The Obamacare scam is failing and exposes its built-in treachery

[Arianrhod]

So how do you propose to roll back the costs of medications (an area where it actually might be done, as opposed to the costs of surgery and post-op care, nursing home care, hospice care, etc., etc., etc.)?

I don't.

Ah. You're just pining for some Norman Rockwell universe where aspirin and Epsom salts were cutting-edge pharmaceuticals and patients paid their doctors with chickens. Fair enough.

 

[dblack]

So how do you propose to roll back the costs of medications (an area where it actually might be done, as opposed to the costs of surgery and post-op care, nursing home care, hospice care, etc., etc., etc.)?

I don't.

Ah. You're just pining for some Norman Rockwell universe where aspirin and Epsom salts were cutting-edge pharmaceuticals and patients paid their doctors with chickens. Fair enough.

Nope.

 

[Arianrhod]

So how do you propose to roll back the costs of medications (an area where it actually might be done, as opposed to the costs of surgery and post-op care, nursing home care, hospice care, etc., etc., etc.)?

I don't.

Ah. You're just pining for some Norman Rockwell universe where aspirin and Epsom salts were cutting-edge pharmaceuticals and patients paid their doctors with chickens. Fair enough.

Nope.

Monosyllabic nihilism, then. That always works.

 

[dblack]

So how do you propose to roll back the costs of medications (an area where it actually might be done, as opposed to the costs of surgery and post-op care, nursing home care, hospice care, etc., etc., etc.)?

I don't.

Ah. You're just pining for some Norman Rockwell universe where aspirin and Epsom salts were cutting-edge pharmaceuticals and patients paid their doctors with chickens. Fair enough.

Nope.

Monosyllabic nihilism, then. That always works.

I don't waste time on irrelevant strawmen.

 

[Arianrhod]

So how do you propose to roll back the costs of medications (an area where it actually might be done, as opposed to the costs of surgery and post-op care, nursing home care, hospice care, etc., etc., etc.)?

I don't.

Ah. You're just pining for some Norman Rockwell universe where aspirin and Epsom salts were cutting-edge pharmaceuticals and patients paid their doctors with chickens. Fair enough.

Nope.

Monosyllabic nihilism, then. That always works.

I don't waste time on irrelevant strawmen.

A solution to overinflated drug prices is a "straw man"? Hokay.

 

[dblack]

I don't.

Ah. You're just pining for some Norman Rockwell universe where aspirin and Epsom salts were cutting-edge pharmaceuticals and patients paid their doctors with chickens. Fair enough.

Nope.

Monosyllabic nihilism, then. That always works.

I don't waste time on irrelevant strawmen.

A solution to overinflated drug prices is a "straw man"? Hokay.

Nope. Keep rattling.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So how do you propose to roll back the costs of medications (an area where it actually might be done, as opposed to the costs of surgery and post-op care, nursing home care, hospice care, etc., etc., etc.)?

I don't.

You don't what ?

Or were you responding to the board moron ?

 

[Arianrhod]

Ah. You're just pining for some Norman Rockwell universe where aspirin and Epsom salts were cutting-edge pharmaceuticals and patients paid their doctors with chickens. Fair enough.

Nope.

Monosyllabic nihilism, then. That always works.

I don't waste time on irrelevant strawmen.

A solution to overinflated drug prices is a "straw man"? Hokay.

Nope.

That was the question I asked you. You were unable to answer it. That's not surprising, but most people would have exerted the better part of valor.

 

[dblack]

So how do you propose to roll back the costs of medications (an area where it actually might be done, as opposed to the costs of surgery and post-op care, nursing home care, hospice care, etc., etc., etc.)?

I don't.

You don't what ?

Or were you responding to the board moron ?

The latter.

 

[Arianrhod]

So the answer to "How would you roll back prices on pharmaceuticals?" seems to be "We can't, we won't; we're just here to whine."

Got it.

 

[dblack]

So the answer to "How would you roll back prices on pharmaceuticals?" seems to be "We can't, we won't; we're just here to whine."

Got it.

So, you want a fascist dictatorship and will happily suck off your master thugs for favors, got it.

 

[Arianrhod]

So the answer to "How would you roll back prices on pharmaceuticals?" seems to be "We can't, we won't; we're just here to whine."

Got it.

So, you want a fascist dictatorship and will happily suck off your master thugs for favors, got it.

