GOP Set to Propose Its Own Health Bill

[spursncowboys]

GOP Set to Propose Its Own Health Bill

By GREG HITT (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=GREG+HITT&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND)



WASHINGTON -- Republicans are preparing an alternative health-care bill to Democratic legislation, House Republican Leader John Boehner said, marking a shift in strategy as the full House is set to begin debate on the issue this week.
Mr. Boehner said Sunday the Republican bill would extend health-insurance coverage to "millions" of Americans but wouldn't try to match the scope of the House Democratic bill unveiled last week. The Democratic legislation, if passed, is estimated to expand coverage to more than 30 million Americans now without insurance. Its estimated gross cost is $1.055 trillion over 10 years.
"What we do is we try to make the current system work better," Mr. Boehner, of Ohio, said on CNN's "State of the Nation." The GOP plan would likely be less costly to taxpayers and involve less government intrusion into the private sector. Mr. Boehner said the bill would take "a step-by-step approach" to expanding coverage.
It would, among other things, propose new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits and make it easier for individuals and small businesses to pool resources to purchase insurance.
Mr. Boehner said the Republican bill would also propose grants for states that use "innovative" solutions to expand coverage. He pointed to states that have created special "high-risk pools" to provide insurance to individuals with pre-existing conditions.
He said the bill wouldn't raise taxes, nor mandate that individuals and businesses purchase insurance, as the Democratic legislation does.
For months, Republicans have attacked the Democratic health plan, hammering at pieces of the bill -- such as a proposed government-run health plan -- and helping to stir public doubt over the initiative.
By unveiling their own legislation, Republicans will be able to coalesce around a concrete plan. But they also open themselves to potential criticism of their proposals.
Republicans have talked about a variety of alternatives to Democratic efforts on health care, but decided to put out their own bill after seeing details of the legislation unveiled by Democrats last Thursday. GOP leaders hope to offer the measure as an alternative during debate on the Democratic bill, and a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Republicans would be allowed to do so.
In the Senate, where Democratic leaders are pushing a proposal to create a new government-run insurance plan, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, made clear again Sunday that he opposed the idea. The senator said he wouldn't try to block debate on the bill, but signaled he would support any Republican efforts to block a vote on it.

[clambake]

lol gop pretending to give a shit.

[balli]

They might as well write it with Crayolas.

[boutons_deux]

don't get sick

die quickly

"Just Go To The Emergency Room"

If you get sick, declare bankruptcy on your way home from the hospital.

[spursncowboys]

Guilliani had a good idea of making it available to where you can buy insurance from different states.

[MannyIsGod]

Guilliani had a good idea of making it available to where you can buy insurance from different states.

Then who regulates it?

[spursncowboys]

Then who regulates it?
The state where the insurance company is located at.

[Wild Cobra]

They might as well write it with Crayolas.

Why?

For forty years, the democrats were promising medicare presription changes. The democrats never accomlplished it, but the republicans did just a few years ago, in a sane manner. Maybe they can do the same with Health Care. I don't think so, but it is possible.

[Wild Cobra]

Then who regulates it?

You joking?

The way the law is, if the state doesn't regulate it, the feds can. The demonrats are trying to take that option away from the states though.

All the state has to do is say you abide by certain rules.

[ChumpDumper]

The state where their company is located at.So which state's laws would apply in a lawsuit?

[boutons_deux]

"but the republicans did just a few years ago, in a sane manner."

Yes, Part D paid to private insurance corps costs the US govt 12% more than Medicare, and still required dubya to give the corps $50B gift to get involved.

Repugs never saw a taxpayer dollar that wasn't earmarked for their corporate johns.

[spursncowboys]

So which state's laws would apply in a lawsuit?
I edited it. Hope that helps. This is just an idea I thought was worth trying or debating. I dont have all the answers.

[RandomGuy]

Die, and die quickly?

[spursncowboys]

Die, and die quickly?
I read into the Libs rationing medicine as death panels and BHO saying that grandma needs morphine as closer towards your comment.

[RandomGuy]

I read into the Libs rationing medicine as death panels and BHO saying that grandma needs morphine as closer towards your comment.

You know that medicine is rationed NOW, right?

[panic giraffe]

I read into the Libs rationing medicine as death panels and BHO saying that grandma needs morphine as closer towards your comment.

rationing? like when only a select few can get coverage either due to cost or "pre-existing" conditions? or like that lady who was raped and who's doctor recommended AID's medicine so her insurance company dropped her and no other company would touch her until she produced her own 3 years worth of records showing that she was HIV-?

because if that's what you mean, then rationing already exists.

if thats what you mean, then i would rather have the option of having a government regulated/ legally accountable agency doing the rationing then a for profit corporation, but maybe that's just me.

no one wants grandma to die. however grandma should have her options when it comes to that moment to make it as pain free as possible, no matter who carries her insurance.

[spursncowboys]

You know that medicine is rationed NOW, right?
Could you explain in more detail.

[DMX7]

Could you explain in more detail.

really?

[SnakeBoy]

Then who regulates it?

Eventually under the GOP proposal I think you would see consolidation of the health insurance industry under a small number of mega health insurance companies. They could eventually be strictly regulated by the federal government. That's the thing that is most interesting about all of this to me. The GOP is offering up (unwittingly perhaps) a path towards a Switzerland type model. Which I would support and I think could work well in the USA. Unfortunately the Dems are stuck on taking us towards a single payer system which I don't think would work here.

[panic giraffe]

Unfortunately the Dems are stuck on taking us towards a single payer system which I don't think would work here.

you do know that single-payer isn't in the dem bill, right?

[spursncowboys]

really?
If it's that easy, why didn't you?

[boutons_deux]

die slowly means $25K/day in ICU while the medical "care" sucks every penny, and more, from you and your family.

[SnakeBoy]

you do know that single-payer isn't in the dem bill, right?

It's an attempt to take us in that direction. Leading dems are on record saying as much.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

don't get sick

die quickly

"Just Go To The Emergency Room"

If you get sick, declare bankruptcy on your way home from the hospital.

Silly libtard sheep.

Oh wait, you think care won't be rationed with Dems adding 40 million to the ranks of the 'insured'. That, and docs leaving the system because of no caps on malpractice suits (which will spike malpractice insurance costs), cap on pay, etc.

Y'all are some dumb motherfuckers on the left.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

rationing? like when only a select few can get coverage either due to cost or "pre-existing" conditions? or like that lady who was raped and who's doctor recommended AID's medicine so her insurance company dropped her and no other company would touch her until she produced her own 3 years worth of records showing that she was HIV-?

because if that's what you mean, then rationing already exists.

if thats what you mean, then i would rather have the option of having a government regulated/ legally accountable agency doing the rationing then a for profit corporation, but maybe that's just me.

no one wants grandma to die. however grandma should have her options when it comes to that moment to make it as pain free as possible, no matter who carries her insurance.


That situation sucks (though I haven't seen the facts on it). There are isolated stories like that all over the country. But you know what the system the Dems want to gives us going to give you?

The same story, but the patients will be passing away sitting in waiting rooms at hospitals or on gurneys in hallways because there's no room available anywhere else.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

die slowly means $25K/day in ICU while the medical "care" sucks every penny, and more, from you and your family.

And nothing would change under the Dem bill, only all of those who pay taxes in this country pick up the tab of that $25K a day charge.

Oh, and link to $25K a day bills?

By all means keep villifying the insurance cos. You're such a dumbass and so blinded by ideology you've bought everything Team Obama has said hook, line, and sinker.

There was a report out today that if you added up the profit of the ten biggest insurance cos for 2008, it was but a fraction of the amount of loss due to fraud in the Medicare system.

But by all means, insurance cos evil, Medicare good [/Obama, Pelosi, Reid]

[panic giraffe]

It's an attempt to take us in that direction. Leading dems are on record saying as much.

ok, but you do realize that its not in the bill, right?

anyways if they keep the trigger option, most states probably won't even get to see the public option.

i believe that the consensus was "i hope it leads to that" not that it will...

[panic giraffe]

That situation sucks (though I haven't seen the facts on it). There are isolated stories like that all over the country. But you know what the system the Dems want to gives us going to give you?

The same story, but the patients will be passing away sitting in waiting rooms at hospitals or on gurneys in hallways because there's no room available anywhere else.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html

i know you won't want to believe it just because it was on huffpost, but take a read before you judge.

do you really think that hospitals will just be overflowing over night 24/7 just because sick people who once couldn't afford to see a doctor can now just get preventative care?

its not like doctors are going to all of a sudden move to mexico or take a career as a used car salesman just because they have more patients. hell we don't even know IF they will have more patients. you're just basing that on some made up numbers, hell, i can't afford my company's insurance right now so i don't have it, and a couple of years ago when i could, guess what...i've seen the doctor the exact same amount of times. none. so do you have a list of people who are pledging to run to a hospital immediately when they have an option to buy into a govt plan? if not then your logic is based on a hypothetical situation.

