Affordable Care Act

[Care4all]

the last i read from the GAO or CBO is if the ACA were repealed it would ADD 300 billion to the National debt...over 10 years...

 

[Andylusion]

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.

We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.

Ranked by who exactly, and on what grounds? Tell me you are not citing the World Health Organization again? That whole ranking was absolute trash. They had Cuba on the list. Cuba.... where people can't even get Aspirin from their "free" gov-care system?

The fact Cuba was even on the list, proves that the whole ranking was invalid.

Regardless, we have a self proclaimed "rational" capitalist who believes he knows more then the world health organization.

No, the World Health Organization, was dead on correct. You read up the methodology of the ranking system, and they were absolutely right.

They didn't look at the quality of the care. They looked at how socialized it was. How "equal" it was. How "fair" it was. Not survival rates.... not quality of care.... no no. That wasn't a factor.

Cuba is very socialized, very equal, and very fair. When that is the standard you are ranking countries by, that makes perfect sense.

It was completely logical.

That said... the ranking was crap. You can have a system like Cuba, where people couldn't even get Aspirin.... and that was good.... as long as it's Equal.... Fair... and Socialized.....

When I go to the hospital.... I don't give crap if it is fair. I want quality care. If I have to pay for it.... great. Rather pay and live, than have it 'equal', 'fair', and 'socialized' and die because its terrible care.

I wager none of you people on the left, ever bothered to download the data, look up the methodology, and read it for yourself....... have you? Nope. You have not. Don't even try to lie to me.

 

[Andylusion]

the last i read from the GAO or CBO is if the ACA were repealed it would ADD 300 billion to the National debt...over 10 years...

It would. Not repealing it, will hundreds of billions more.

Both are true statements. That's the grain of truth in the lie.

The prior system DID in fact, need reformed. But the ACA made the problem worse, not better.

Repealing it would add hundreds of billions to the debt in the short term. That's true.

Not repealing it will add trillions of dollars in the long term.

We need to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. That's what needs to be done.

But short of that, you have bad legislation, and worse legislation. The ACA is 'worse'. We need to repeal it, and have something that actually improves things.

 

[Andylusion]

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

You claim that not helping someone is immoral. You're not helping millions right now. Why not?

I voted for Obama. I personally would have liked a public option. The status quo would have kept millions uninsured. The attempt by the right to repeal the ACA some 50+ times cost the taxpayer how many millions of $$$ ? And it's STILL the law. So much for fiscal responsibility & compassionate conservatism.

Well... yeah, the ACA is fiscally irresponsible. I don't understand your dumber than forest gump comment.

We are trying to repeal a bad fiscally irresponsible law... and then you say 'so much for fiscal responsibility conservatism? Are you so oblivious that you don't even realize what danger you have placed the future fiscal state of the country?

View attachment 48815

You have screwed us. We have to undo this. There is no other option. You people made the country worse off. Not better off.

What are the Federal Health Care ProgramS, with an 's', as in more than one federal health care program, as in more or other programs, in addition to the ACA, that is in your charts figures and how does it break down....what federal health care program is adding the most to this number in the chart, do you know or have a link on where the numbers came from Andy?

I'm thinking the fed healthcare programS could be:

the ACA?
the VA?
Medicare?
Medicaid?
Childrens healthcare CHIP?
TRICARE for retired Military?

What difference does it make? VA care is horrible. CHIP is bad, but at least limited. Medicaid is horrific. Medicare is a long term bankruptcy. The ACA made things worse, increasing bad programs.

Regardless... things were bad before, and are worse now. What difference does it make, which program has the majority?

But the answer of course is Medicare. It's the largest, with largest liabilities, and was mandated to increase the most.

President’s Health ‘Reform’ Grows Unfunded Obligations By $17 Trillion - Budget Background - Research - U.S. Senate Budget Committee

This comes from the CBO, calculated total future liabilities of Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, the Exchange subsidies. So this figure is not including the VA, or TriCare. That's even more unfunded liabilities.

Does the United States have $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities?

Report: Federal unfunded liabilities total $84 trillion

Economist Laurence Kotlikoff: U.S. $222 Trillion in Debt | RealClearPolicy

Now I posted these links for specific purpose.

All unfunded liabilities with the government are all.... fuzzy numbers.

If you sign a contract for a home purchase, that is a very specific clear cut contract. You have a clear defined amount that you owe the bank. Nothing change that amount.

So you know what your future liabilities are, and you also know what your interest rate (unless you moronically got an adjustable rate mortgage. Don't do that), which is also set in stone.

The government doesn't have this. They don't know how much they will collect in taxes, and they don't know how much they will pay out in benefits. They don't know how fast, or slow, the economy will grow. They don't know what the population will do. We may start shrinking like Japan. Will more states expand medicare and medicaid? Will more states reduce and limit medicare and medicaid?