I've never seen anyone else claim that the only way to control pharma pricing is to create a fascist dictatorship. Would you like a cookie?

 

[flacaltenn]

But isn't that what you are doing by imposing
govt health care where people ARE FORCED
into it WITHOUT free choice and AGAINST their BELIEFS and consent.

Obamacare isn't govt provided or sponsered health care,
it's legislation that forces me to buy "affordable" medical insurance, or be fined.
It's legislation that forces "certain" businesses to provide their employees w coverage.

I think a lot of people were under the impression,
that this was going to be similar to the Canadian Health Care system.

How this has anything to do w personal beliefs is beyond me

Only in the sense that some of us might believe that insurance is a crappy way to finance health care.

What would be your suggested alternative ?

Anything but. We should pay for it like we pay for anything else. Insurance should only be for unexpected calamities that would bankrupt your family otherwise. But we're fixated on the delusion that we can use insurance to pay for most, if not all, of our healthcare expenses.

Using insurance to pay for the normal expenses of life is more than just dumb. It's not only a waste of money from an individual's perspective, but (when most customers are under the same delusion) it does serious harm to the markets involved.

I'm opposed to government regulation of our economic decisions at any level, but if we are going to use the government to solve the problem, the more intelligent thing to do would be to ban full coverage health insurance altogether, only permitting catastrophic plans.

So how do you propose to roll back the costs of medications (an area where it actually might be done, as opposed to the costs of surgery and post-op care, nursing home care, hospice care, etc., etc., etc.)?

Big Pharma's usual alibi is "We have to charge more to recoup R&D," even though it's been proven that most of their revenue goes to advertising, upper-echelon salaries, and the stockholders.

If you have a plan to stop them from slopping at the trough, I'd love to hear it.

It's those other areas that you listed where the biggest savings impacts would be. Not in meds. Although you MISSED their biggest expense in Pharma -- which is that they get ONE winning product for every 4 or 5 they develop.. There are a LOT of RISKS associated with pharma development and actually risks of pestering law suits after hitting the market even when they prevail.

For the BULK of the costs -- you need to put the consumer much closer to the provider. A doctor will give you the diagnosis, and a list of choices -- but if you ASK THEM what the costs are -- they are like deer in the headlights. They have NO freaking idea what the charges are. Because usually, their LIST prices are never met. And they don't know the outside pricing on subcontracts to labs and other services.

That situation only perpetuates rising prices. I used to cover myself (self-employed) and the family under a MSavingsAct. So I was the 1st aboard higher deductible plans. The savings on the plan allowed ME to control the 1st $5000 or $6000 of costs. So I negotiated the pricing, and chose doctors who KNEW what a good deal it was to get a check in 30 days and less without all the paperwork and compliance.

My veterinary bills have not gone up anywhere NEAR my medical. Same for Dental procedures and the reason is --- there's a knowledge of pricing and the local market between consumer and provider. We NEED more choices that FORCE shopping and personal discretion.

 

[dblack]

So the answer to "How would you roll back prices on pharmaceuticals?" seems to be "We can't, we won't; we're just here to whine."

Got it.

So, you want a fascist dictatorship and will happily suck off your master thugs for favors, got it.

I've never seen anyone else claim that the only way to control pharma pricing is to create a fascist dictatorship. Would you like a cookie?

Arod - you get what you give. You want to play all your stupid games and then get pissy when it comes back on you. If you want real discourse, try holding up your end of the bargain. Otherwise, I can't take you seriously.

 

[Arianrhod]

Obamacare isn't govt provided or sponsered health care,
it's legislation that forces me to buy "affordable" medical insurance, or be fined.
It's legislation that forces "certain" businesses to provide their employees w coverage.

I think a lot of people were under the impression,
that this was going to be similar to the Canadian Health Care system.

How this has anything to do w personal beliefs is beyond me

Only in the sense that some of us might believe that insurance is a crappy way to finance health care.

What would be your suggested alternative ?

Anything but. We should pay for it like we pay for anything else. Insurance should only be for unexpected calamities that would bankrupt your family otherwise. But we're fixated on the delusion that we can use insurance to pay for most, if not all, of our healthcare expenses.

Using insurance to pay for the normal expenses of life is more than just dumb. It's not only a waste of money from an individual's perspective, but (when most customers are under the same delusion) it does serious harm to the markets involved.

