Socialized Health Care or No? - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Socialized Health Care or No?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:10 AM on j-body.org
This is a serious question. We've all talked about how politcians are trying to use socialized health care to their advantage to screw little people. We've all talked about how crappy it can be in other countries. We've talked about how Obama wants to go wayyyyy too far in "fixing" it and how the Republicans want to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

But one thing we haven't touched upon is this... what do you want? Because there are really two outcomes to this in the end. You can a) Have national health care and end up with higher taxes, but everyone gets it, despite millions of freakin' welfare a$$holes ending up abusing it to get painkillers, costing you even more. Or b) You can have privatized health care and end up with more money in your pockets but with the shame of knowing you live in a civilized country that allows people die of easily cured ailments like you're some third world nation.

Because I seriously believe your debate on this is loaded with lies and hypocrisy. Just take that whole "Right to die" BS that was being bandied about to scare old people. No nationalized health care in a free country was ever used to kill old people. If anything privatized health care has done this way more often, doing that whole "We're looking over your claim Sir." bullsh!t while the guy is wasting away from cancer so that the company can save a few hundred thousand bucks. In any case it's a hollow issue and makes me wonder why anyone would even have included that in any sort of draft. I'm totally for the right to die, but not for the right of a government to dictate the terms of it. Besides, I wouldn't want my loved ones to die in some sterile Doctor Kevorkian way. They're not a dog being put to sleep.

IMO: The problem isn't with private VS national health care. It's with how badly run health care is in general. There are some people in the US who get worse care than in either Canada or Britain and PAY for it. That's horrendous.

Personally, I think you guys could take a few pages from our systems and we should learn from yours. Medecine, for example, is cheaper in Canada because, by law, the government enforces that any drug manufacturer offer their products in generic form after a few years. So no monopolies are possible. Find the flaw in that system. Oh, and don't give me that crap about "Well... if they don't make insane profits they won't research new cures for us" because that's Bullsh!t. First of all, these companies aren't taking all their profits and using them solely to finance research. If they did, I'd be entirely for high medecine prices (Hell, double em!) because those companies would have cured cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alzheimers, the common cold and the clap by now. No, they're using that money to line their pockets. Only a very tiny percentage goes into research.

In Germany health clubs are free. That way you can't say that you don't keep yourself in shape because it's too expensive. To me that should be everywhere, like libraries. Preventing disease due to fatassness should be the number one priority for any western country.

You'll notice too that I've addressed two issues having to do with health without even touching the health care system. In fact, you could almost say that it doesn't really need to be overhauled as badly as some people might want you to think. You could even go as far to say that all this talk about health care is a smoke screen to protect some of the causes for ill health.

Something to think about anyway.

So what do you want? Health care for all? Or screw the poor?




Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:53 AM on j-body.org
Just to touch up on the Prescription drug side of things. KNOWING sales guy/ account managers who work for Apotex ill break it down how selling drugs works in the US state to state.


Said "Pill" costs them a nickel to make.

Said pill is then sold to New York for 75 cents each.
Said Pill is then sold to Minnesota for 4 dollars each.
Said Pill is then sold to Nevada for 25 dollars each.

At the end of the year, the government then looks at this and goes "WTF were you doing Nevada ? Minnesota ?, they got back to the pharmaceutical company and complain, but what they get back is "Hey were just making a buck, the company releases new drugs.. and does it ALL over again." This has been happening for over 60 years.... This is just one reason why you pay the most in the world for health care, that is not ranked #1 in the world.



My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:47 PM on j-body.org
I am not entirely certian on my sources reliabilty buit last i heard it takes close to ten years of testing to get a drug on the market in the US where as in just about every other country it only takes a few years. If I was a company and spent 10 years testing I sure as hell wouldnt want a generic on the market within a few years, I would want to make my money back plus some first.

Fix the flaws such as idiotic malpractice law suits first. I bet that would reduce costs a bunch.



Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 2:14 PM on j-body.org
Knoxfire Esquire wrote:

You'll notice too that I've addressed two issues having to do with health without even touching the health care system. In fact, you could almost say that it doesn't really need to be overhauled as badly as some people might want you to think. You could even go as far to say that all this talk about health care is a smoke screen to protect some of the causes for ill health.