[MannyIsGod]

The state where the insurance company is located at.

So you want states to handle regulation for patients out of their jurisdiction and you think they'll go along with that? That's pretty damn silly. I'm fairly certain Massachusetts doesn't want to deal with Texans in their system.

[hope4dopes]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html

i know you won't want to believe it just because it was on huffpost, but take a read before you judge.

do you really think that hospitals will just be overflowing over night 24/7 just because sick people who once couldn't afford to see a doctor can now just get preventative care?

its not like doctors are going to all of a sudden move to mexico or take a career as a used car salesman just because they have more patients. hell we don't even know IF they will have more patients. you're just basing that on some made up numbers, hell, i can't afford my company's insurance right now so i don't have it, and a couple of years ago when i could, guess what...i've seen the doctor the exact same amount of times. none. so do you have a list of people who are pledging to run to a hospital immediately when they have an option to buy into a govt plan? if not then your logic is based on a hypothetical situation. Tell me in your opinion, once you take the large degree of independence a doctor has to practice medicine the way they want, and run their bussiness the way they want, and once you curtail the profit motive a doctor has. What is going to be the motives for a person to become a doctor.

[spursncowboys]

So you want states to handle regulation for patients out of their jurisdiction and you think they'll go along with that? That's pretty damn silly. I'm fairly certain Massachusetts doesn't want to deal with Texans in their system.
If that is the case, then they will be able to make the decision on what is right for themselves and their family. The consumer should be able to decide the risks of going through different states. I don't understand what the issue is.

[MannyIsGod]

If that is the case, then they will be able to make the decision on what is right for themselves and their family. The consumer should be able to decide the risks of going through different states. I don't understand what the issue is.

The issue is that if I'm the state of Massachusets I do not want to pay to have to regulate insures operating in the state of Texas or vice versa which is what your proposing. If I'm a taxpayer in Mass I don't want my state government wasting time regulating out of state insurance transactions.

[baseline bum]

Eventually under the GOP proposal I think you would see consolidation of the health insurance industry under a small number of mega health insurance companies. They could eventually be strictly regulated by the federal government. That's the thing that is most interesting about all of this to me. The GOP is offering up (unwittingly perhaps) a path towards a Switzerland type model. Which I would support and I think could work well in the USA. Unfortunately the Dems are stuck on taking us towards a single payer system which I don't think would work here.

A Switzerland type model? No way the GOP would ever push a system where insurance companies weren't allowed to make profits on basic coverage to anyone.

[panic giraffe]

Tell me in your opinion, once you take the large degree of independence a doctor has to practice medicine the way they want, and run their bussiness the way they want, and once you curtail the profit motive a doctor has. What is going to be the motives for a person to become a doctor.

same reason anyone would take the Hippocratic Oath, to help others.

don't get me wrong, i think doctors provide a great service and should be duly compensated. However, i just don't think that insurance companies should even be eating at the same trough.

[panic giraffe]

also, where in the bill does it say that doctors would be paid any less?

i'm from the westside of sa, and see plenty of clinics that you know primarily take medicare and medicaid, and i have yet to see a doctor get off the bus and not park a luxury car from the fee schedules the govt pays them.

[spursncowboys]

The issue is that if I'm the state of Massachusets I do not want to pay to have to regulate insures operating in the state of Texas or vice versa which is what your proposing. If I'm a taxpayer in Mass I don't want my state government wasting time regulating out of state insurance transactions.
I am talking about private insurance. Not government ran like Mass.
Here is what Guiliani wrote:

We also need to use the lessons of welfare reform in the 1990s and encourage Medicaid reform through block grants to the states. One of the advantages of our federalist system is that different states can try different approaches to solving problems and learn from each other. States should be empowered to meet benchmarks regarding the affordability of insurance options and the availability of preventive care. The result will be a healthcare system focused on wellness, not just sickness. And if a state insists on expensive mandates that keep healthcare options unaffordable, we will open the state insurance market up to interstate commerce so their citizens can shop for insurance options in other states.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/03/a_free_market_cure_for_us_healthcare_system/

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, but who regulates private insurers? The state governments. So why would X state ever want to regulate state Y's citizens???

[Wild Cobra]

you do know that single-payer isn't in the dem bill, right?
It's not in the bill, but if it's anything similar to the last one, the law is engineered for force private insurance out of business.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, but who regulates private insurers? The state governments. So why would X state ever want to regulate state Y's citizens???
It wouldn't work like that. Each state would regulate how insurance does business in it's own state. Other insurance companies can come in and compete, but by the state's rules.

[MannyIsGod]

It wouldn't work like that. Each state would regulate how insurance does business in it's own state. Other insurance companies can come in and compete, but by the state's rules.

So in other words, what we have now. OK.

[Wild Cobra]

So in other words, what we have now. OK.
For some reason, and I don't know the details, states have limited numbers of insurance providers. There sould be no reason not to allow as many providers to sell insurance in a state that want to.

[panic giraffe]

It's not in the bill, but if it's anything similar to the last one, the law is engineered for force private insurance out of business.

if private insurance can't compete with a plan that not everyone in the country would even qualify for, then that's their business.

[jack sommerset]

Hopefully the GOP is fucking with the dems. We don't have money to give away healthcare to everyone.

[Wild Cobra]

if private insurance can't compete with a plan that not everyone in the country would even qualify for, then that's their business.
I haven't spent time with this new bill, but what planet did you just return from?

They are talking about mandating things that will make insurance prices skyrocket. I'm sure little is changed from their previous attempt. If I'm right about that, they will put private insurance companies out of business except for a few really expensive plans that only the rich will be able to afford.

Did you even read the discussions about the last bill?

[Wild Cobra]

Hopefully the GOP is fucking with the dems. We don't have money to give away healthcare to everyone.

You have to remember, it's flu season, and the republicans are infested with RINO's.

[SnakeBoy]

A Switzerland type model? No way the GOP would ever push a system where insurance companies weren't allowed to make profits on basic coverage to anyone.

That's why I said "unwittingly". Although saying saying a switzerland "type" model doesn't mean it would be exactly the same.

Tell me, why are you against you having the right to shop for the best health insurance plan in the country?

[panic giraffe]

I haven't spent time with this new bill, but what planet did you just return from?

They are talking about mandating things that will make insurance prices skyrocket. I'm sure little is changed from their previous attempt. If I'm right about that, they will put private insurance companies out of business except for a few really expensive plans that only the rich will be able to afford.

Did you even read the discussions about the last bill?

all i'm saying is, this is the US of fucking A, act American and adapt to new shit. if every industry threated to go out of business then we would be one shitty country.

when new emission laws go into place do you see car company's failing by the masses or even threaten to?
no, they just adapted and made a better product.

do bars and restaurants go out of business in mass when new anti-smoking laws go into affect?
open up a patio.

its not like the newspaper industry demanded the govt shut down the internet just because it was hurting their revenue.
they just either made websites or lost big time.

if i had stock in or owned a insurance company i would demand that they get out of the avg consumer market already and focus only on the "cadillac plans" that have a much higher profit margin, just incase a bigger, better product came into the market like a non-profit public plan.

[baseline bum]

It's not in the bill, but if it's anything similar to the last one, the law is engineered for force private insurance out of business.

Because protecting the profits of insurance companies should be our focus?

[baseline bum]

That's why I said "unwittingly". Although saying saying a switzerland "type" model doesn't mean it would be exactly the same.

Tell me, why are you against you having the right to shop for the best health insurance plan in the country?

The Switzerland type model works because insurance can't skim ridiculous amounts off the top like they can in America. Without that stipulation, how could you even call a plan a Switzerland type model?

[SnakeBoy]

The Switzerland type model works because insurance can't skim ridiculous amounts off the top like they can in America. Without that stipulation, how could you even call a plan a Switzerland type model?

I didn't call the GOP plan a switzerland type model. I said it would lead us on a path towards that type of a model. Private health insurance offered nationally which would be regulated by the federal government instead of 50 different state governments. The first step is putting the federal government in control regulating the health insurance industry instead of the states. That's what the GOP is offering up whether they realize it or not.

Can you answer my question? I'd really like to know why people on your side of the fence don't want to be able to choose from all the insurance plans available in the country.

[hope4dopes]

same reason anyone would take the Hippocratic Oath, to help others.

don't get me wrong, i think doctors provide a great service and should be duly compensated. However, i just don't think that insurance companies should even be eating at the same trough. I'm sorry, but if aultarisim
was a significant force on which to base a society, then utopia would have already come about. I don't recall any law against doctors giving away their services, they don't seem to be so inclined.

