliable shelter is entirely impossible. What saves him is that he speaks well - well enough that he is able to get flown to occasional LGBT organization events to give speeches or do some coordination.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

Read the chart and weep. Of the nations compared, the United States has one of the lowest life expectancies, and healthcare costs far more per capita than in any other country listed.

Listed are the G8 countries, plus China and Cuba.

Thanks Frank. I didn't have the time to add the cites last evening. Only corporations who are raping the consumers with unjustifed medical costs and egregious insurance premiums seem to really believe and propagate the lie that somehow America has the best health care in the world. For the very small percentage who can can afford it, the results may be excellent, but for most people in the country, the access to care has been increasingly constrained as it has become unaffordable.

 

[Benvolio]

Want to reduce poverty?

Get corporations to pay people what their work is actually worth.

The value of labor is determined by the market, i.e. what people are willing to pay for it. An excess of labor results in low wages. A shortage of workers results in higher wages. Skilled labor is harder to find and wages are higher.
But remember, the labor cost to the employer in the US is much, much higher than the wage. All the government programs and burdens, including lawsuits, are part of the cost of labor. In effect, the business is paying much more for the employee's services than he receives in wages. The difference is being misdirected by the government to its own whims.
If, as you suggest, the employer looks at the value of the labor as something other than market value, he must add up all that the labor costs, including the government burdens.

 

[Benvolio]

I didn't have health insurance, because it was not included as a benefit from my employer, so when I was diagnosed with Stage 4 Hodgkin's Lymphoma, I ended up at the state's premier Cancer Research Institute, because that is where my state's Medicaid program told me to go. I could pick up the binder that contains the copies of my medical bills and add them up and give you an exact total, but I do not feel like doing that right now. But each week, I received a bill for over 10,000 dollars for my chemotherapy treatment. This came up to roughly 240,000 dollars in Chemotherapy drugs for the course of my treatment. In Finland, each of those treatments would have cost 250 Euros or $329.82 US, or about $3,000.00 for a six month course of treatment. One of the biggest reasons for this is because other countries who have socialized medicine do not let the drug companies inflate their prices about 30 times. Also, countries with Socialized Medicine do no have several different prices for the same drug. In the U.S. the drug companies send representatives to doctors and insurance companies trying to sell their drug and offering deals to insurance companies to sell their drug. A few months ago, my health care quit paying for my cholesterol drug. My doctor actually called the insurance company to find out why they were denying the prescription, and they told him that basically, they had a deal with the company that sells one cholesterol drug, and they were getting this specific drug at a specific price, so thy were denying prescriptions for other cholesterol drugs. If you wanted the prescription covered prescribe the drug they wanted to sell.

European counties and Canada have price controls on drugs, including drugs developed and produced in the US, which are often the most advanced available. Drug companies must charge enough to recoup their development and production costs, including the enormous cost of satisfying the bureaucrats. They sell into price controlled companies, because even selling at a lower price brings down the production cost by spreading it over a larger volume. But the result is that prices in America are higher because that is the only way they can recoup their costs and make a profit. Yes, liberals hate profits, but there must be some incentive to research and develop, and new developments are made from profits on past sales. Herehttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2000/05/why_do_drugs_cost_less_in_canada.html is a link which explains why Canadian prices are lower. How successful would those socialized medicine schemes be if Americans did not subsidize new drugs for such countries?
Even in other countries with price controls, research and development is done with the expectation of selling into the US without price controls.
One of the big dangers of Obamacare is that its price controls will stifle research, not only here but in other countries relying on US sales to recoup their expenses.
Remember, without drug company prices, those drugs could not exist.

Source Link: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...2000/05/why_do_drugs_cost_less_in_canada.html

 

[opinterph]

An analysis by London-based GlobalData suggests the Affordable Care Act will generate billions in new profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

Obamacare Will Bring Drug Industry $35 Billion In Profits (Forbes; May 25, 2013)​

 

[Benvolio]

Perhaps, but here is a discussion of the effect on future development:
"It's not even 2014 yet, and President Obama is now saying that he needs "only" another $150 billion from Big Pharma in Obamacare drug price controls and cost cuts. As the president looks for politically painless ways to cut federal health-care costs, the fat goose of drug company profits is just too tempting.

Big Pharma argues that drug price controls will kill the goose that lays the golden molecules. Without the ability to charge market prices, they say they will be forced to severely cut future R&D spending and we'll all suffer needlessly from diseases that could have been cured or managed because the next generation of drug innovations will never come to market.