And you're sort of on the right track. The problem with the healthcare system is not the healthcare system, it's the malpractice business being out of control. Do you realize that in Boston, a it's extremely common for the malpractice incurance policy for one doctor to be over $300K? That, as mitdr774 mentioned, is the first place to start. If you bring down the costs for the hospitals and doctors, you bring down the cost of healthcare. Now this is only a first step, but it's a big one.
Knoxfire Esquire wrote:

So what do you want? Health care for all? Or screw the poor?

This is the very argument the Democrats in DC are using to try and persuade Americans that they need to get behind the Obamacare bill. If you're against their bill, you're against reform. Not the case. You act like you can not fix healthcare without giving control of it over to the government. When the costs come down, and competition in the free market is truly free, the price of insurance will come down. When their is less red tape for the hospitals and doctors to deal with, they can lower their costs.

Here's one of the things that people miss: right now, private insurance companies generally pay more for the same procedures and medications than Medicare or Medicaid. Why? Because the government (poorly) run programs flat out limit what they will pay. If that reimbursement falls below the cost of the procedure, the loss gets distributed to the private side, and the charges for the hospital go up, forcing people who pay out of pocket, or the private insurance company, to pay more. Now let's consider this for a second, going off on a little bit of a tangent: The US government has f&%ked up Medicare and Medicaid so badly that they're close to bankruptsy. This is happening in spite of them underpaying for services. If there was no private insurance to soak up the difference, the hospitals and doctors would be losing money like crazy. Can anyone draw a logical conclusion that this will cause healthcare to improve and costs to go down? I'd love to hear your logic.

Short Hand wrote:

Just to touch up on the Prescription drug side of things. KNOWING sales guy/ account managers who work for Apotex ill break it down how selling drugs works in the US state to state.


Said "Pill" costs them a nickel to make.

Said pill is then sold to New York for 75 cents each.
Said Pill is then sold to Minnesota for 4 dollars each.
Said Pill is then sold to Nevada for 25 dollars each.

At the end of the year, the government then looks at this and goes "WTF were you doing Nevada ? Minnesota ?, they got back to the pharmaceutical company and complain, but what they get back is "Hey were just making a buck, the company releases new drugs.. and does it ALL over again." This has been happening for over 60 years.... This is just one reason why you pay the most in the world for health care, that is not ranked #1 in the world.

One thing your example leaves out, and that is volume. I would bet that NY buys far more of any medication than Nevada or Minnesota.

If, in fact, the company is really just selling items in different areas and making far more profits off one than the other, I find that extremely unethical, and there are actually laws that prohibit this. The only way a supplier can offer different prices is to be able to show a definitive cost difference of doing business in one area from another (when speaking of volume, this can be shown with shipping costs, and packaging costs, etc).

However, there is another aspect that most people don't realize with any product: even if a company is making a pill which has a raw cost of a nickle, you have to add in the overhead costs of the company, which includes buildings, employees, insurance, lawyers, etc., and when that happens, I would be willing to bet that pill costs them more than 75 cents. Most salesmen do not know the actual cost (called loaded cost in the world of business economics) of the products they sell.

Also, ask your friend about the differences in regulations, taxes, and fees state to state. These can easily cause wide swings in the prices of selling items in certain areas. I'll give you an example in the auto industry since everyone here should be able to relate: my state charges oil companies who deliver lubricants in bulk $1.10 tax per gallon. So, while a quick lube shop in New Hampshire might pay $6 per gallon for oil from company A, the quick lube shop in Maine buys that same oil from company A for $7.10 per gallon. If the two owners were talking, and found out that the guy in New Hampshire is getting his oil cheaper, from the same company, for the same product, the guy in Maine might think the company is screwing him, when in fact the company is making the exact same profit, but the state is causing the price to increase.

Now I do not know the pharmacuitical industry nearly as well as I know some other industries, but this is a very good possibility, and I would ask your friend if he knows these differences. This is just one way that costs can vary, through no fault of the manufacturer or wholesaler. And as I said, usually the salesmen of a company do not have all of the figures, they are simply told what to sell things for, and what pricing structures they can use.






Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:55 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

a) Have national health care and end up with higher taxes, but everyone gets it, despite millions of freakin' welfare a$$holes ending up abusing it to get painkillers, costing you even more. Or b) You can have privatized health care and end up with more money in your pockets but with the shame of knowing you live in a civilized country that allows people die of easily cured ailments like you're some third world nation.

those arent exactly balanced examples of what our system is like or what it would be, but if i had to choose one, i would definitely choose privatized health care. forget all of the examples of how poorly medicare/medicaid is run. forget examples like the post office. forget social security and every other government program. the two biggest things it boils down to for me are simple: a) the less govt control, the better. thats a founding principle of this country. and b) i dont want for fatty mcfatterson to eat himself into a triple bypass and then make ME foot the bill!

the idea of national health care (and most socialistic programs) sounds great on paper, but rarely works in real life. the notion that we all are treated the same is a wonderful concept. but when we dont all contribute the same yet get the same benefits.....? now thats a real injustice.

Quote:

Here's one of the things that people miss: right now, private insurance companies generally pay more for the same procedures and medications than Medicare or Medicaid. Why? Because the government (poorly) run programs flat out limit what they will pay. If that reimbursement falls below the cost of the procedure, the loss gets distributed to the private side,.........Can anyone draw a logical conclusion that this will cause healthcare to improve and costs to go down? I'd love to hear your logic.

i just started working for an insurance company and this past week we were doing training on claims. i couldnt believe how little medicare/caid pays! some procedures would be in the THOUSANDS of dollars and the "medicare allowed amount", as it is called, is literally only a few hundred dollars. some drugs used by hospitals can only be billed for a PENNY! thats not an exaggeration, its 100% true. while it could be said that hospitals/doctors are inflating their prices, when a claim is paid at less than 1/10th its billed price, something is definitely wrong.

so what quick is saying is true--medicare/caid pays an unfairly low price yet is in shambles. expanding a horribly broken government system will do nothing to solve the problem--it will only make it worse.




Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:10 AM on j-body.org
i believe the system we have needs to be looked at and fixed, i dont believe we need to dump it and start over. and i personally feel i should be responsible for my health and my bills. i dont feel that i should pay for the guy down the street who has a nicer car then me, a nicer house with all the latest electronic gadgest, but just decides he doenst want to pay for his own health care. the biggest issue with obamas plan is the whole. we have to sign this bill in august. we need to rush rush rush this thru. this is one of the biggest $$ issues our country has to fix, and to rush something thru is just going to give you poor results. take the time. go thru it piece by piece and fix it. dont just rush something thru.




as for the whole pharmecuticals issue. the reason the costs are high is because one. after a few years on the market, i want to say 5? some generic company is going to come out and rip off their pill and sell it for 10% of the cost. so companies only have 5 years to make any money off a pill. and this is a pill that takes million and millions of dollars of research and testing to even make it onto the market, its not like they go. hey lets just make a pill for this. for every pill that makes it to market id bet 10 pills dont make it to market and they have spent just as many millions on those pills that will never be sold and never recoup a dime of money and time lost.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:52 PM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

after a few years on the market, i want to say 5? some generic company is going to come out and rip off their pill and sell it for 10% of the cost. .

its actually 17 years....but that shouldnt really matter. its still a very small window when compared to trademarks and patents for pretty much any other industry. and especially when compared to the amount of $ they put into R&D.




Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:06 PM on j-body.org
Quote:


Fix the flaws such as idiotic malpractice law suits first. I bet that would reduce costs a bunch.


DING!

If our heath care is SOOO bad, why is it people from Ca-na-DE-duH come down here for it?


Not saying where good, far from, as U.S. heath car is about prolonging health "care" and not making people healthy... but USSR crap... please.



Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Friday, August 21, 2009 1:10 AM on j-body.org
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:

Quote:


Fix the flaws such as idiotic malpractice law suits first. I bet that would reduce costs a bunch.


DING!

If our heath care is SOOO bad, why is it people from Ca-na-DE-duH come down here for it?


Not saying where good, far from, as U.S. heath car is about prolonging health "care" and not making people healthy... but USSR crap... please.



Chris


Your system is faster. So if someone has a bum knee, they don't have to wait two years to get surgery. Qualitywise the care is very similar, but waiting times are much shorter in the US.