[Winehole23]

don't get me wrong, i think doctors provide a great service and should be duly compensated.


I'm sorry, but if [altruism]
was a significant force on which to base a society, then utopia would have already come about.Somebody once said this of Ayn Rand, but it applies well here: you're the Evil Knievel of jumping to conclusions, micca.

It's like you don't even read what people say.

[ElNono]

Not to mention he skipped addressing entirely why insurance companies have a god given right to profits...

[hope4dopes]

Somebody once said this of Ayn Rand, but it applies well here: you're the Evil Knievel of jumping to conclusions, micca.

It's like you don't even read what people say.That's not a point that's an aside...... your the king of duplicity.......well and the queen of elocution and good breeding of course

[hope4dopes]

Not to mention he skipped addressing entirely why insurance companies have a god given right to profits...Not in the least, but I don't think we have to choose between licentious corporations or a licentious and incompetent goverment health care.I have a feeling the corporations can not exist without a huge powerfull goverment and vice versa.

[Winehole23]

That's not a point that's an aside...... your the king of duplicity.......well and the queen of elocution and good breeding of courseWhenever micca doesn't have a good comeback, he insults your masculinity.

[clambake]

is being insulted by micca even possible?

[hope4dopes]

Whenever micca doesn't have a good comeback, he insults your masculinity. and when you don't , you go nancing about like some demented headmistress checking spelling, and grammar, etiquette, and all the other minutea that makes for a young gentelman.

[Winehole23]

What funny images you have in your head.

[hope4dopes]

is being insulted by micca even possible? Oh my gosh...I'm being set upon by Mrs. havisham, and her gang of teenage .....well boys...I suppose.

[clambake]

you do realize i wasn't talking to you, right micca?

[balli]

And it's fucking Miss Havisham. The whole fucking point of the book was that she never got married, you nitwit.

[Winehole23]

Oh my gosh...I'm being set upon by Mrs. havisham, and her gang of teenage .....well boys...I suppose.You would be Estella, then?

[balli]

:rollin

[panic giraffe]

I'm sorry, but if aultarisim
was a significant force on which to base a society, then utopia would have already come about. I don't recall any law against doctors giving away their services, they don't seem to be so inclined.

i hated my old prof tara smith, bitch gave a great paper a c.
now she gets some sort of a fellow to fucking study the ethical contributions of that failed screenwriter rand, so don't get me started on all of this.

no, there isn't a law, in fact think of "doctors w/o borders" or any health charity, and tell me that a insurance company, not a doctor started it.

besides, like i said, doctors, nurses, hell even chiropractors should be able to have no glass ceiling on their pay, what concerns me is this whole industry that we created that lets whoever can foot a bill live for how long they can keep footing that bill, and doesn't give a remote chance to anyone who can't pay.

we're not talking about luxury cars here, we're talking about human fucking life, are you people that callous?

and if you think your doctor even knows what he is charging you for his services you don't get sick much.

[spursncowboys]

i hated my old prof tara smith, bitch gave a great paper a c.
now she gets some sort of a fellow to fucking study the ethical contributions of that failed screenwriter rand, so don't get me started on all of this.

no, there isn't a law, in fact think of "doctors w/o borders" or any health charity, and tell me that a insurance company, not a doctor started it.

besides, like i said, doctors, nurses, hell even chiropractors should be able to have no glass ceiling on their pay, what concerns me is this whole industry that we created that lets whoever can foot a bill live for how long they can keep footing that bill, and doesn't give a remote chance to anyone who can't pay.

we're not talking about luxury cars here, we're talking about human fucking life, are you people that callous?

and if you think your doctor even knows what he is charging you for his services you don't get sick much.
ER's have to take everyone. There are programs now for people living under or near the poverty line. Then there is SCHIP. What more?
I would think that making a govt. entity care for people is pretty callous.

[ElNono]

Not in the least, but I don't think we have to choose between licentious corporations or a licentious and incompetent goverment health care.I have a feeling the corporations can not exist without a huge powerfull goverment and vice versa.

You're still dodging the question (or simply didn't read the post and went on with your rant).
I can understand warranting an succulent salary to doctors, nurses and the like. However, how do you justify the for-profit middleman?

[panic giraffe]

ER's have to take everyone. There are programs now for people living under or near the poverty line. Then there is SCHIP. What more?
I would think that making a govt. entity care for people is pretty callous.

ER's don't offer preventative care, not to mention the fact that preventative care for everyone would pretty much cut ER wait/thereby cost greatly.

then you're still leaving out, who is going to foot that ER bill for those who are going to walk out and not pay.

schip is for kids. most working poor people make too much to qualify for aid, but too less to be able to afford their employers health insurance plan.

so saving lives is callous. who would you want as surgeon general khalid sheik mohammed? my god man what is wrong with you?

even if you don't give a shit about people, can't you at least see the economical effect of having a sick, shitty working class? no wonder we no longer have a real manufacturing base in this country anymore.

[ElNono]

ER's have to take everyone. There are programs now for people living under or near the poverty line. Then there is SCHIP. What more?
I would think that making a govt. entity care for people is pretty callous.

Isn't these all the 'social programs' people like you want to eradicate under the premise that they're government welfare?

[boutons_deux]

Republicans Have Drafted a Health Bill, and It Sucks

FALLING SHORT OF LOW EXPECTATIONS....

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/143695/?type=blog

==========

Repugs help/protect the health care industry/corps, not the US citizens. yawn

[spursncowboys]

Isn't these all the 'social programs' people like you want to eradicate under the premise that they're government welfare?
How is it not govt. welfare? I brought them up, not to endorse, to show how there are already socialized medicare for people the libs are saying this would be for.

[ElNono]

How is it not govt. welfare? I brought them up, not to endorse, to show how there are already socialized medicare for people the libs are saying this would be for.

So you are indeed callous and don't give a shit about other people's life?

[spursncowboys]

You're still dodging the question (or simply didn't read the post and went on with your rant).
I can understand warranting an succulent salary to doctors, nurses and the like. However, how do you justify the for-profit middleman?
How do you justify the for-profit University Professors? It should be none of your business what other people are making. The individual should make the decision what he think his skill is worth.

[hope4dopes]

You're still dodging the question (or simply didn't read the post and went on with your rant).
I can understand warranting an succulent salary to doctors, nurses and the like. However, how do you justify the for-profit middleman?And just what would a massive goverment beuracracy be, other than a giant ineffecient corrupt middleman?

[ElNono]

How do you justify the for-profit University Professors? It should be none of your business what other people are making. The individual should make the decision what he think his skill is worth.

And as customers, we should be able to go with whoever we want or can afford. But if 40% of the US population couldn't afford to pay for education, should we just raise generations of ignorants?

Do you balance the well-being of an individual over the well-being of a nation?
Do you even care?

[ElNono]

And just what would a massive goverment beuracracy be, other than a giant ineffecient corrupt middleman?

Strawman.. I'm not advocating a public plan, at least not in this conversation...

[hope4dopes]

i hated my old prof tara smith, bitch gave a great paper a c.
now she gets some sort of a fellow to fucking study the ethical contributions of that failed screenwriter rand, so don't get me started on all of this.

no, there isn't a law, in fact think of "doctors w/o borders" or any health charity, and tell me that a insurance company, not a doctor started it.

besides, like i said, doctors, nurses, hell even chiropractors should be able to have no glass ceiling on their pay, what concerns me is this whole industry that we created that lets whoever can foot a bill live for how long they can keep footing that bill, and doesn't give a remote chance to anyone who can't pay.

we're not talking about luxury cars here, we're talking about human fucking life, are you people that callous?

and if you think your doctor even knows what he is charging you for his services you don't get sick much. Great concerns, any ideas on how they can be remedied? My concerns are a massive ineffcient beaureacracy, whose just as callous, but more expensive.
I have family members who routinely give medical care pro bono in the third world, they can afford to do it because of what they make here in the U.S. and they don't support goverment health care.

[hope4dopes]

Strawman.. I'm not advocating a public plan, at least not in this conversation...then what are you advocating.

[ElNono]

then what are you advocating.

I'm advocating doing away with the for-profit middleman... then finding a non-profit solution...

