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

[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?

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.

dblack's "recommendations" must be written in code. Unfortunately, I never got my RW decoder ring, so you two seem to be having a secret conversation.

I agree that we do spend too much money and that the middlemen - insurers and pharma companies - get too much. So since the insurers are a tougher nut to crack (Please, please, please fall back on ye olde "tort reform" argument), I suggested starting with why pharma companies in the U.S. - as nowhere else - are allowed to set whatever price they want.

I asked dblack for "recommendations." I got "Nope...not playing your games...strawman."

Now I'm sure you'll share your "recommendations" with us. And, go...

 

[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.

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.

dblack's "recommendations" must be written in code. Unfortunately, I never got my RW decoder ring, so you two seem to be having a secret conversation.

I agree that we do spend too much money and that the middlemen - insurers and pharma companies - get too much. So since the insurers are a tougher nut to crack (Please, please, please fall back on ye olde "tort reform" argument), I suggested starting with why pharma companies in the U.S. - as nowhere else - are allowed to set whatever price they want.

I asked dblack for "recommendations." I got "Nope...not playing your games...strawman."

Now I'm sure you'll share your "recommendations" with us. And, go...

More of your stupid games? Here, I'll repost it. Should I transcribe it to Braille?

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.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

More of your stupid games? Here, I'll repost it. Should I transcribe it to Braille?

I feel sorry for you.

It's a constant dance. It's not like it thinks it can any way be anything but 100% correct.

When all else fails, you'll get the "let me help you choose a plan" post.

Beyond stupid.

Really.

 

[dblack]

More of your stupid games? Here, I'll repost it. Should I transcribe it to Braille?

I feel sorry for you.

It's a constant dance. It's not like it thinks it can any way be anything but 100% correct.

When all else fails, you'll get the "let me help you choose a plan" post.

Beyond stupid.

Really.

Pimps pimpin'.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Obamacare squandered $1.2 billion on failed exchanges | Human Events

Minnesota Auditor: MNsure's 'Failures Outweighed its Achievements'

Just a reminder

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Arianrhod
I've said over and over again
* start holding people accountable for the costs of crime, govt waste and corporate abuse.
If we charge back the costs of crime, prisons, money wasted by govt on issues or wrongs
that can be traced back to the wrongdoers, then hold those parties responsible instead of
charging it to the taxpayers
We'd either reduce the costs of crime if people were held to pay the full cost to the public,
and/or start collecting restitution or CREDIT against these debts and use those
credits or resources to finance sustainable health care, education etc.

* reward people and businesses with tax breaks for investing resources
directly into expanding medical programs, education, and public service.

Some cost effective solutions include
,, spiritual healing that can save lives and costs otherwise lost to expensive
cases of cancer, criminal illness and other diseases
,, reparative therapy using natural sugars to rejuvenate cells
I just met with the founder of an institution in Houston promoting
public education about negative sugars that replete the body's immune and healing
vs. positive sugars that accelerate health and healing, where these are natural science.

He argues that if all the research and pharmaceutical developments
were focused on this approach, we could save more lives and health for
a fraction of the cost. There is no comparison because this is natural science.

So we were planning how to propose a combination of the spiritual healing
and positive sugars research as the focus of cost effective sustainable health care.

In order to afford to cover the demands of the public.

I still argue we need to convert the prison systems and mental health
into medical education, teaching hospitals and health care services for the general public.

instead of wasting 50K a year per person on incarceration,
how many doctors and nurses could we train to provide services to the public?
where the cost of their education is earned by serving in public health.

The institution I met with already has Ben Carson on board with their approach
since he saw the radical improvement one of his own patients experienced
by addressing the sugars in the healing and rejuvenation process.

In short if we quit wasting resources on bad medicine that makes people
sicker or more dependent on expensive drugs nobody can afford that doesn't cure them anyway,
if we quit bankrupting the state budgets on costs of crime prosecution and imprisonment
instead of focusing on effective medical and mental health treatment to prevent
the causes of addiction crime and abuse, then we can repurpose those resources
to provide sustainable health care, education and services instead of wasting
billions on a failed prison system, not to mention the mental health and pharmaceutical monopoly on drugs
that don't work but just make money off keeping people dependent without curing their conditions.

 

[dblack]

dblack's "recommendations" must be written in code. Unfortunately, I never got my RW decoder ring, so you two seem to be having a secret conversation..

I think the communication gap is because we are - once again - equivocating on language. And I apologize for my part in that. When you ask "What should we do about XXX?", you're asking what should our government do about XXX? And then, when I answer with "We should ..." and follow with ideas that individuals and communities could try without government the suggestions make no sense to you. They don't fit in your world view. Which seems to rest on the idea that government is the ultimate, ubiquitous expression of the will of society.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

dblack's "recommendations" must be written in code. Unfortunately, I never got my RW decoder ring, so you two seem to be having a secret conversation..

I think the communication gap is because we are - once again - equivocating on language. And I apologize for my part in that. When you ask "What should we do about XXX?", you're asking what should our government do about XXX? And then, when I answer with "We should ..." and follow with ideas that individuals and communities could try without government the suggestions make no sense to you. They don't fit in your world view. Which seems to rest on the idea that government is the ultimate, ubiquitous expression of the will of society.

Oh, how right your are.

Look at this election. Does anyone really think that HIllary will be elected by people who want her in the WH. Or is it just possible that they want her more than they want Trump there ?