However, just because you don't see Americans coming to Canada for care doesn't mean that they might not want to. The simple fact is that no one who lives outside of a country with universal health care can get treated in that country because they won't have the all important health insurance card, and no universal care doctor will treat an uninsured person. This is also why we don't have boatloads of illegals in Canada. They can't go to a doctor no matter how much money they throw at them.





Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Friday, August 21, 2009 4:40 AM on j-body.org
That last part I don't believe.....

someone walks in with CASH, it will get done.



Something I found


Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Friday, August 21, 2009 8:14 AM on j-body.org
Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Knoxfire Esquire wrote:

You'll notice too that I've addressed two issues having to do with health without even touching the health care system. In fact, you could almost say that it doesn't really need to be overhauled as badly as some people might want you to think. You could even go as far to say that all this talk about health care is a smoke screen to protect some of the causes for ill health.

And you're sort of on the right track. The problem with the healthcare system is not the healthcare system, it's the malpractice business being out of control. Do you realize that in Boston, a it's extremely common for the malpractice incurance policy for one doctor to be over $300K? That, as mitdr774 mentioned, is the first place to start. If you bring down the costs for the hospitals and doctors, you bring down the cost of healthcare. Now this is only a first step, but it's a big one.
Knoxfire Esquire wrote:

So what do you want? Health care for all? Or screw the poor?

This is the very argument the Democrats in DC are using to try and persuade Americans that they need to get behind the Obamacare bill. If you're against their bill, you're against reform. Not the case. You act like you can not fix healthcare without giving control of it over to the government. When the costs come down, and competition in the free market is truly free, the price of insurance will come down. When their is less red tape for the hospitals and doctors to deal with, they can lower their costs.

Here's one of the things that people miss: right now, private insurance companies generally pay more for the same procedures and medications than Medicare or Medicaid. Why? Because the government (poorly) run programs flat out limit what they will pay. If that reimbursement falls below the cost of the procedure, the loss gets distributed to the private side, and the charges for the hospital go up, forcing people who pay out of pocket, or the private insurance company, to pay more. Now let's consider this for a second, going off on a little bit of a tangent: The US government has f&%ked up Medicare and Medicaid so badly that they're close to bankruptsy. This is happening in spite of them underpaying for services. If there was no private insurance to soak up the difference, the hospitals and doctors would be losing money like crazy. Can anyone draw a logical conclusion that this will cause healthcare to improve and costs to go down? I'd love to hear your logic.

Short Hand wrote:

Just to touch up on the Prescription drug side of things. KNOWING sales guy/ account managers who work for Apotex ill break it down how selling drugs works in the US state to state.


Said "Pill" costs them a nickel to make.

Said pill is then sold to New York for 75 cents each.
Said Pill is then sold to Minnesota for 4 dollars each.
Said Pill is then sold to Nevada for 25 dollars each.

At the end of the year, the government then looks at this and goes "WTF were you doing Nevada ? Minnesota ?, they got back to the pharmaceutical company and complain, but what they get back is "Hey were just making a buck, the company releases new drugs.. and does it ALL over again." This has been happening for over 60 years.... This is just one reason why you pay the most in the world for health care, that is not ranked #1 in the world.

One thing your example leaves out, and that is volume. I would bet that NY buys far more of any medication than Nevada or Minnesota.

If, in fact, the company is really just selling items in different areas and making far more profits off one than the other, I find that extremely unethical, and there are actually laws that prohibit this. The only way a supplier can offer different prices is to be able to show a definitive cost difference of doing business in one area from another (when speaking of volume, this can be shown with shipping costs, and packaging costs, etc).

However, there is another aspect that most people don't realize with any product: even if a company is making a pill which has a raw cost of a nickle, you have to add in the overhead costs of the company, which includes buildings, employees, insurance, lawyers, etc., and when that happens, I would be willing to bet that pill costs them more than 75 cents. Most salesmen do not know the actual cost (called loaded cost in the world of business economics) of the products they sell.