[spursncowboys]

ER's don't offer preventative care, not to mention the fact that preventative care for everyone would pretty much cut ER wait/thereby cost greatly.

then you're still leaving out, who is going to foot that ER bill for those who are going to walk out and not pay. I agree. who will pay for it. There is no such thing as afree lunch. The cost has to come out of something.


schip is for kids. most working poor people make too much to qualify for aid, but too less to be able to afford their employers health insurance plan. We all have to budget our money. I qualified for food stamps but did not take it and was able to live comfortably. The average healthcare bill is cheaper than a cellphone bill, but EVERYONE has a cellphone. for The govt. should not be in the business of resueing people when they make unwise choices, just like the govt. should not be telling people what choices to make.


so saving lives is callous. who would you want as surgeon general khalid sheik mohammed? my god man what is wrong with you?what is wrong with you. Because you vote to use other people's money to give healthy working people free healthcare, you think you did something noble. A free market healthcare saves more lives than socialized. This is the problem with libs argument. They always have to villify opposition. The insurance, the lobbiests, the doctors, the conservatives.
If you care so much for these people you talk about, how much of your money do you give to them? All the redistribution of wealth you ascribe in thepast 50 years, which one has worked. Which one has helped. With all the free heathcare for lower income, how many of thos were able to get "on their feet" and how many became slaves of the govt? If this is so good and works sowell, how come the middle class needs it?
Why do liberals think they can run 1/6th of our economy better than people who do it for a profit?

[spursncowboys]

Strawman.. I'm not advocating a public plan, at least not in this conversation...
Calling people callous for not agreeing with you and you are calling strawman?

[hope4dopes]

I'm advocating doing away with the for-profit middleman... then finding a non-profit solution...
It's been said that America has the best health care system in the world...for those who can afford it.
The for profit health care industry is responsible for procedures, and drugs and knowledge advancement,that has saved more human lives and relieved more human suffering than all the collectivist health care systems in the world put together.That's a fact. So what motive are you going to replace profit with to produce similar results.

[ElNono]

It's been said that America has the best health care system in the world...for those who can afford it.
The for profit health care industry is responsible for procedures, and drugs and knowledge advancement,that has saved more human lives and relieved more human suffering than all the collectivist health care systems in the world put together.That's a fact. So what motive are you going to replace profit with to produce similar results.

Is it now? Care to back that up? Or you're talking out of your ass again, micca?

[boutons_deux]

"that has saved more human lives and relieved more human suffering than all the collectivist health care systems in the world put together.That's a fact."

that's bullshit, not a fact, for justifying exorbitant, rip-off prices. Not every medical problem requires 5-star, gold-plated cost.

Medical procedures and training travel very well in a totally connected medical industry. You really think the USA has talent and secret procedures and US-only drugs not available in other advanced countries, that achieve better results with much lower costs.

[spursncowboys]

Is it now? Care to back that up? Or you're talking out of your ass again, micca?
Look at all the latest medicines and prescriptions. They come from for-profit companies.

[Winehole23]

It's been said that America has the best health care system in the world...for those who can afford it.
The for profit health care industry is responsible for procedures, and drugs and knowledge advancement,that has saved more human lives and relieved more human suffering than all the collectivist health care systems in the world put together.That's a fact. So what motive are you going to replace profit with to produce similar results.More reading fail.

Reducing costs by reducing insurance's take, requiring transparent and standardized pricing and the like, does not materially effect the profit motive for the doctor. What El Nono is talking about in this thread is tweaking the form of payment, not the form of delivery.

[ElNono]

Calling people callous for not agreeing with you and you are calling strawman?

You called yourself callous.
In order to claim you're not callous, you said there's the ER and all these government programs then you proceeded to claim that you hate all these programs and would like to see them gone.

I don't really care if you're callous. That's your choice.

And I call strawman because you cannot quote me asking for a public plan in this thread.

[hope4dopes]

Is it now? Care to back that up? Or you're talking out of your ass again, micca?Great so rather than deal with where we're at, your just going to play some childish bullshit game. It's a hard nut to crack but rather than really try and crack it your gonna play games fine go play games but don't ask america to share your dellusion.
People work for reward, they don't work for the collective.If all you who rally agianst the profit motive actually got of your ass and actually gave of yourselves, there would be no need for health insurance.If you don't have faith in your vision why should anyone else.
What has made the west such a creative and vital place, is the value we place on the individual.

[Winehole23]

Look at all the latest medicines and prescriptions. They come from for-profit companies.No one disputes that.

What El Nono is drawing attention to is how insurance drives cost all on its own.

[hope4dopes]

More reading fail.

Reducing costs by reducing insurance's take, requiring transparent and standardized pricing and the like, does not materially effect the profit motive for the doctor. What El Nono is talking about in this thread is tweaking the form of payment, not the form of delivery. I would have never been able to afford out of pocket all the preventave care I've gotten over the years, the fact that the great majority of Americans are content with their insurance plan does not support your ideas.

[ElNono]

Rant Rant Rant, strawman

So you can't back it up, micca. That's what I thought. :tu

[ElNono]

I would have never been able to afford out of pocket all the preventave care I've gotten over the years, the fact that the great majority of Americans are content with their insurance plan does not support your ideas.

You mean the great majority of Americans that can actually afford an insurance plan AND are happy with their plans... which in turn is actually a minority?

[Winehole23]

Great so rather than deal with where we're at, your just going to play some childish bullshit game. It's a hard nut to crack but rather than really try and crack it your gonna play games fine go play games but don't ask america to share your dellusion.
People work for reward, they don't work for the collective.If all you who rally agianst the profit motive actually got of your ass and actually gave of yourselves, there would be no need for health insurance.If you don't have faith in your vision why should anyone else.
What has made the west such a creative and vital place, is the value we place on the individual.Instead of listening to what El Nono is actually saying, you are pretending the conversation is about something else and making that your soapbox.

You don't really do conversation, do you micca?

[baseline bum]

It's been said that America has the best health care system in the world...for those who can afford it.
The for profit health care industry is responsible for procedures, and drugs and knowledge advancement,that has saved more human lives and relieved more human suffering than all the collectivist health care systems in the world put together.That's a fact. So what motive are you going to replace profit with to produce similar results.

Think of all the ground-breaking research done by Humana, Cigna, and Blue Cross.

[hope4dopes]

No one disputes that.

What El Nono is drawing attention to is how insurance drives cost all on its own. And readfail..... replacing it with a non profit middleman?

[hope4dopes]

Instead of listening to what El Nono is actually saying, you are pretending the conversation is about something else and making that your soapbox.

You don't really do conversation, do you micca? You don't want certain thing brought up do you precious.

[ElNono]

Look at all the latest medicines and prescriptions. They come from for-profit companies.

I know where they come from. And all those companies are ready to adapt to different conditions. After all, all these drug companies have no problem selling their same medicines to other countries at 1/3 the cost they sell them to the US. But all those companies do provide an actual healthcare service, much like a doctor. How do you justify the for-profit insurance company though?

[Winehole23]

There is such a thing as not for profit insurance.

[ElNono]

And readfail..... replacing it with a non profit middleman?

Sure. Even your fellow Republicans mentioned non-profit cooperatives...
The concept of non-profit insurance is not new...

[Winehole23]

You don't want certain thing brought up do you precious.No, I was just drawing attention your proven inability to focus on what people say, and your innate love of non-responsive soapbox ranting.

[hope4dopes]

No, I was just drawing attention your proven inability to focus on what people say, and your innate love of non-responsive soapbox ranting.Nono is a big boy Whinehole he doesn't need you to talk through him, your just a bitch who harrasses anybody that doesn't agree with you and you call it a conversation.But unlike you I'm married and have been along time, and so I know how to deal with women when they get a little bitchy....

[spursncowboys]

Health plan covers assisted suicide but not new cancer treatment

by Susan Harding and KATU Web Staff
Originally printed at http://www.kval.com/news/26140519.html
SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time.

"I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."
Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.

Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.
"I told them, I said, 'Who do you guys think you are?' You know, to say that you'll pay for my dying, but you won't pay to help me possibly live longer?' " Wagner said.
An unfortunate interpretation?

Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, said Wagner is making an "unfortunate interpretation" of the letter and that no one is telling her the health plan will only pay for her to die.

One critic of assisted suicide calls the message disturbing nonetheless.
"People deserve relief of their suffering, not giving them an overdose," said Dr. William Toffler.

He said the state has a financial incentive to offer death instead of life: Chemotherapy drugs such as Tarceva cost $4,000 a month while drugs for assisted suicide cost less than $100.

Saha said state health officials do not consider whether it is cheaper for someone in the health plan to die than live. However, he admitted they must consider the state's limited dollars when dealing with a case such as Wagner's.

"If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone," Saha said.
But the medical director at the cancer center where Wagner gets her care said some people may have incredible responses to treatment.

Health plan hasn't evolved?
The Oregon Health Plan simply hasn't kept up with dramatic changes in chemotherapy, said Dr. David Fryefield of the Willamette Valley Cancer Center.

Even for those with advanced cancer, new chemotherapy drugs can extend life.

Yet the Oregon Health Plan only offers coverage for chemo that cures cancer - not if it can prolong a patient's life.