It's all hard to say.

So the government generally comes out with Short range, Mid Range, and Long range numbers. Then they also come out with Low-cost numbers, mid-cost numbers, and high-cost numbers.

The numbers we're looking at, are the long range mid-cost numbers.

Depending on which estimates you go with, the unfunded liabilities could be in the $60 Trillion, to $120 Trillion, to $220 Trillions.

But here's the real point.... No matter which numbers you want to run with, long or short, low or high.... the estimates for all of them, every single one, went *UP* after Obama Care was passed. There is no estimate that I know of, where the ACA showed a decline of our unfunded liabilities.

If you have one, I'll look at it.

 

[David_42]

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.

We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.

Ranked by who exactly, and on what grounds? Tell me you are not citing the World Health Organization again? That whole ranking was absolute trash. They had Cuba on the list. Cuba.... where people can't even get Aspirin from their "free" gov-care system?

The fact Cuba was even on the list, proves that the whole ranking was invalid.

Regardless, we have a self proclaimed "rational" capitalist who believes he knows more then the world health organization.

No, the World Health Organization, was dead on correct. You read up the methodology of the ranking system, and they were absolutely right.

They didn't look at the quality of the care. They looked at how socialized it was. How "equal" it was. How "fair" it was. Not survival rates.... not quality of care.... no no. That wasn't a factor.

Cuba is very socialized, very equal, and very fair. When that is the standard you are ranking countries by, that makes perfect sense.

It was completely logical.

That said... the ranking was crap. You can have a system like Cuba, where people couldn't even get Aspirin.... and that was good.... as long as it's Equal.... Fair... and Socialized.....

When I go to the hospital.... I don't give crap if it is fair. I want quality care. If I have to pay for it.... great. Rather pay and live, than have it 'equal', 'fair', and 'socialized' and die because its terrible care.

I wager none of you people on the left, ever bothered to download the data, look up the methodology, and read it for yourself....... have you? Nope. You have not. Don't even try to lie to me.

Yeah, you're literally wrong. I'll trust me European friends and experts on healthcare, not a self proclaimed Christian capitalist.

 

[dblack]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

You claim that not helping someone is immoral. You're not helping millions right now. Why not?

I voted for Obama. I personally would have liked a public option. The status quo would have kept millions uninsured. The attempt by the right to repeal the ACA some 50+ times cost the taxpayer how many millions of $$$ ? And it's STILL the law. So much for fiscal responsibility & compassionate conservatism.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with the question. How is not helping someone immoral? How do you deal with the fact that you're not helping people, people you could be helping, right now?

 

[dblack]

I'm still wondering how the anti-profit folks think health care is any different than any of the other necessities of life. If you don't think doctors should be allowed to make a profit, why should farmers?

Farmers are subsidized by the government so they can survive.

What? Can you just answer the question?

 

[playtime]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

In case you didn't realize it, this is not Greece.
How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

You & I & the smuck down the street already were paying (thru higher premiums) for people who were not insured. All those trips to the ER people have made, for silly things like a cold all help drive the costs up. It's common sense that preventative medicine now saves a whole lot of dollars in the long run. Something the status quo was not mandated to do. A covered yearly mammogram now that might catch an early cancer now & treatment is less costly with a better outcome is a lot better than it not being a covered expense.... so it's ignored ( because a mammogram is expensive enough & may not be affordable) by a low income woman until that cancer spreads & costs a lot more to the taxpayer. I really don't give a God damn whether *you* believe me or not & I say exactly what I think with no worries about the opinions of posters such as yourself. 'Moral superiority'? LOL. naw... just being humane. Try it sometime.

First off, preventative medicine is more widely used in America, than anywhere else in the world. You go to Canada, UK, and elsewhere, preventative medicine is a fraction of what it is here.

Second, preventative medicine is not an automatic win. In fact, it's generally a money loser. When you add up the costs to provide preventive medicine to 310 Million people, compared to the cost of simply giving care to the people who get sick, the cost for preventative medicine is billions of dollars more expensive.

If *YOU* are paying for preventative care, then yes, it makes sense. Take the average flu season. The cost for a flu shot is $30. Compare that to the cost of being treated by a severe flu illness, it makes sense.

But the cost of providing flu shots to the entire country, would be over $9 Billion dollars. The cost of treating flu patients every years, is only about $300 Million dollars.

Spending $9 Billion, to save $300 Million, is not a wise or "common sense that preventative medicine now saves a whole lot of dollars in the long run". It's not. It does not save money in the long run.

Same is true of breast cancer. To provide every single female of age, with breast cancer screening, would cost more than $30 Billion dollars. We only spend $16 Billion on treatment for Breast Cancer now.

Over and over, there are actually very few "preventative care" treatments that are cost effective.