I'm opposed to government regulation of our economic decisions at any level, but if we are going to use the government to solve the problem, the more intelligent thing to do would be to ban full coverage health insurance altogether, only permitting catastrophic plans.

So how do you propose to roll back the costs of medications (an area where it actually might be done, as opposed to the costs of surgery and post-op care, nursing home care, hospice care, etc., etc., etc.)?

Big Pharma's usual alibi is "We have to charge more to recoup R&D," even though it's been proven that most of their revenue goes to advertising, upper-echelon salaries, and the stockholders.

If you have a plan to stop them from slopping at the trough, I'd love to hear it.

It's those other areas that you listed where the biggest savings impacts would be. Not in meds. Although you MISSED their biggest expense in Pharma -- which is that they get ONE winning product for every 4 or 5 they develop.. There are a LOT of RISKS associated with pharma development and actually risks of pestering law suits after hitting the market even when they prevail.

For the BULK of the costs -- you need to put the consumer much closer to the provider. A doctor will give you the diagnosis, and a list of choices -- but if you ASK THEM what the costs are -- they are like deer in the headlights. They have NO freaking idea what the charges are. Because usually, their LIST prices are never met. And they don't know the outside pricing on subcontracts to labs and other services.

That situation only perpetuates rising prices. I used to cover myself (self-employed) and the family under a MSavingsAct. So I was the 1st aboard higher deductible plans. The savings on the plan allowed ME to control the 1st $5000 or $6000 of costs. So I negotiated the pricing, and chose doctors who KNEW what a good deal it was to get a check in 30 days and less without all the paperwork and compliance.

My veterinary bills have not gone up anywhere NEAR my medical. Same for Dental procedures and the reason is --- there's a knowledge of pricing and the local market between consumer and provider. We NEED more choices that FORCE shopping and personal discretion.

I guess I've been lucky to switch from doctors who had huge billing departments to those who are more in direct contact with costs. Often they'll try to find less costly alternatives. I recently injured my thumb and my primary doc referred me for x-rays and to see an orthopedic specialist. I was copied on the x-rays, which showed no joint damage, so my doc sent me to a physical therapist instead, who diagnosed and treated what turned out to be tendonitis for a fraction of what the co-pay to the orthopedist would be.

It's odd that when it comes to medical treatment, so many people are afraid to ask.

 

[dblack]

So how do you propose to roll back the costs of medications (an area where it actually might be done, as opposed to the costs of surgery and post-op care, nursing home care, hospice care, etc., etc., etc.)?

I don't.

You don't what ?

Or were you responding to the board moron ?

I was saying that I don't "propose to rollback the cost of medications". Price controls aren't an acceptable use of government power.

 

[Arianrhod]

I was saying that I don't "propose to rollback the cost of medications". Price controls aren't an acceptable use of government power.

Unless they're price controls in favor of the drug companies, right? Either you didn't know they existed, or you did and you don't care:

5 Reasons Prescription Drug Prices Are So High in the U.S.


Drug manufacturers in the U.S. set their own prices, and that’s not the norm elsewhere in the world.

Countries with national health programs have government entities that either negotiate drug prices or decide not to cover drugs whose prices they deem excessive. No similar negotiating happens in the U.S.

When a Republican-majority Congress created the Medicare drug benefit in 2003, they barred the program that now covers 40 million Americans from negotiating drug prices. Medicaid, on the other hand, must cover all drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, regardless of whether a cheaper, equally or more effective drug is available. And private insurers rarely negotiate prices because the third party pharmacy benefits managers that administer prescription drugs, such as Express Scripts and CVS Health, often receive payments from drug companies to shift market share in their favor, according to the study.

We allow “government-protected monopolies” for certain drugs, preventing generics from coming to market to reduce prices.

In an effort to promote innovation, the U.S. has a patent system that allows drug manufacturers to remain the sole manufacturer of drugs they’ve patented for 20 years or more. The FDA also gives drug manufacturers exclusivity for certain products, including those that treat people with rare diseases.

But sometimes, drug companies deploy questionable strategies to maintain their monopolies, the study says. The tactics vary, but they include slightly tweaking the nontherapeutic parts of drugs, such as pill coatings, to game the patent system and paying large “pay for delay” settlements to generics manufacturers who sue them over these patents.

And this is a serious problem, the study concludes, because drug prices decline to 55% of their original brand name cost once there are two generics on the market and to 33% of original cost with five generics.