"We are looking at today's ... 2008 treatment, but we're using 1993 standards," Fryefield said. "When the Oregon Health Plan was created, it was 15 years ago, and there were not all the chemotherapy drugs that there are today."
Patients like Wagner can appeal a decision if they are denied coverage. Wagner appealed twice but lost both times.
However, her doctors contacted the pharmaceutical company, Genentech, which agreed to give her the medication without charging her. Doctors said that is unusual for a company to give away such an expensive medication.

[spursncowboys]

Nono is a big boy Whinehole he doesn't need you to talk through him, your just a bitch who harrasses anybody that doesn't agree with you and you call it a conversation.But unlike you I'm married and have been along time, and so I know how to deal with women when they get a little bitchy....
http://www.halolz.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/shut-up-bitch.jpg

[Winehole23]

your just a bitch who harrasses anybody that doesn't agree with you and you call it a conversationYou resemble this remark. A lot.

Except, you don't understand what people say to start with. Most of the time your objections are directed not at actual posts or posters, but at cookie-cutter strawmen of your own devising.

[hope4dopes]

I know where they come from. And all those companies are ready to adapt to different conditions. After all, all these drug companies have no problem selling their same medicines to other countries at 1/3 the cost they sell them to the US. But all those companies do provide an actual healthcare service, much like a doctor. How do you justify the for-profit insurance company though? So now you know where they came from huh.....I justify anybody who offers a service a profit. I do not however justify them using there wealth to evade their resposiblities. to use the courts to deny payments, or to influence political favortisim.

[ElNono]

death panels!

Strawman

[ElNono]

So now you know where they came from huh.....I justify anybody who offers a service a profit. I do not however justify them using there wealth to evade their resposiblities. to use the courts to deny payments, or to influence political favortisim.

This is all I needed to know. Thanks.

[hope4dopes]

You resemble this remark. A lot.

Except, you don't understand what people say to start with. Most of the time your objections are directed not at actual posts or posters, but at cookie-cutter strawmen of your own devising.

You resemble this remark.....that's it....Let me publicly apologize to any women I may of offended by comparing whinehole's bitchy little tantrums and attention grabbing..... with you.
Not even in the deepest darkest hours of PMS hell has any woman I've known sunk to such stupidity

[hope4dopes]

This is all I needed to know. Thanks. go easy.

[spursncowboys]

I know where they come from. And all those companies are ready to adapt to different conditions. After all, all these drug companies have no problem selling their same medicines to other countries at 1/3 the cost they sell them to the US. But all those companies do provide an actual healthcare service, much like a doctor. How do you justify the for-profit insurance company though?
Our cost of living is higher. That might be the reason.
ALso this reminds me of Ron Paul talking about this being an example of free markets working. If you can get it somewhere cheaper we should be able to. We should be able to utilize our resourcesI(internet) to buy the best product for the best price. If they didn't criminalize buying prescriptions from different countries then the lack of demand could have forced the Co.'s to lower their price.

[Winehole23]

Let me publicly apologize to any women I may of offended by comparing whinehole's bitchy little tantrums and attention grabbing..... with you.
Not even in the deepest darkest hours of PMS hell has any woman I've known sunk to such stupidityWhat sensitivity. :lol

[spursncowboys]

Strawman
Atleast my posts are on healthcare and not trolling comments about the poster.

[spursncowboys]

Not to mention he skipped addressing entirely why insurance companies have a god given right to profits...
Are you saying everyone has a god given right to have an abortion paid for by the government?

[hope4dopes]

What sensitivity. :lol No wonder you're not married....

[ElNono]

Our cost of living is higher. That might be the reason.
ALso this reminds me of Ron Paul talking about this being an example of free markets working. If you can get it somewhere cheaper we should be able to. We should be able to utilize our resourcesI(internet) to buy the best product for the best price. If they didn't criminalize buying prescriptions from different countries then the lack of demand could have forced the Co.'s to lower their price.

Who are they?

[ElNono]

Are you saying everyone has a god given right to have an abortion paid for by the government?

You tell me, am I?

[Winehole23]

No wonder you're not married....Yes, I know, in your fantasies I'm gay.

Don't worry, micca, I won't burst your bubble. :lol

[spursncowboys]

Who are they?
American politicians.

[ElNono]

American politicians.

Well, but if you allow generic drugs coming in from the border then drug companies can't profit as much, or spend as much in marketing.
Now, that wouldn't be fair in a free market system, would it?

[spursncowboys]

Well, but if you allow generic drugs coming in from the border then drug companies can't profit as much, or spend as much in marketing.
Now, that wouldn't be fair in a free market system, would it?
Generic drugs arguement is strawman. However I do not allow my daughters to say that four letter f word, and I won't either. Pfizer spent almost 8 billion in Research and Development, in one year. In every category, the private sector outpaces the public and does it for less the cost.

[ElNono]

If they didn't criminalize buying prescriptions from different countries


Generic drugs arguement is strawman.

You brought it up...

And let me add Pfizer spends more in marketing than actual R&D...

[SnakeBoy]

There is such a thing as not for profit insurance.

Around 40% of current private insurance is not for profit if I remember correctly.

[Winehole23]

In every category, the private sector outpaces the public and does it for less the cost.This may be true of R&D, but is not true for health care. Just compare the cost of Medicare to private insurance.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3760050&postcount=21

[MannyIsGod]

Generic drugs arguement is strawman. However I do not allow my daughters to say that four letter f word, and I won't either. Pfizer spent almost 8 billion in Research and Development, in one year. In every category, the private sector outpaces the public and does it for less the cost.

Thats an unsubstantiated myth if I've ever seen one. But if you can provide actual figures to back it up I would gladly see them.

[boutons_deux]

"private sector outpaces the public and does it for less the cost."

YOU LIE!

medicare/medicaid has overhead of about 3%, while private insurance overheads run 15% - 20%+.

[DarrinS]

"private sector outpaces the public and does it for less the cost."

YOU LIE!

medicare/medicaid has overhead of about 3%, while private insurance overheads run 15% - 20%+.


In related news, the US postal service is kicking ass and taking names.

[ChumpDumper]

The average healthcare bill is cheaper than a cellphone billI have to call bullshit on that one.

[Winehole23]

In related news, the US postal service is kicking ass and taking names.The correct word is unrelated.


Since its reorganization into an independent organization, the USPS has become self-sufficient and has not received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s.

[Wild Cobra]

Health plan covers assisted suicide but not new cancer treatment

by Susan Harding and KATU Web Staff
Originally printed at http://www.kval.com/news/26140519.html
SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time.

"I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."
Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.

Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.
"I told them, I said, 'Who do you guys think you are?' You know, to say that you'll pay for my dying, but you won't pay to help me possibly live longer?' " Wagner said.
An unfortunate interpretation?

Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, said Wagner is making an "unfortunate interpretation" of the letter and that no one is telling her the health plan will only pay for her to die.

One critic of assisted suicide calls the message disturbing nonetheless.
"People deserve relief of their suffering, not giving them an overdose," said Dr. William Toffler.

He said the state has a financial incentive to offer death instead of life: Chemotherapy drugs such as Tarceva cost $4,000 a month while drugs for assisted suicide cost less than $100.

Saha said state health officials do not consider whether it is cheaper for someone in the health plan to die than live. However, he admitted they must consider the state's limited dollars when dealing with a case such as Wagner's.

"If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone," Saha said.
But the medical director at the cancer center where Wagner gets her care said some people may have incredible responses to treatment.

Health plan hasn't evolved?
The Oregon Health Plan simply hasn't kept up with dramatic changes in chemotherapy, said Dr. David Fryefield of the Willamette Valley Cancer Center.

Even for those with advanced cancer, new chemotherapy drugs can extend life.

Yet the Oregon Health Plan only offers coverage for chemo that cures cancer - not if it can prolong a patient's life.

"We are looking at today's ... 2008 treatment, but we're using 1993 standards," Fryefield said. "When the Oregon Health Plan was created, it was 15 years ago, and there were not all the chemotherapy drugs that there are today."
Patients like Wagner can appeal a decision if they are denied coverage. Wagner appealed twice but lost both times.
However, her doctors contacted the pharmaceutical company, Genentech, which agreed to give her the medication without charging her. Doctors said that is unusual for a company to give away such an expensive medication.

No kidding. Want an example of nationalized health care, look at the Oregon Plan.

It really stinks.

[hope4dopes]

Thats an unsubstantiated myth if I've ever seen one. But if you can provide actual figures to back it up I would gladly see them. can you provide figures that disprove it.

[spursncowboys]

The correct word is unrelated.
Did you get that from the onion? Next you'll say Amtrak is successful

[ChumpDumper]

can you provide figures that disprove it.You made the initial claim.

Back it up.