Which goes back to my first point. The whole reason preventative care is uncommon in the UK and Canada, is because..... the government knows it's not cost effective, and can't afford it. Here in the US, the majority of preventative care is paid for by private individuals.

What was the first thing that happened after Obama care was passed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html?_r=0

See, when government pushed to expand Medicare and Medicaid, knowing they'd have to foot the bill for more of these preventative care expenses...... they suddenly "oh, you only need to screen at age 50".

Oddly I fully expected the move, and wasn't surprised at all. All the media leftists were screaming "how could they possibly recommend less care?!?".... um... because when you have someone else pay for your services, they tend to say you don't need as much? You know, like all the other gov-care countries in the world?

And lastly, you are not being more humane.

You think you are. You pretend you are. But your system has failed every single time it's tried. Tell those people in Greece, that your ideology is more "humane".

Greek Socialized Health Care is Pushing Amputations for Diabetics to Cut Costs

Greece has had a socialized medical system since the early 1980's, and it is likewise struggling in the current economic depression. Thus, it is going to use a similar tactic. It is denying diabetic shoes to patients, a service that would allow patients to keep their legs for several more years at least, and perhaps even avoid amputations completely. The Greek Department of Social Security maintains that diabetic patients will eventually lose their limbs anyway, and it is a waste of money to delay the inevitable.
​

"... not avoid amputation of the leg, just delayed for a couple years and the expected benefit would be less than the estimated cost."
— Benefits Division of the Greek Department of Social Security

That's your "Humane" system. Tax the hell out of people, so they are impoverished, and then deny them health care because it's too expensive. Let the rest of society suffer to cover the cost.

Brilliant move. That's the future of America, if you have your "humane" way here.

In case you didn't realize it, this isn't Greece. The VA has problems because of fraud & abuse. So does Medicare.

Do you also think Sharia law is coming to America?

 

[playtime]

Also, Andy, having healthcare be profit driven in a place like INDIA is horrible.

Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.

Hey, genius, that was satire, the government in india makes sure drug prices are low. LOL.

As far as I know, they do not subsidize drug prices. The reason drugs are cheaper there, is simply free-market capitalism at work.

Again, people do not go to India's government run hospitals. Those suck terribly. They go to the pay-for-service, free-market Capitalist based hospitals.... which are fantastic.

India has price caps on drugs.

india-administers-price-cap-dose-to-drug-companies-1411135826

 

[playtime]

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.

We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.

Ranked by who exactly, and on what grounds? Tell me you are not citing the World Health Organization again? That whole ranking was absolute trash. They had Cuba on the list. Cuba.... where people can't even get Aspirin from their "free" gov-care system?

The fact Cuba was even on the list, proves that the whole ranking was invalid.

Will this do? These stats were taken from the WHO, but also from 2 other notable sources:

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally

As for Cuba, no system is perfect- but hardly the disaster you seem to think it is. BTW, Cuba has a 99% literacy rate, not bad for such a backwards country 'eh? Can you say the same for our nation?:
Cuba's health care policy: prevention and active community participation.

Abstract
In Cuba, health care is considered a human right for all citizens; health care is therefore a national priority. Cuba's health policy emphasizes prevention, primary care, services in the community, and the active participation of citizens. These emphases have produced an impressively high ranking on major health indicators, despite economic handicaps. The Cuban experience demonstrates the influence of ideological commitment and policy-making on the provision of health care and challenges the assumption that high-quality care for all citizens requires massive financial investment. The evolution of the Cuban health care system since the revolution thus has implications for the U.S. health care system; specifically, it suggests that the equitable distribution of health care services in the United States requires a national health insurance and service delivery system.

Cuba's health care policy: prevention and active community participation. - PubMed - NCBI

A Different Model — Medical Care in Cuba
Edward W. Campion, M.D., and Stephen Morrissey, Ph.D.

N Engl J Med 2013; 368:297-299January 24, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1215226


For a visitor from the United States, Cuba is disorienting. American cars are everywhere, but they all date from the 1950s at the latest. Our bank cards, credit cards, and smartphones don't work. Internet access is virtually nonexistent. And the Cuban health care system also seems unreal. There are too many doctors. Everybody has a family physician. Everything is free, totally free — and not after prior approval or some copay. The whole system seems turned upside down. It is tightly organized, and the first priority is prevention. Although Cuba has limited economic resources, its health care system has solved some problems that ours has not yet managed to address.1,2

Family physicians, along with their nurses and other health workers, are responsible for delivering primary care and preventive services to their panel of patients — about 1000 patients per physician in urban areas. All care delivery is organized at the local level, and the patients and their caregivers generally live in the same community. The medical records in cardboard folders are simple and handwritten, not unlike those we used in the United States 50 years ago. But the system is surprisingly information-rich and focused on population health.