Also, ask your friend about the differences in regulations, taxes, and fees state to state. These can easily cause wide swings in the prices of selling items in certain areas. I'll give you an example in the auto industry since everyone here should be able to relate: my state charges oil companies who deliver lubricants in bulk $1.10 tax per gallon. So, while a quick lube shop in New Hampshire might pay $6 per gallon for oil from company A, the quick lube shop in Maine buys that same oil from company A for $7.10 per gallon. If the two owners were talking, and found out that the guy in New Hampshire is getting his oil cheaper, from the same company, for the same product, the guy in Maine might think the company is screwing him, when in fact the company is making the exact same profit, but the state is causing the price to increase.

Now I do not know the pharmacuitical industry nearly as well as I know some other industries, but this is a very good possibility, and I would ask your friend if he knows these differences. This is just one way that costs can vary, through no fault of the manufacturer or wholesaler. And as I said, usually the salesmen of a company do not have all of the figures, they are simply told what to sell things for, and what pricing structures they can use.



The Company has NO responsibility to the client. But to the shareholder.(Always remember this) Those three states also have VERY similar taxes when it comes to this issue. (Which is why they are cited over Alaska, or New Hamp etc.) THIS is another aspect to health reform. (AND where billions will be saved). Pharmaceutical companies are fighting this tooth and nail, dumping millions, possibly billions right now to stop everything. Their profits are on the line.

The profit margins on this stuff is just ridiculous. ill even go as far to say criminal.



Quote:

I am not entirely certian on my sources reliabilty buit last i heard it takes close to ten years of testing to get a drug on the market in the US where as in just about every other country it only takes a few years. If I was a company and spent 10 years testing I sure as hell wouldnt want a generic on the market within a few years, I would want to make my money back plus some first.

Fix the flaws such as idiotic malpractice law suits first. I bet that would reduce costs a bunch.


The big companies have thousands of new products in testing at any one time. They will always have a new pill for us to pop. The only medicine you can expect to see day in and out is stuff like Tylenol, Aspirin, Anti-Biotics etc.

EVEN if you disagree with many aspects of health reform. THIS is one you should agree with. Pharmaceutical companies turns profits in the big Oil range every year.



My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"

Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Friday, August 21, 2009 10:46 AM on j-body.org
I think we have plenty of crap wrong with our health care system that needs to be addressed. I don't think that rushing new legislation to insure everyone is going to fix things. That money has to come from somewhere and with our national debt and printing of money NOW IS NOT THE TIME! I honestly believe it will only make them worse and add new problems. health care is available to anyone. You can not be turned down because you do not have the ability to pay. Many of the "un-insured" are that way by choice! America was not founded on provide for every single person it was founded on every single person having the opportunity which they do have. It was never meant to be a socialized nation. If you are not willing to work for what you want then shut up or GTFO. The United States is not stopping you from moving to a more socialized country.



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Friday, August 21, 2009 1:55 PM on j-body.org
An addition to my last post, I'd like to add this thought to the point of the original question:

Above all debates about what goes on now that is ethical, unethical, unfair, or otherwise, I think something people should be able to agree upon is that reform does not require the massive spending by the government, at the expense of the people of the US.

If you do not think something can be fixed or improved without the government getting completely involved in it, or taking it over, I will simply point you to Amtrak, The USPS, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Every one of those is the government trying to fix a "problem" by getting into the market, and every one of them is an a colossal failure. Had it not been for continuous life support from tax revenue, they would have collapsed I say until the federal government can balance the books of these failed experiments, they should not be allowed to even propose getting into another one.

I would really like to hear a good, well thought out, substantive explanation as to why I'm wrong here.






Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Friday, August 21, 2009 2:32 PM on j-body.org
i don't agree with obama. never have and never will on anything. this guy is the start of the end of the world as we know it. soon Americans will turn to anarchy because of our government. then they'll use the military on our own people. then another country will rule the world because America with have nothing left. im not tryin to get all scientific, this is just what i believe. its scary. so stock up on guns and ammunition. then head for the mountains.

dont blame me i voted mccain palin.







Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Friday, August 21, 2009 10:41 PM on j-body.org
*sigh*
i hate it when people post stuff like that, even if they arent supporting the opposition.




Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Saturday, August 22, 2009 4:20 AM on j-body.org
"The profit margins on this stuff is just ridiculous. ill even go as far to say criminal."

So why is it "criminal" for pharmecutical or oil companies to make profits but for a company like Microsoft to make an even bigger profit margin is okay? This is supposed to be a capitalist nation where companies and the "free market" decide what something will cost.