[Wild Cobra]

I know where they come from. And all those companies are ready to adapt to different conditions. After all, all these drug companies have no problem selling their same medicines to other countries at 1/3 the cost they sell them to the US. But all those companies do provide an actual healthcare service, much like a doctor.
This argument doesn't work. Yes, they sell to other companies cheaper, but they have a market that they otherwise wouldn't have, and that market has no right to sue in court. Knowing you have no liability costs allow a much cheaper product.

How do you justify the for-profit insurance company though?
Profit = incentive to develope the newest and best hot product.

[Wild Cobra]

Did you get that from the onion? Next you'll say Amtrak is successful

Yep, liberals love Amtrak and Light Rail.

Are their any light rail systems anywhere that are not subsidized with tax dollars?

[Winehole23]

...

[spursncowboys]

This may be true of R&D, but is not true for health care. Just compare the cost of Medicare to private insurance.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3760050&postcount=21
Medicare gets free marketing. They don't have to pay employees. There is no control between the two. Plus the cost of medicare is what the person is paying, not what it costs.

[hope4dopes]

You made the initial claim.

Back it up. uhh no I didn't

[Winehole23]

Did you get that from the onion? Next you'll say Amtrak is successfulI never said the USPS was successful. I never said anything about Amtrak.

Since there is no public subsidy for the USPS and hasn't been for a long time, the comparison with Amtrak and health reform is unsustainable. The USPS is irrelevant to this thread.

[ChumpDumper]

uhh no I didn't
In every category, the private sector outpaces the public and does it for less the cost.There's your claim.

Back it up.

[Winehole23]

Medicare gets free marketing. They don't have to pay employees. There is no control between the two. Plus the cost of medicare is what the person is paying, not what it costs.Yes, Medicare delivers health care much more cheaply than the private sector, for a variety of reasons including lower overhead. That was my point. Thanks for backing me up. :tu

[spursncowboys]

I never said the USPS was successful. I never said anything about Amtrak.

Since there is no public subsidy for the USPS and hasn't been for a long time, the comparison with Amtrak and health reform is unsustainable. The USPS is irrelevant to this thread.
Ok. Fine. However, can you find a govt. program in the last 60 years that costed the amount of what it was projected to cost? This goes to the cost of socialized medicine. Like in Oregon, they don't want to spend too much money on one person. This IMO is a preview of our national healthcare. Instead of everyone having the great american healthcare, everyone will have a mediocre blend, and maybe even our doctors could leave, like Indians are doing.

[MannyIsGod]

can you provide figures that disprove it.

There's a reason they call it burden of proof.

[ChumpDumper]

Like in Oregon, they don't want to spend too much money on one person.Whereas private insurers want to spend as much money as possible on one person.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok. Fine. However, can you find a govt. program in the last 60 years that costed the amount of what it was projected to cost? This goes to the cost of socialized medicine. Like in Oregon, they don't want to spend too much money on one person. This IMO is a preview of our national healthcare. Instead of everyone having the great american healthcare, everyone will have a mediocre blend, and maybe even our doctors could leave, like Indians are doing.

:lmao

Such a nationalist.

[hope4dopes]

There's your claim.

Back it up.notice the different names peanut.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok. Fine. However, can you find a govt. program in the last 60 years that costed the amount of what it was projected to cost? This goes to the cost of socialized medicine. Like in Oregon, they don't want to spend too much money on one person. This IMO is a preview of our national healthcare. Instead of everyone having the great american healthcare, everyone will have a mediocre blend, and maybe even our doctors could leave, like Indians are doing.


Can you simply provide figures to back up what you said? There's no need for anything else. If what you said is true, then I'm sure the information supports it. Why all the song and dance?

[MannyIsGod]

notice the different names peanut.

So then you don't agree?

[ElNono]

This argument doesn't work. Yes, they sell to other companies cheaper, but they have a market that they otherwise wouldn't have, and that market has no right to sue in court. Knowing you have no liability costs allow a much cheaper product.

Really? I'd like evidence of this. You can sue drug manufacturers in pretty much any country I know of.


Profit = incentive to develope the newest and best hot product.

The problem is that middle-men companies do not develop or produce anything.
Tell me, what is the newest best hot product from Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc?

[Winehole23]

Ok. Fine. However, can you find a govt. program in the last 60 years that costed the amount of what it was projected to cost? This goes to the cost of socialized medicine.Why should I? I'm not arguing for the proposed reforms, or for any of the claims proponents make for what it will cost. You don't have to convince me that gov't forecasts and estimates err on the side of optimism.

I was just pointing out the disparity of costs as between public/private. Medicare slays the private sector on cost.

This goes to refute your blanket assertion upstream that the private sector does everything cheaper.

[spursncowboys]

Yes, Medicare delivers health care much more cheaply than the private sector, for a variety of reasons including lower overhead. That was my point. Thanks for backing me up. :tu
But's it's not cheaper. It's just cheaper to the patient because Ours, our children, and our grandchildren's taxes are going to pay for it.
http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif

[spursncowboys]

http://www.eliminatedebt.org/images/omb-pie-chart.jpg

Only one on here is guaranteed by the Constitution.

[Wild Cobra]

Really? I'd like evidence of this. You can sue drug manufacturers in pretty much any country I know of.

I never heard of a forign client sue a USA company. Part of the contract to get the goods at the claimed 1/3rd price I bet.

Example of a lawsuit please.


The problem is that middle-men companies do not develop or produce anything.
Tell me, what is the newest best hot product from Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc?
Competition pricing.

[MannyIsGod]

Here come the unicorns and mermaids again. I'm really not sure how those graphics pertain to the issue at hand in any way shape or form.

[spursncowboys]

Why should I? I'm not arguing for the proposed reforms, or for any of the claims proponents make for what it will cost. You don't have to convince me that gov't forecasts and estimates err on the side of optimism.

I was just pointing out the disparity of costs as between public/private. Medicare slays the private sector on cost.

This goes to refute your blanket assertion upstream that the private sector does everything cheaper.
It doesn't cost less. You have not proved anything. These people are using products and resources. Someone has to fit that bill.

[MannyIsGod]

I still don't believe it does cost less.

THEN PROVIDE DATA THAT SAYS OTHERWISE!

Jesus! It so fucking simple. You remind me of those Fiber One commercials.

[spursncowboys]

THEN PROVIDE DATA THAT SAYS OTHERWISE!

Jesus! It so fucking simple. You remind me of those Fiber One commercials.
I did.

[Wild Cobra]

I was just pointing out the disparity of costs as between public/private. Medicare slays the private sector on cost.
What are the liability differences? What are the coverage differences?

Do you really want nationalized benifits limited to what medicare provides?

This goes to refute your blanket assertion upstream that the private sector does everything cheaper.
Medicare cliants are all paid for, and the doctors don't have to deal with people's checks bouncing or insurance companies wiggling out. They know they get paid for what procedures, without question.

[MannyIsGod]

I did.


You did nothing of the sort.

[hope4dopes]

But's it's not cheaper. It's just cheaper to the patient because Ours, our children, and our grandchildren's taxes are going to pay for it.
http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif You know it's absolutley amazing how well you can run a bussiness when you don't have to balance any books.

[hope4dopes]

You did nothing of the sort. Yeah....what planet are you on again.

[ElNono]

I never heard of a forign client sue a USA company. Part of the contract to get the goods at the claimed 1/3rd price I bet.

Do you have proof of that? I actually have evidence to the contrary:

Medial Malpractice Liability in Germany (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/medical-malpractice-liability/germany.php)


Example of a lawsuit please.

LINK (http://citizensledger.com/pfizer-sued-by-kano-state-in-nigeria/)


Competition pricing.

But prices have only gone up... As a consumer, all I have is a middleman actually increasing my costs... I still don't understand how you justify that for-profit middlemen...

[ChumpDumper]

notice the different names peanut.You're telling me you're two different posters?

:lol

What are the projected health cost savings for the GOP bill, micca? Surely they've had enough time to calculate them.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah....what planet are you on again.

The one where posting graphics on the breakdown of the national debt do not prove something is cheaper or more expensive.

[hope4dopes]

The one where posting graphics on the breakdown of the national debt do not prove something is cheaper or more expensive.Is that the one where a bankrupt enity is providing great service.

[Winehole23]

It doesn't cost less. You have not proved anything. These people are using products and resources. Someone has to fit that bill.Sure. Public health care is a huge unfunded liability going forward. We didn't save for the future, or offset our obligations with new taxes.

Still, the bill you get from Medicare is smaller, i.e., it is cheaper. That's primarily because it negotiates and standardizes prices systemwide, i.e., it rationalizes and reduces costs. It delivers the service more cheaply.