All patients are categorized according to level of health risk, from I to IV. Smokers, for example, are in risk category II, and patients with stable, chronic lung disease are in category III. The community clinics report regularly to the district on how many patients they have in each risk category and on the number of patients with conditions such as hypertension (well controlled or not), diabetes, and asthma, as well as immunization status, time since last Pap smear, and pregnancies necessitating prenatal care.

Every patient is visited at home once a year, and those with chronic conditions receive visits more frequently. When necessary, patients can be referred to a district polyclinic for specialty evaluation, but they return to the community team for ongoing treatment. For example, the team is responsible for seeing that a patient with tuberculosis follows the assigned antimicrobial regimen and gets sputum checks. House calls and discussions with family members are common tactics for addressing problems with compliance or follow-up and even for failure to protect against unwanted pregnancy. In an effort to control mosquito-borne infections such as dengue, the local health team goes into homes to conduct inspections and teach people about getting rid of standing water, for example.

This highly structured, prevention-oriented system has produced positive results. Vaccination rates in Cuba are among the highest in the world. The life expectancy of 78 years from birth is virtually identical to that in the United States. The infant mortality rate in Cuba has fallen from more than 80 per 1000 live births in the 1950s to less than 5 per 1000 — lower than the U.S. rate, although the maternal mortality rate remains well above those in developed countries and is in the middle of the range for Caribbean countries.3,4 Without doubt, the improved health outcomes are largely the result of improvements in nutrition and education, which address the social determinants of health. Cuba's literacy rate is 99%, and health education is part of the mandatory school curriculum. A recent national program to promote acceptance of men who have sex with men was designed in part to reduce rates of sexually transmitted disease and improve acceptance of and adherence to treatment. Cigarettes can no longer be obtained with monthly ration cards, and smoking rates have decreased, though local health teams say it remains difficult to get smokers to quit. Contraception is free and strongly encouraged. Abortion is legal but is seen as a failure of prevention.
MMS: Error

 

[playtime]

Also, Andy, having healthcare be profit driven in a place like INDIA is horrible.

Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.

Hey, genius, that was satire, the government in india makes sure drug prices are low. LOL.

As far as I know, they do not subsidize drug prices. The reason drugs are cheaper there, is simply free-market capitalism at work.

Again, people do not go to India's government run hospitals. Those suck terribly. They go to the pay-for-service, free-market Capitalist based hospitals.... which are fantastic.

LOL. Reduction in prices of 886 drugs from India | Medindia
National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority
India expands drug pricing with caps for two antibiotics

I was unaware of this. So I really didn't know.

That said, as soon as I read through the articles you posted, I imagined that price controls would likely cause drug companies to stop, or reduce roll-outs of new drugs.

Why invest the money to produce a drug for a market, if you can't make enough money off of that drug, to make it worth the effort?

Second, I predicted that the use of price controlled drugs would see a decline, because companies would naturally not have an incentive to keep up supplies of price controlled drugs, when they can't make as much profit as other drugs.

So I decided to determine if my theory was true, and started searching for "effects of India drug price controls".

Price Controls for Drugs in India Fail to Improve Access for Patients: Report

What do you know..... it's almost like I'm clairvoyant.

There was also a drop in R&D resulting in fewer new introductions of generic drugs and there has been reduced competition since India expanded its list of priced-controlled medicines two years ago. These trends can strengthen “oligopolistic behavior, which will result in reduced set of choices for the doctors and patients,” according to the report, which was conducted by IMS Health, the market research firm.​

So the regulation drove out competition, leading to oligopolies. Sounds like regulations on hospitals leading to only 3 major chains in Ohio. Fewer new drugs coming to market, because why invest money in new drugs, when profits will be reduced by price controls?

Oddly.... similar regulations, have similar effects. What a shock. Who thunk it?

Moreover, there was no significant penetration of price-controlled medicines in various markets.
For instance, usage of drugs with price controls declined 7% since 2013, when the Department of Pharmaceuticals published its Drug Price Control Order and boosted to more than 650 the number of drugs that are subject to a price ceiling. Similarly, there was “muted” growth for price-controlled medicines outside metropolitan areas compared with 5% growth for drugs not subject to price controls.​

Well fancy that.... while the price controls were supposed to lead to more people having access to those drugs, the result was that usage of price controlled drugs fell by 7%, while usage of non-price-controlled drugs increased by 5%.

Really? The companies spent their money investing in drugs that were not price controlled, instead of those that were, resulting in fewer people using them, as opposed to more people using the non-price-controlled drugs?

Wow... what a shock! This has been such a shocking discovered. How could I be more shocked without using wires, is beyond me!

Like I said before.... the Fundamentals of economics do not change, because you are a leftists, and you demand such and such.