How much does it actually cost for Microsoft to manufacture a disk with Office on it? Now why does that same disk cost you anywhere from $150-400 depending on the package you get? It is just the same piece of plastic, right???



Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Saturday, August 22, 2009 4:59 AM on j-body.org
mitdr774 wrote:

"The profit margins on this stuff is just ridiculous. ill even go as far to say criminal."

So why is it "criminal" for pharmecutical or oil companies to make profits but for a company like Microsoft to make an even bigger profit margin is okay? This is supposed to be a capitalist nation where companies and the "free market" decide what something will cost.

How much does it actually cost for Microsoft to manufacture a disk with Office on it? Now why does that same disk cost you anywhere from $150-400 depending on the package you get? It is just the same piece of plastic, right???

When they decide they want to take over the software industy, you'll be hearing about that.





Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:45 AM on j-body.org
mitdr774 wrote:

"The profit margins on this stuff is just ridiculous. ill even go as far to say criminal."

So why is it "criminal" for pharmecutical or oil companies to make profits but for a company like Microsoft to make an even bigger profit margin is okay? This is supposed to be a capitalist nation where companies and the "free market" decide what something will cost.

How much does it actually cost for Microsoft to manufacture a disk with Office on it? Now why does that same disk cost you anywhere from $150-400 depending on the package you get? It is just the same piece of plastic, right???


Because Microsoft does not affect the economy directly, like the Oil industry and the medical/pharmaceutical. How? Try to run the US with no oil or raise it the price, lets see how well the country will move. An example of that was not to long ago when our economy was fragile and oil went to near $5 per. The inflation that it caused made the public almost stay put or pass on the expense to the product. Medical/pharmaceutical affect directly to your employer, if they provide insurance for you in any form. A outrageous cost for doctor checks or prescription has to then be turned to insurance company, to then be passed on the employer or you. And when that happens and the company is small or hurting, what do you think happens next?


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Saturday, August 22, 2009 10:51 AM on j-body.org
You completely missed the point. This is supposed to be a free market. However people dont piss and moan about one company that makes a huge profit margin compared to another because its not an easy target. Personally I think it would be kind of funny if the oil companies gave a big ole F you to the US by not selling any fuel to us for a month. One reason for high pharmacutical cost is the testing process they have to go through in the US. Ever wonder why it takes longer for new drug to be released in the US than other countries? Ever wonder why that same drug also cost more here when it is finally released? The public officials always seem to forget these things when they start making claims of abuse on the public.

As stated before, if you want to reduce medical cost you need to reduce malpractice suit awards and stop the idiotic and pointless suits. Reduce the test period for new drugs, and some of the restritions placed on them. If the same drug is found safe elsewhere why do we still have to wait another 5 years of testing here before its released?




Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Saturday, August 22, 2009 2:19 PM on j-body.org





To small, read it here.

may still have to enlarge it...


Good comparison though.


Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Saturday, August 22, 2009 6:21 PM on j-body.org
Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Here's one of the things that people miss: right now, private insurance companies generally pay more for the same procedures and medications than Medicare or Medicaid. Why? Because the government (poorly) run programs flat out limit what they will pay. If that reimbursement falls below the cost of the procedure, the loss gets distributed to the private side, and the charges for the hospital go up, forcing people who pay out of pocket, or the private insurance company, to pay more. Now let's consider this for a second, going off on a little bit of a tangent: The US government has f&%ked up Medicare and Medicaid so badly that they're close to bankruptsy. This is happening in spite of them underpaying for services. If there was no private insurance to soak up the difference, the hospitals and doctors would be losing money like crazy. Can anyone draw a logical conclusion that this will cause healthcare to improve and costs to go down? I'd love to hear your logic.

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

...If you do not think something can be fixed or improved without the government getting completely involved in it, or taking it over, I will simply point you to Amtrak, The USPS, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Every one of those is the government trying to fix a "problem" by getting into the market, and every one of them is an a colossal failure. Had it not been for continuous life support from tax revenue, they would have collapsed. I say until the federal government can balance the books of these failed experiments, they should not be allowed to even propose getting into another one.

I would really like to hear a good, well thought out, substantive explanation as to why I'm wrong here.