The FDA takes a long time to approve generic drugs.

Application backlogs at the FDA have led to delays of three or four years before generic manufacturers can win approval to make drugs not protected by patents, the study says.

Sometimes, state laws and other “well-intentioned” federal policies limit generics’ abilities to keep costs down.

Pharmacists in 26 states are required by law to get patient consent before switching to a generic drug, the authors wrote. This reportedly cost Medicaid $19.8 million dollars in 2006 for just one drug: a statin called simvastatin whose brand name is Zocor. Costs ran higher because pharmacists didn’t get patient consent and Medicaid had to pay for the costlier brand name drug even though a cheaper product was available.

Drug prices aren’t really justified by R&D.

Although drug manufacturers often cite research and development costs when defending high prescription prices, the connection isn’t exactly true, Kesselheim and his team found, citing several studies. Most of the time, scientific research that leads to new drugs is funded by the National Institutes of Health via federal grants. If not, it’s often funded by venture capital. For example, sofosbuvir, a drug that treats hepatitis C, was acquired by Gilead after the original research occurred in academic labs.

“Arguments in defense of maintaining high drug prices to protect the strength of the drug industry misstate its vulnerability,” the authors wrote, adding that companies only spend 10% to 20% of their revenue on research and development. “The biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors have for years been among the very best-performing sectors in the U.S. economy.”

Instead, the price tags are based on what the market will bear, they wrote.

 

[rdean]

At this point, it is evident that ObamaCare’s economic assumptions are collapsing. It’s time to elect lawmakers who will offer effective legislation, vet it through congressional committees and learn what’s in it before they pass it. Trump and Ryan are on the right path.

Obamacare's Economic Assumptions Collapse | RealClearPolitics

They plan to take your health care ins away from you but don't worry ... Tax payers (that's YOU) not only get to pay their bloated salaries they voted in for themselves (along with family leave, which they refused the rest of us), you also have the honor of paying an enormous subsidy for their health care insurance.

So see? All is not lost.

And, if Drumpf is elected, you'll pay even more. But hey, its not as though you need your own money to pay for your own and your family's health care, right?

If they repeal Obamacare, we might get catastrophic plans at a reasonable price.

When they passed Obamacare, they took a lot of people's healthcare insurance away.

Not true. They simply ended substandard policies that were more scam than anything else.

But, Republicans like substandard. It's all they know.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

At this point, it is evident that ObamaCare’s economic assumptions are collapsing. It’s time to elect lawmakers who will offer effective legislation, vet it through congressional committees and learn what’s in it before they pass it. Trump and Ryan are on the right path.

Obamacare's Economic Assumptions Collapse | RealClearPolitics

They plan to take your health care ins away from you but don't worry ... Tax payers (that's YOU) not only get to pay their bloated salaries they voted in for themselves (along with family leave, which they refused the rest of us), you also have the honor of paying an enormous subsidy for their health care insurance.

So see? All is not lost.

And, if Drumpf is elected, you'll pay even more. But hey, its not as though you need your own money to pay for your own and your family's health care, right?

If they repeal Obamacare, we might get catastrophic plans at a reasonable price.

When they passed Obamacare, they took a lot of people's healthcare insurance away.

Not true. They simply ended substandard policies that were more scam than anything else.

But, Republicans like substandard. It's all they know.

Pure garbage.

These are not even good talking points.

There was no such thing as substandard (the term junk plans didn't arrive until AFTER Obama got his fanny handed to him).

Those policies served a purpose (just like you do....just can't figure out what it is) and, as CATO put it so well, "Obamacare made inexpensive insurance illegal".

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So the answer to "How would you roll back prices on pharmaceuticals?" seems to be "We can't, we won't; we're just here to whine."

Got it.

So, you want a fascist dictatorship and will happily suck off your master thugs for favors, got it.

I've never seen anyone else claim that the only way to control pharma pricing is to create a fascist dictatorship. Would you like a cookie?

Arod - you get what you give. You want to play all your stupid games and then get pissy when it comes back on you. If you want real discourse, try holding up your end of the bargain. Otherwise, I can't take you seriously.

You never could.

There is always the carping and moving goal posts.

The bottom line is that Obamacare is not workable and will not take us to single payer.

Your recommendations are what make the most sense.

We spend to much money on this and there are to many people doing unproductive work getting rich in the middle.