Nor do they change because "it's health care! It's different!".

If you introduce price controls in the US, you will have the same effect here. It will reduce health care, not improve it.

By the way.... Massachusetts, under Mitt Romney, tried price controls. The drug companies started closing down shop under Mass Health. Funny how the fundamentals of economics are universal. Every time, Republican or Democrat, you try deny how the market works, you are the one who fails. Not the market.

Americans flock to Canada or get them via the internet for the same exact drugs they otherwise cannot afford. I remember Bush saying that it was 'dangerous' to do that because of the lack of 'quality control' blah blah blah & soon after, we as the almighty USA, had flu shot vaccination shortages, & were rationed to just include children, seniors & the physically compromised. Guess where we got them shipped in from so more than just the vulnerable were able to get one? Yaaaaaaaaaaa......... that's right.... Canada.

 

[playtime]

the last i read from the GAO or CBO is if the ACA were repealed it would ADD 300 billion to the National debt...over 10 years...

I wonder how citizens of those red states feel that could have had coverage through expanded Medicaid, but can't because their Governors denied it to them?

 

[playtime]

American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.

We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.

Ranked by who exactly, and on what grounds? Tell me you are not citing the World Health Organization again? That whole ranking was absolute trash. They had Cuba on the list. Cuba.... where people can't even get Aspirin from their "free" gov-care system?

The fact Cuba was even on the list, proves that the whole ranking was invalid.

Regardless, we have a self proclaimed "rational" capitalist who believes he knows more then the world health organization.

No, the World Health Organization, was dead on correct. You read up the methodology of the ranking system, and they were absolutely right.

They didn't look at the quality of the care. They looked at how socialized it was. How "equal" it was. How "fair" it was. Not survival rates.... not quality of care.... no no. That wasn't a factor.

Cuba is very socialized, very equal, and very fair. When that is the standard you are ranking countries by, that makes perfect sense.

It was completely logical.

That said... the ranking was crap. You can have a system like Cuba, where people couldn't even get Aspirin.... and that was good.... as long as it's Equal.... Fair... and Socialized.....

When I go to the hospital.... I don't give crap if it is fair. I want quality care. If I have to pay for it.... great. Rather pay and live, than have it 'equal', 'fair', and 'socialized' and die because its terrible care.

I wager none of you people on the left, ever bothered to download the data, look up the methodology, and read it for yourself....... have you? Nope. You have not. Don't even try to lie to me.

Yeah, you're literally wrong. I'll trust me European friends and experts on healthcare, not a self proclaimed Christian capitalist.

2 separate posters I've known over the years from other forums have both said they would not trade their Canadian healthcare system for ours & overall are very satisfied & one said the longest she ever had to wait for a doctor's visit was 2 1/2 weeks & that was because she needed a 'booster' shot. She wasn't 'sick', so that was why she had the wait. I've tried to make an apt to a dermatologist & that was a 4 month wait.

 

[playtime]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

You claim that not helping someone is immoral. You're not helping millions right now. Why not?

I voted for Obama. I personally would have liked a public option. The status quo would have kept millions uninsured. The attempt by the right to repeal the ACA some 50+ times cost the taxpayer how many millions of $$$ ? And it's STILL the law. So much for fiscal responsibility & compassionate conservatism.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with the question. How is not helping someone immoral? How do you deal with the fact that you're not helping people, people you could be helping, right now?

I don't think people should remain ill, or eventually die because they could not afford medical help. To me, having the attitude of 'oh well, tough shit' is immoral. And since I am not a doctor, the best I could do is vote in people that have the same mindset as me. Obama ran on the ACA as part of his platform, which was one reason why I voted for him.

 

[playtime]

I'm still wondering how the anti-profit folks think health care is any different than any of the other necessities of life. If you don't think doctors should be allowed to make a profit, why should farmers?

Farmers are subsidized by the government so they can survive.

What? Can you just answer the question?

Because I never said that doctors shouldn't make a profit ... a living. But certain things shouldn't go completely unchecked in the way of cost- things that are necessary to sustain life. Farmers are subsidized, because the ratio between cost of raising crops or animals versus what people could afford to buy versus the hard work put into it would not be worthwhile to them to be farmers... so they are subsidized to ensure they remain doing vital work & they can make a profit. Does that satisfy you? If not too bad I answered the way I did.

 

[Andylusion]

Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.

Hey, genius, that was satire, the government in india makes sure drug prices are low. LOL.

As far as I know, they do not subsidize drug prices. The reason drugs are cheaper there, is simply free-market capitalism at work.

Again, people do not go to India's government run hospitals. Those suck terribly. They go to the pay-for-service, free-market Capitalist based hospitals.... which are fantastic.

LOL. Reduction in prices of 886 drugs from India | Medindia
National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority
India expands drug pricing with caps for two antibiotics

I was unaware of this. So I really didn't know.