In a just world, we'd see drastic reductions in our welfare-warfare state combined with tax increases, to pay down our staggering debt and mitigate our structural trillion dollar deficits. But that's not gonna happen. The D's are pretend pacifists and the R's are pretend communitarians: the two will only make the state bigger and bigger.

Tell me, SnC: who was the last Republican president to preside over a shrinking state?

[Winehole23]

What are the liability differences? What are the coverage differences?

Do you really want nationalized benifits limited to what medicare provides?No. But the focus on cost is important. We can tweak the system of payment without socializing the delivery system. We can have price transparency and rationality like the rest of the free market. Are you against that?


Medicare cliants are all paid for, and the doctors don't have to deal with people's checks bouncing or insurance companies wiggling out. They know they get paid for what procedures, without question.Another ringing endorsement of Medicare's efficiency. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Do you have proof of that? I actually have evidence to the contrary:

Medial Malpractice Liability in Germany (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/medical-malpractice-liability/germany.php)
That says nothing about German citizens suing USA drug makers.

LINK (http://citizensledger.com/pfizer-sued-by-kano-state-in-nigeria/)

This was a drug trial test, not drugs in bulk bough for distribution in the medical system, at a reduced cost with a no-sue agreement.

[Wild Cobra]

No. But the focus on cost is important. We can tweak the system of payment without socializing the delivery system. We can have price transparency and rationality like the rest of the free market. Are you against that?
Part of the reason health care is so expensive is that nobody goes unserved. Hospitols and doctors charge as much as they can get away with to cover their losses on the uninsured and unable to pay patients. In theory, the individual cost will decrease if you insure everyone. However, unless everone pays a decent co-pay, those not paying a co-pay will abuse the system and drive the overall costs up.

I will never be for full coverage as liberals want it. The only way I can conceiveable change my mind is to first try other things to bring costs down, starting with serious tort reform. When that is done, and if it doesn't work, then come back and I'll be ready to talk. Untill then, stay out of my wallet.

[ChumpDumper]

Part of the reason health care is so expensive is that nobody goes unserved. Hospitols and doctors charge as much as they can get away with to cover their losses on the uninsured and unable to pay patients. In theory, the individual cost will decrease if you insure everyone. However, unless everone pays a decent co-pay, those not paying a co-pay will abuse the system and drive the overall costs up.So every country with universal coverage (single or multi-payor) should have higher health care costs than the US, right?


I will never be for full coverage as liberals want it. The only way I can conceiveable change my mind is to first try other things to bring costs down, starting with serious tort reform. When that is done, and if it doesn't work, then come back and I'll be ready to talk. Untill then, stay out of my wallet.How much will "serious" tort reform reduce health care costs?

How much did the "serious" tort reform in Texas reduce health care costs?

[baseline bum]

How do you justify the for-profit insurance company though?
Profit = incentive to develope the newest and best hot product.


Think of all the ground-breaking research done by Humana, Cigna, and Blue Cross.

[MannyIsGod]

All I see is people with nothing to back up what they're saying. How do people arrive at their beliefs if they can't substantiate them?

[spursncowboys]

That says nothing about German citizens suing USA drug makers.

This was a drug trial test, not drugs in bulk bough for distribution in the medical system, at a reduced cost with a no-sue agreement.
THere is a reason why they cannot get doctors to sign up.

[Winehole23]

I'm not sure I agree with your timeline, Manny. Arriving at one's beliefs first and only afterward substantiating/modifying them would seem to be the normal procedure to me. But many of our most prolific posters here seem to be allergic even to giving any support to their beliefs after the fact.

I'd put most of that down to laziness and self-love, in that order. However, to lazy and unsupported believers, the self-love that attaches to slightly more scholarly opinions must be galling. Surely the self-love of the learned is no more warranted than that of the ignorant or the shiftless.

It deserves to be said that adducing factual support for one's opinion no more assures it is correct, than failing to assures that it is incorrect.

That said, backing up your own bs is a courtesy to others, good practice for oneself, and can do wonders for one's credibility.

[ElNono]

That says nothing about German citizens suing USA drug makers.

No, it explains that the liability is the same as the US system. Meaning, you can be sued by any german citizen as long as you conduct business in the country (like every other country in the world).
YOU are the one that claimed that all these drug companies have no-sue agreements in all these countries and failed to show ANY such agreement.


This was a drug trial test, not drugs in bulk bough for distribution in the medical system, at a reduced cost with a no-sue agreement.

You keep saying no-sue agreement but you're not showing any...

[Wild Cobra]

No, it explains that the liability is the same as the US system. Meaning, you can be sued by any german citizen as long as you conduct business in the country (like every other country in the world).
YOU are the one that claimed that all these drug companies have no-sue agreements in all these countries and failed to show ANY such agreement.
I don't know that there is actually a no-sue agreement. Point is, the government is purchasing these drugs at a reduced price. Exactly what concessions are involved, I don't know, except there are no lawsuits over the same drugs we see US lawsuits over.

You keep saying no-sue agreement but you're not showing any...

OK, it is an assumption. A well founded one. How else do you explain no lawsuits for tested and approved presription drugs?

I'm still waiting for proof I'm wrong.

[Winehole23]

We're still waiting for proof you're not talking out of your hat.

[Wild Cobra]

We're still waiting for proof you're not talking out of your hat.

Cannot prove a negative.

I never heard of an incident where in socialized medicine in a different country, that a US presription drug maker is sued. How can I prove one wasn't?

That's why I ask to show one was.

[Winehole23]

The burden lies on you to support your own claims, not on us to disprove them. Do your own homework, WC.

[Wild Cobra]

The burden lies on you to support your own claims, not on us to disprove them. Do your own goddam homework, WC.

You just whining because you cannot find any lawsuit examples?

Should be easy to find!

[Winehole23]

I could care less about your attempted hijack. I'm just tired of you being too lazy to back up your own bs.

[Wild Cobra]

I could care less about your attempted hijack. I'm just tired of you being too lazy to back up your own bs.

Excuses, excuses...

Admit it. You looked for an example of other countries citizens suing US drug makers for what was prescribed through their socialized medicine, and cannot find a single example.

I suppose you with me to prove that 2+2=4 also.

As for hijacking a thread?

I thought we were talking about alternatives to the democrats plans. Want to reduce costs, the biggest way is to reduce litigation. Because of no litigation, our drug makers sell to other countries cheaper than to us.

[Winehole23]

Admit it. You looked for an example of other countries citizens suing US drug makers for what was prescribed through their socialized medicine, and cannot find a single example.I did not, and will not. This is your hobby horse.


Because of no litigation, our drug makers sell to other countries cheaper than to us.Can you verify the hypothesis, or is this yet another threadbare conjecture?

[boutons_deux]

"Because of no litigation, our drug makers sell to other countries cheaper than to us"

incredible bullshit. Other countries have national single-buyer that forces US drug traffickers to lower the prices, forcing the Repug-exposed US patient to pay so much for the same drugs, the US pay-shint SUBSIDIZES BigPharma profits they can't suck out of other countries.

As usual, no facts from WC to support his idea that tort reform and drug shield laws would reduce the costs of prescription drugs. Just more self-spun faith-based fantasy (also a robotic Repug protect-the-corps/screw-the-citizens check box).

[ElNono]

I don't know that there is actually a no-sue agreement.


OK, it is an assumption. A well founded one.

This is an oxymoron. Please present the no-sue agreements.


How else do you explain no lawsuits for tested and approved presription drugs?

They're a much less litigious society?
BTW, here's another case, this time for 'tested and approved' prescription drugs: LINK (http://www.pharma-adhoc.com/index.php?m=1&id=344)


I'm still waiting for proof I'm wrong.

It works the other way around. You make a claim, then you support it.
Otherwise, you're merely talking out of your ass.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol @ well founded assumption.

[Wild Cobra]

BTW, here's another case, this time for 'tested and approved' prescription drugs: LINK (http://www.pharma-adhoc.com/index.php?m=1&id=344)

Hmm...

A lawsuit dealing with advertisement.

Not exactly a lawsuit dealing with the use and side effects of a medication.

You still fail.

[ElNono]

Hmm...

A lawsuit dealing with advertisement.

Not exactly a lawsuit dealing with the use and side effects of a medication.

You still fail.

A lawsuit is a lawsuit is a lawsuit...

A no-sue agreement is a no-sue agreement...

Then again, where are the no-sue agreements? I kept my end of the bargain, where's yours?

Don't tell me you can't back up your 'well founded assumption'

Stop moving goalposts and show me the no-sue agreements...

[Wild Cobra]

A lawsuit is a lawsuit is a lawsuit...

A no-sue agreement is a no-sue agreement...

Then again, where are the no-sue agreements? I kept my end of the bargain, where's yours?

Don't tell me you can't back up your 'well founded assumption'

Stop moving goalposts and show me the no-sue agreements...
Are you missing the point purposely or are you daft?