They may be right about that. Two decades ago Europe used to invent twice as many new drugs as the U.S. but as European countries moved to drug price controls to cut national health-care budgets, the U.S. has outpaced Europe by more than two-to-one in new drug inventions. The largest share of biomedical patents are awarded to U.S. inventors."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/drug-500414-big-pharma.html

 

[Benvolio]

The article in my last post overlooks that when European companies spend to develop, they are hoping to sell into the vast US market without price controls. Now, they will predictably spend even less than they have been. Obamacare impacts not only US development, but that in other countries as well.

 

[HenryReardon]

BASELESS? the entire PLANET knows that the United States has by far the most unaffordable health care system of any country in all of human history. .

The post in question was about results and you go off on a major tangent about affordability. I know it's difficult, but do try to focus on the topic at hand.

 

[White Eagle]

That's a lie. Over 20 states (all republican red states) have opted out of expanding Medicaid to the uninsured, keeping in lockstep with their toxic ideology. Look up some facts. That means that all the people in those states who do not or cannot buy insurance will remain uninsured with no option except emergency room care, the most expensive care there is, that taxpayers in those red states will continue to pay.

How many jobs bills have you republicans obstructed? So stop lecturing about reducing poverty until you produce the millions of jobs you promised as a result of the Bush tax cuts.

I believe you are totally correct in this. Texas is this way, I believe, but if it weren't for my VA medical, I don't need medicare or Medicaid. I am using medicare as it takes part of the burden off of the VA.

 

[White Eagle]

BASELESS? the entire PLANET knows that the United States has by far the most unaffordable health care system of any country in all of human history. Somebody needs to exist their entire life in a cave, or perhaps be part of the cannibal tree-people tribe on New Guinea far removed from modern civilization, or be entirely and absolutely brainwashed by the teabaggers, to not know this or think it's a lie. There are many thousands of comparisons, and they all point the same way, but your Fox News, Rush, etc. will always sweep it under the magic carpet. Google is your friend.

http://www.hcmarketplace.com/prod-1...=5974164&spUserID=ODk0MTcxNDEwMwS2&spJobID=71



http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/08/01/fighting-medicaid-expansion

HUMAN SURVIVAL is impossible on $2,256 per year in the United States, unless you're living as one of 17 people jammed into a one-bedroom apartment. I am in touch with somebody in Florida who has been homeless for years (he uses library computers), and he puts together a financial report monthly detailing his income and expenditures TO THE PENNY, and he receives well more than $2,256 per year - yet, having reliable shelter is entirely impossible. What saves him is that he speaks well - well enough that he is able to get flown to occasional LGBT organization events to give speeches or do some coordination.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

Read the chart and weep. Of the nations compared, the United States has one of the lowest life expectancies, and healthcare costs far more per capita than in any other country listed.

Listed are the G8 countries, plus China and Cuba.

I have been trying to find an apartment either here in CC or San Antonio. My income is not large enough to get an apartment in either city. Lord knows that I would be screwed if I had to rely on the insurance companies. All of my preexisting conditions would keep me from getting help. Thank God I have the VA Medical ins.

 

[JayHawk]

Once again the party of no solutions. That is what they will find people have faith in them to accomplish. Hopefully they will find that again at the ballot box. I sincerely hope that current events electrifies the voting electorate and we have a huge turnout. Based on the republican approval rating, they will be destroyed once again.

 

[rareboy]

An analysis by London-based GlobalData suggests the Affordable Care Act will generate billions in new profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

Obamacare Will Bring Drug Industry $35 Billion In Profits (Forbes; May 25, 2013)​

It is simple common sense. The more people who have access to care and meds, the more people will use care and meds.

I don't understand why something so simple escapes the Benvolios of this world.

 

[Benvolio]

It is simple common sense. The more people who have access to care and meds, the more people will use care and meds.

I don't understand why something so simple escapes the Benvolios of this world.

Look at my quote at 7:01 below. Obama is already looking to knock another 150 billion off drug company profits. Once the bureaucrats and politicians get control, is is inevitable that they will trim profits.