That said, as soon as I read through the articles you posted, I imagined that price controls would likely cause drug companies to stop, or reduce roll-outs of new drugs.

Why invest the money to produce a drug for a market, if you can't make enough money off of that drug, to make it worth the effort?

Second, I predicted that the use of price controlled drugs would see a decline, because companies would naturally not have an incentive to keep up supplies of price controlled drugs, when they can't make as much profit as other drugs.

So I decided to determine if my theory was true, and started searching for "effects of India drug price controls".

Price Controls for Drugs in India Fail to Improve Access for Patients: Report

What do you know..... it's almost like I'm clairvoyant.

There was also a drop in R&D resulting in fewer new introductions of generic drugs and there has been reduced competition since India expanded its list of priced-controlled medicines two years ago. These trends can strengthen “oligopolistic behavior, which will result in reduced set of choices for the doctors and patients,” according to the report, which was conducted by IMS Health, the market research firm.​

So the regulation drove out competition, leading to oligopolies. Sounds like regulations on hospitals leading to only 3 major chains in Ohio. Fewer new drugs coming to market, because why invest money in new drugs, when profits will be reduced by price controls?

Oddly.... similar regulations, have similar effects. What a shock. Who thunk it?

Moreover, there was no significant penetration of price-controlled medicines in various markets.
For instance, usage of drugs with price controls declined 7% since 2013, when the Department of Pharmaceuticals published its Drug Price Control Order and boosted to more than 650 the number of drugs that are subject to a price ceiling. Similarly, there was “muted” growth for price-controlled medicines outside metropolitan areas compared with 5% growth for drugs not subject to price controls.​

Well fancy that.... while the price controls were supposed to lead to more people having access to those drugs, the result was that usage of price controlled drugs fell by 7%, while usage of non-price-controlled drugs increased by 5%.

Really? The companies spent their money investing in drugs that were not price controlled, instead of those that were, resulting in fewer people using them, as opposed to more people using the non-price-controlled drugs?

Wow... what a shock! This has been such a shocking discovered. How could I be more shocked without using wires, is beyond me!

Like I said before.... the Fundamentals of economics do not change, because you are a leftists, and you demand such and such.

Nor do they change because "it's health care! It's different!".

If you introduce price controls in the US, you will have the same effect here. It will reduce health care, not improve it.

By the way.... Massachusetts, under Mitt Romney, tried price controls. The drug companies started closing down shop under Mass Health. Funny how the fundamentals of economics are universal. Every time, Republican or Democrat, you try deny how the market works, you are the one who fails. Not the market.

Americans flock to Canada or get them via the internet for the same exact drugs they otherwise cannot afford. I remember Bush saying that it was 'dangerous' to do that because of the lack of 'quality control' blah blah blah & soon after, we as the almighty USA, had flu shot vaccination shortages, & were rationed to just include children, seniors & the physically compromised. Guess where we got them shipped in from so more than just the vulnerable were able to get one? Yaaaaaaaaaaa......... that's right.... Canada.

Flu shots, are exactly the wrong thing to bring up. Flu Shots in the US are effectively price controlled. The US Government buys up 70% of all vaccines, and they do this at their own set prices. As a result, the private vaccine market barely exists. Why pay the market price for a flu shot, when the government is selling them for a fraction of the cost?

As a result, vaccine companies in the US have left the market. In the 1980s there were over 20 different vaccine manufacturers. Today there are only about 4.

So as with all price controls, shortages follow. Why spend money investing in more capacity in vaccine manufacturing, when you can't profit from it?

Same thing happened with Ebola. Ebola was known to exist for decades, but no one bothered to work on a vaccine. Why spend hundreds of millions on R&D for a product you'll lose money selling?

So you bringing up Vaccines, is just more evidence of my point.

But that's not all.

Yes, it is true that some drugs in Canada.... *SOME* drugs, are cheaper. Some drugs are vastly more expensive in Canada.

And MANY drugs are not available at all.

Government Price Controls on Prescription Drugs May Be More than Patients Bargain For - HealthCare Institute of New Jersey

Patricia Danzon, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, conducted a study comparing drug costs in several countries. Here’s what she found, “Canadian prices are between 13 percent lower and 3 percent higher than the U.S., depending on the price index used. ”

However, her study also concluded that generic drugs — which make up 45 percent of the U.S. prescription drug market — tended to be more expensive in Canada than in the U.S. The biggest problem with implementing price controls, however, may be access. Most Canadian provinces have a review committee that must approve any drug offered for sale. These approved drugs, also known as “formularies,” are an integral part of the price control regime. Between 1998 and 1999 only 25 drugs were listed on the formulary for the province of Ontario, even though nearly a hundred drugs were available. Similarly, the Canadian government ruled that only 24 new drugs could be added to the formulary, even though they reviewed 400 drugs!