All along I meant injury/liability lawsuits. Can you show me a single instance of a citizen in a different country using their socialized system suing a US drug maker, for harm done to them for taking the medication?

I know the answer is NO! Even if I'm wrong, and an incident or two can be found, you will find the frequency is so low compared to lawsuits in the USA that it may as well be zero.

Believe what you want, but when a corporation doesn't have the added costs of paying for the laywers, time lost in court, and redculous payouts, the clients who are a smaller risk, get a better rate.

[Winehole23]

Liability/litigation is a minor cost driver. A useful wedge issue, maybe. But it isn't nearly as significant as you suggest.

[Wild Cobra]

Liability/litigation is a minor cost driver. A useful wedge issue, maybe. But it isn't nearly as significant as you suggest.
I do not believe that. You can parse it to show the payouts are just a small percentage, but that leaves out lost wages, doctors performing extra procedures to protect themselves, and other factors.

[baseline bum]

Are you missing the point purposely or are you daft?

All along I meant injury/liability lawsuits. Can you show me a single instance of a citizen in a different country using their socialized system suing a US drug maker, for harm done to them for taking the medication?

I know the answer is NO! Even if I'm wrong, and an incident or two can be found, you will find the frequency is so low compared to lawsuits in the USA that it may as well be zero.

Believe what you want, but when a corporation doesn't have the added costs of paying for the laywers, time lost in court, and redculous payouts, the clients who are a smaller risk, get a better rate.

When corporations have to deal with a powerful negotiator like a national government, the clients get a much better rate. I don't see what's so hard to see about that. Seems like you're the one missing the obvious point.

[Wild Cobra]

When corporations have to deal with a powerful negotiator like a national government, the clients get a much better rate. I don't see what's so hard to see about that. Seems like you're the one missing the obvious point.No, I understand that concept completely, but that is only one small piece of the puzzle. There is no one single item.

What exposure do they have to financial losses selling to other countries medical systems?

What exposure do they have to financial losses selling to US citizens?

Would you say theye is a difference, or not?

[spursncowboys]

When corporations have to deal with a powerful negotiator like a national government, the clients get a much better rate. I don't see what's so hard to see about that. Seems like you're the one missing the obvious point.
You make it sound like the fed is taking from the rich and giving to the poor in some kind of noble deed.

[ElNono]

Still no 'no-sue agreements'? I guess I'll have to give up any hope of ever seeing one of those...

[Winehole23]

WC likes to make shit up.

[Wild Cobra]

Still no 'no-sue agreements'? I guess I'll have to give up any hope of ever seeing one of those...

My God you are pathetic.

How may posts ago did I give that prase up? For you to hang on that, as if that's my agument...

You are such a loser.

Agreement or not, show me what I ask or sit your silly ass in the corner.

[Winehole23]

Agreement or not, show me what I ask or sit your silly ass in the corner.Misery loves company, huh? Don't poke your eye out with that pointy hat.

[ElNono]

My God you are pathetic.

How may posts ago did I give that prase up? For you to hang on that, as if that's my agument...

You are such a loser.

Agreement or not, show me what I ask or sit your silly ass in the corner.

You make the claims, you back them up. That's how you play this game.

And I'm going to stay above the personal insults. I won't call you a loser because you form opinion on completely unfounded and delusional claims.
At the end of the day, it's your credibility on the line, not mine. Every time you bring up the liability excuse with absolutely nothing to back it up, the only one looking like a fool is you, not me.

[jav]

Lawsuit filed against Bayer over drug risks -Canada


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081203/trasylol_study_081203/20081207

[Wild Cobra]

You make the claims, you back them up. That's how you play this game.


How am I do show something doesn't exists?

Don't you get it. You disagree with me saying a certain problem is nonexistsnt. It is impossible to prove a negative. That's why it is up to you to show me it does exist.

[Wild Cobra]

Lawsuit filed against Bayer over drug risks -Canada


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081203/trasylol_study_081203/20081207

Again, a clinical trial drug. Pulled because of complications. Watch this one, it will fall flat with no award.

I'm talking about approved precription drugs that other countries buy. I have never seen a lawsuit from people in other countries for the same drugs US people sue over. I don't know the mechinism, weather contactual, or other nations knowing a lawsuit would change the risk assessment in the price. I think since they take on the burden of approving and distributing the drugs, theyb take on the risks. Whatever it is, the simple fact we don't see such lawsuits changes the liability risk a,d helps in reducing the price.

[admiralsnackbar]

How am I do show something doesn't exists?

Don't you get it. You disagree with me saying a certain problem is nonexistsnt. It is impossible to prove a negative. That's why it is up to you to show me it does exist.

That's a slippery way to shift the burden of proof, isn't it? You could show that other countries sign contracts with Pharma to receive drugs at a discount in exchange for relinquishing their rights to civil actions. According to your assumtion, those should exist, and being that they are signed by government agencies, should be a matter of public record.

[ElNono]

I have never seen a lawsuit from people in other countries for the same drugs US people sue over.

VIOXX Lawsuits in Canada (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a5k5qGMcf26c)
Celebrex class action lawsuit in Canada (http://www.mynippon.com/news/2005/01/celebrex-class-action-lawsuit-filed-in.html)

I still don't see any no-sue agreements that SHOULD be a matter of public record since they would be relinquishing one of the citizen's basic rights (the right to justice).

I think you're full of shit...

[admiralsnackbar]

I think you're full of shit...

This may have been a clue:



All along I meant injury/liability lawsuits. Can you show me a single instance of a citizen in a different country using their socialized system suing a US drug maker, for harm done to them for taking the medication?

I know the answer is NO! Even if I'm wrong, and an incident or two can be found, you will find the frequency is so low compared to lawsuits in the USA that it may as well be zero.

[Wild Cobra]

VIOXX Lawsuits in Canada (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a5k5qGMcf26c)
Celebrex class action lawsuit in Canada (http://www.mynippon.com/news/2005/01/celebrex-class-action-lawsuit-filed-in.html)

I still don't see any no-sue agreements that SHOULD be a matter of public record since they would be relinquishing one of the citizen's basic rights (the right to justice).

I think you're full of shit...

Cool, you found some lawuit going forward, but you are still "stuck on stupid." Isn't it obvious I mispoke when I used that term? I already retracted it long ago.

Now that we ahve some lawsuits from other countries, you can expect them not to get the same discounts on drugs in the future. The cost of business whith them has now changed.

[Winehole23]

Hey Nostradamus, why should we accept your future sagacity when your descriptions of the present are so profoundly mistaken?

Asking us to accept the facts that refute your claims in this thread as proof that you will be right in the future, strains credulity and verges on hilarity.

[ElNono]

Cool, you found some lawuit going forward, but you are still "stuck on stupid." Isn't it obvious I mispoke when I used that term? I already retracted it long ago.

Now that we ahve some lawsuits from other countries, you can expect them not to get the same discounts on drugs in the future. The cost of business whith them has now changed.

Drugs are still discounted. Fact.
Has nothing to do with liability. Fact.
You keep on talking out of your ass. Fact.

Now we can move on...

[MannyIsGod]

Nice bill

Ezra Klien toda



Republicans are learning an unpleasant lesson this morning: The only thing worse than having no health-care reform plan is releasing a bad one, getting thrashed by CBO and making the House Democrats look good in comparison.
Late last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its initial analysis (http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10705&type=1) of the health-care reform plan that Republican Minority Leader John Boehner offered as a substitute to the Democratic legislation. CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.
But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.
The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It's already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It's already made its compromises with reality. It's already been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank-slate alternative proposed by John Boehner and the House Republicans. The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill.
This is a major embarrassment for the Republicans. It's one thing to keep your cards close to your chest. Republicans are in the minority, after all, and their plan stands no chance of passage. It's another to lay them out on the table and show everyone that you have no hand, and aren't even totally sure how to play the game. The Democratic plan isn't perfect, but in comparison, it's looking astonishingly good.

[boutons_deux]

fricking brilliant Repug "principle" leading to LESS insurance for all, so you can "Feel your financial pain along with your physical distress"

"This is the essence of the Republican plan: the fact that you're insured and aren't directly feeling the cost of individual tests and procedures is the problem and getting rid of the insurance concept is the solution.... [T]he problem according to most Republicans in Congress isn't that there's not enough insurance or that it's not good enough. It's that there's too much. The problem is that you have insurance. And good policy will take it away from you."


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/09/on_offense_2.php?ref=fpblg

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/143751/conservatives_still_think_you%27re_over-insured?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

"hey, Doc, I'm pissing and coughing blood daily, but you got any cheaper renal and pulmonary tests?

And how about that $200/hour you charge me, can't we take a look at that,too?"

:lol