 

[Kulindahr]

I didn't have health insurance, because it was not included as a benefit from my employer, so when I was diagnosed with Stage 4 Hodgkin's Lymphoma, I ended up at the state's premier Cancer Research Institute, because that is where my state's Medicaid program told me to go. I could pick up the binder that contains the copies of my medical bills and add them up and give you an exact total, but I do not feel like doing that right now. But each week, I received a bill for over 10,000 dollars for my chemotherapy treatment. This came up to roughly 240,000 dollars in Chemotherapy drugs for the course of my treatment. In Finland, each of those treatments would have cost 250 Euros or $329.82 US, or about $3,000.00 for a six month course of treatment. One of the biggest reasons for this is because other countries who have socialized medicine do not let the drug companies inflate their prices about 30 times. Also, countries with Socialized Medicine do no have several different prices for the same drug. In the U.S. the drug companies send representatives to doctors and insurance companies trying to sell their drug and offering deals to insurance companies to sell their drug. A few months ago, my health care quit paying for my cholesterol drug. My doctor actually called the insurance company to find out why they were denying the prescription, and they told him that basically, they had a deal with the company that sells one cholesterol drug, and they were getting this specific drug at a specific price, so thy were denying prescriptions for other cholesterol drugs. If you wanted the prescription covered prescribe the drug they wanted to sell.

And meanwhile, new government regulations are making it harder for my mom to get good care for her diabetes: she has to use a specified supplier, and the supplier isn't allowed to give personal attention -- everything has to be done by mail, and the supplies are substandard to what she used to be able to get.

 

[Kulindahr]

The value of labor is determined by the market, i.e. what people are willing to pay for it. An excess of labor results in low wages. A shortage of workers results in higher wages. Skilled labor is harder to find and wages are higher.
But remember, the labor cost to the employer in the US is much, much higher than the wage. All the government programs and burdens, including lawsuits, are part of the cost of labor. In effect, the business is paying much more for the employee's services than he receives in wages. The difference is being misdirected by the government to its own whims.
If, as you suggest, the employer looks at the value of the labor as something other than market value, he must add up all that the labor costs, including the government burdens.

No, it isn't, because we don't have a free market -- we have one distorted by the presence of giant corporations which are the flip side of entrenched, corrupt unions.

That CEOs can be paid ten or more times what their peers in other countries are, that the uber-wealthy can rake off unearned income in record amounts, indicates that the wages are not what they should be. The value of labor is what makes raw materials into products, and that labor should be paid its value.

If employers paid what the labor they use is actually worth, most of those government programs wouldn't cost a thing, because no one would need them.

 

[Kulindahr]

The post in question was about results and you go off on a major tangent about affordability. I know it's difficult, but do try to focus on the topic at hand.

If it isn't affordable, the results are not good. Any report on results has to include the results for those who couldn't even use the system, and thus suffered without professional care.

Ergo, it's not a tangent.

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps, but here is a discussion of the effect on future development:
"It's not even 2014 yet, and President Obama is now saying that he needs "only" another $150 billion from Big Pharma in Obamacare drug price controls and cost cuts. As the president looks for politically painless ways to cut federal health-care costs, the fat goose of drug company profits is just too tempting.

Big Pharma argues that drug price controls will kill the goose that lays the golden molecules. Without the ability to charge market prices, they say they will be forced to severely cut future R&D spending and we'll all suffer needlessly from diseases that could have been cured or managed because the next generation of drug innovations will never come to market.

They may be right about that. Two decades ago Europe used to invent twice as many new drugs as the U.S. but as European countries moved to drug price controls to cut national health-care budgets, the U.S. has outpaced Europe by more than two-to-one in new drug inventions. The largest share of biomedical patents are awarded to U.S. inventors."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/drug-500414-big-pharma.html

They probably are right about that. But, along with government, they have become part of the problem. As the article says, we need new thinking:

Another idea would use crowd-source funding like Kickstarter to match consumers and patients through the internet with promising academic and private biomedical research programs. These would include charitable programs like the Bill Gates malaria vaccine project or for-profit drug development efforts. Potential drug investment projects could be independently rated by neutral and highly-regarded organizations like Consumer Reports, the Cochrane Collaboration or the Oregon Drug Effectiveness Research Program.

If we want to keep generating new innovative drugs in a cost-constrained environment, unlike Big Pharma, we need to start thinking outside of the box.

 

[HenryReardon]

If it isn't affordable, the results are not good. Any report on results has to include the results for those who couldn't even use the system, and thus suffered without professional care.

Ergo, it's not a tangent.

Wrong, yet again. The post he responded to with all that useless verbiage was about results. Period.

If it's so-called affordability that interests you, perhaps if we could get the government uninvolved, healthcare would become more affordable. As it is, it isn't bad. The group practice my doctor is a part of has their fees posted on the wall for all to see, and they are quite reasonable. For that matter, there are always places that serve the medically indigent. The system is far from broken.