The end result is that Canadians are forced to pay extraordinarily high costs for drugs that don’t appear on the formulary and some Canadians actually have to travel into the U.S. to purchase the drugs they need. Another even more important consideration is that price controls stifle innovation and can lead to supply shortages in both the quality and quantity of medications.​

So while some Americans are buying cheaper drugs in Canada, many Canadians are buying drugs in America, not because it's cheaper, but rather because they can't buy them at all, at any price, in Canada.

Again, price controls result in shortages and lack of availability.

Tracking the problem | Canadian Drug Shortage

Canadian Pharmacists Association detailing the drug shortage in the country.

Prescription Drug Costs: Has Canada Found the Answer?

This paper also shows how the Canadian government is paying for US Citizens drugs.

When a Canadian buys drugs, they have to pay for the first $800 worth of drugs each year. But beyond that, they get 70% of the cost paid for by the government.

What happens is, people buy the drugs at the discounted price, and then open online drug sales. We buy from them, the drugs that the government paid 70% of cost on.

So in essence, the government is taxing Canadians, so that US citizens can buy the drugs at a discount.... illegally of course.

So yes, Americans are in some cases able to buy some drugs at discount prices from Canada. That generally costs Canadian tax payers tons of money, and the price controls cause many drug shortages, resulting in Canadians coming to America to get drugs they can't get in Canada.

This is lose-lose for Canada. Not a win. Great for US citizens though.

 

[dblack]

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

You claim that not helping someone is immoral. You're not helping millions right now. Why not?

I voted for Obama. I personally would have liked a public option. The status quo would have kept millions uninsured. The attempt by the right to repeal the ACA some 50+ times cost the taxpayer how many millions of $$$ ? And it's STILL the law. So much for fiscal responsibility & compassionate conservatism.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with the question. How is not helping someone immoral? How do you deal with the fact that you're not helping people, people you could be helping, right now?

I don't think people should remain ill, or eventually die because they could not afford medical help. To me, having the attitude of 'oh well, tough shit' is immoral.

I agree. But that's not what's in question. The issue is whether we can force others to join our efforts to help out people in need.

Obama ran on the ACA as part of his platform, which was one reason why I voted for him.

He ran against the individual mandate too. If he'd stuck to his guns, I would be much more accepting of ACA. As it is, it's the worst kind of corporatist government.

 

[dblack]

I'm still wondering how the anti-profit folks think health care is any different than any of the other necessities of life. If you don't think doctors should be allowed to make a profit, why should farmers?

Farmers are subsidized by the government so they can survive.

What? Can you just answer the question?

Because I never said that doctors shouldn't make a profit ... a living. But certain things shouldn't go completely unchecked in the way of cost- things that are necessary to sustain life. Farmers are subsidized, because the ratio between cost of raising crops or animals versus what people could afford to buy versus the hard work put into it would not be worthwhile to them to be farmers... so they are subsidized to ensure they remain doing vital work & they can make a profit. Does that satisfy you? If not too bad I answered the way I did.

Hmmm... well, I guess I need some clarification on what it means to say that health care shouldn't be "profit-driven". And I'm still not clear if you feel the same way about the other necessities of life.

I guess I understand the basic sentiment that people shouldn't be allowed to benefit from the suffering of others. But that's not what's going on. Quite the opposite, actually. People in health care profit from curing people. And I can't see how that's a bad thing.

 

[Andylusion]

American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.

We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.

Ranked by who exactly, and on what grounds? Tell me you are not citing the World Health Organization again? That whole ranking was absolute trash. They had Cuba on the list. Cuba.... where people can't even get Aspirin from their "free" gov-care system?

The fact Cuba was even on the list, proves that the whole ranking was invalid.

Regardless, we have a self proclaimed "rational" capitalist who believes he knows more then the world health organization.

No, the World Health Organization, was dead on correct. You read up the methodology of the ranking system, and they were absolutely right.

They didn't look at the quality of the care. They looked at how socialized it was. How "equal" it was. How "fair" it was. Not survival rates.... not quality of care.... no no. That wasn't a factor.

Cuba is very socialized, very equal, and very fair. When that is the standard you are ranking countries by, that makes perfect sense.

It was completely logical.

That said... the ranking was crap. You can have a system like Cuba, where people couldn't even get Aspirin.... and that was good.... as long as it's Equal.... Fair... and Socialized.....

When I go to the hospital.... I don't give crap if it is fair. I want quality care. If I have to pay for it.... great. Rather pay and live, than have it 'equal', 'fair', and 'socialized' and die because its terrible care.

I wager none of you people on the left, ever bothered to download the data, look up the methodology, and read it for yourself....... have you? Nope. You have not. Don't even try to lie to me.

Yeah, you're literally wrong. I'll trust me European friends and experts on healthcare, not a self proclaimed Christian capitalist.

No, I am not wrong. Go read the methodology used by WHO. It was posted. I've read it. I've got the PDF on my computer. Have you?

 

[Andylusion]

In case you didn't realize it, this is not Greece.
How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

You & I & the smuck down the street already were paying (thru higher premiums) for people who were not insured. All those trips to the ER people have made, for silly things like a cold all help drive the costs up. It's common sense that preventative medicine now saves a whole lot of dollars in the long run. Something the status quo was not mandated to do. A covered yearly mammogram now that might catch an early cancer now & treatment is less costly with a better outcome is a lot better than it not being a covered expense.... so it's ignored ( because a mammogram is expensive enough & may not be affordable) by a low income woman until that cancer spreads & costs a lot more to the taxpayer. I really don't give a God damn whether *you* believe me or not & I say exactly what I think with no worries about the opinions of posters such as yourself. 'Moral superiority'? LOL. naw... just being humane. Try it sometime.

First off, preventative medicine is more widely used in America, than anywhere else in the world. You go to Canada, UK, and elsewhere, preventative medicine is a fraction of what it is here.

Second, preventative medicine is not an automatic win. In fact, it's generally a money loser. When you add up the costs to provide preventive medicine to 310 Million people, compared to the cost of simply giving care to the people who get sick, the cost for preventative medicine is billions of dollars more expensive.

If *YOU* are paying for preventative care, then yes, it makes sense. Take the average flu season. The cost for a flu shot is $30. Compare that to the cost of being treated by a severe flu illness, it makes sense.

But the cost of providing flu shots to the entire country, would be over $9 Billion dollars. The cost of treating flu patients every years, is only about $300 Million dollars.

Spending $9 Billion, to save $300 Million, is not a wise or "common sense that preventative medicine now saves a whole lot of dollars in the long run". It's not. It does not save money in the long run.

Same is true of breast cancer. To provide every single female of age, with breast cancer screening, would cost more than $30 Billion dollars. We only spend $16 Billion on treatment for Breast Cancer now.

Over and over, there are actually very few "preventative care" treatments that are cost effective.

Which goes back to my first point. The whole reason preventative care is uncommon in the UK and Canada, is because..... the government knows it's not cost effective, and can't afford it. Here in the US, the majority of preventative care is paid for by private individuals.

What was the first thing that happened after Obama care was passed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html?_r=0

See, when government pushed to expand Medicare and Medicaid, knowing they'd have to foot the bill for more of these preventative care expenses...... they suddenly "oh, you only need to screen at age 50".

Oddly I fully expected the move, and wasn't surprised at all. All the media leftists were screaming "how could they possibly recommend less care?!?".... um... because when you have someone else pay for your services, they tend to say you don't need as much? You know, like all the other gov-care countries in the world?

And lastly, you are not being more humane.

You think you are. You pretend you are. But your system has failed every single time it's tried. Tell those people in Greece, that your ideology is more "humane".

Greek Socialized Health Care is Pushing Amputations for Diabetics to Cut Costs

Greece has had a socialized medical system since the early 1980's, and it is likewise struggling in the current economic depression. Thus, it is going to use a similar tactic. It is denying diabetic shoes to patients, a service that would allow patients to keep their legs for several more years at least, and perhaps even avoid amputations completely. The Greek Department of Social Security maintains that diabetic patients will eventually lose their limbs anyway, and it is a waste of money to delay the inevitable.
​

"... not avoid amputation of the leg, just delayed for a couple years and the expected benefit would be less than the estimated cost."
— Benefits Division of the Greek Department of Social Security

That's your "Humane" system. Tax the hell out of people, so they are impoverished, and then deny them health care because it's too expensive. Let the rest of society suffer to cover the cost.

Brilliant move. That's the future of America, if you have your "humane" way here.

In case you didn't realize it, this isn't Greece. The VA has problems because of fraud & abuse. So does Medicare.

Do you also think Sharia law is coming to America?

Every single time a socialized system fails, people start blame shifting. It's fraud and abuse.

Ok, so what's the problem with Cuba's system? Venezuela's system? The UK system?

And the fundamentals of economics are universal. They don't magically change because "this isn't Greece". The people of Greece were saying the same thing. "This isn't the Soviet Union. Our system won't fail...."

Oops... it failed. There's a book called "This time is different". Very boring book, but it details how every time a country went into default, there were people in that country saying "This time is different! We're not like all those others".... but amazingly if you do the same actions, you end up with the same results, and they all ended up in default.

There is nothing economically special about the United States. If we follow the same bad policies, the same unsupportable pensions, the same unsustainable health care... we will end up with the same economic crash. It will happen.