Amazing how there are so many quick to jump on my posts with puerile "nut-swinger" comments, and make weak attempts at discrediting me for my principles, but no one will step up to the plate here.






Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:23 PM on j-body.org
mitdr774 wrote:

You completely missed the point. This is supposed to be a free market. However people dont piss and moan about one company that makes a huge profit margin compared to another because its not an easy target. Personally I think it would be kind of funny if the oil companies gave a big ole F you to the US by not selling any fuel to us for a month. One reason for high pharmacutical cost is the testing process they have to go through in the US. Ever wonder why it takes longer for new drug to be released in the US than other countries? Ever wonder why that same drug also cost more here when it is finally released? The public officials always seem to forget these things when they start making claims of abuse on the public.

As stated before, if you want to reduce medical cost you need to reduce malpractice suit awards and stop the idiotic and pointless suits. Reduce the test period for new drugs, and some of the restritions placed on them. If the same drug is found safe elsewhere why do we still have to wait another 5 years of testing here before its released?


Here is the thing, people will "piss and moan" when you have no way around it for paying less on a necessity . Much how you used Microsoft and oil/medical/Pharmaceutical as an example, on one side you have options to go through Apple, Linux, and now Google programs to run your O/S, where it may be lower priced and/or better. Pharmaceutical/medical and oil/gasoline you have options but some come to an agreement on to charge heavily on product/attention as if it works like a monopoly. There is no competition to drive costs lower. With the public option, why do you think lobbyist are causing such a stir and sending bad publicity through the airwaves and poking politicians from all sides to go against it? As of now, these folks mentioned has the upper hand and don't want to loose it and will stop at nothing at discrediting in forming competition.
FDA is there to protect you and there to prevent or reduce malpractice suit. Doctor's malpractice law suit price (at least on some states) has a cap on, which (IMO) should not exist when you have cases like this. When you're incompetent to be practicing medicine, license and monetary repercussions should be established. It's one of those "what if you were in their shoes" would you like to take it lightly? But I do agree that when a medical products is known to be "Accepted" in other countries has to go through the same tests all to conclude that it "Accepted" here too. Reform on that should be priority, because all it does is pass on the cost to the user.
One thing though and shows how flawed the system is, I know folks that paid $24 for 1 tablet of Tylenol aspirin in 1985 after having their child at the hospital, I tell you this because I saw it with my own eyes and all I could do is nod my head on how pathetic it was. Issues like this are probably in billions and all it does is screw up the public

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Here's one of the things that people miss: right now, private insurance companies generally pay more for the same procedures and medications than Medicare or Medicaid. Why? Because the government (poorly) run programs flat out limit what they will pay. If that reimbursement falls below the cost of the procedure, the loss gets distributed to the private side, and the charges for the hospital go up, forcing people who pay out of pocket, or the private insurance company, to pay more. Now let's consider this for a second, going off on a little bit of a tangent: The US government has f&%ked up Medicare and Medicaid so badly that they're close to bankruptsy. This is happening in spite of them underpaying for services. If there was no private insurance to soak up the difference, the hospitals and doctors would be losing money like crazy. Can anyone draw a logical conclusion that this will cause healthcare to improve and costs to go down? I'd love to hear your logic.

I would like to see where did you get this info, and please don't give me FOX, Rush, Ann coulter. Please provide a neutral news source as would like to know more on these claims.

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

...If you do not think something can be fixed or improved without the government getting completely involved in it, or taking it over, I will simply point you to Amtrak, The USPS, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Every one of those is the government trying to fix a "problem" by getting into the market, and every one of them is an a colossal failure. Had it not been for continuous life support from tax revenue, they would have collapsed. I say until the federal government can balance the books of these failed experiments, they should not be allowed to even propose getting into another one.

What is killing Amtrak are the times; Jet vs. going on (slow) trains. The only folks that travel on trains are folks who like to see the country, scared of airplanes, or like trains in general. When I can take a plane and get to my destination in a couple of hours instead of day(s), what do you thing one will choose, especially when you're time constraint. Maybe if they were to cut the funding to them and instate fast rail system like TGV, it (may) get more passenger, who knows. The USPS, I don't know if you are aware but USPS is self sustained since 1983. On Medicare, and Medicaid awaiting legit info on this failure. SS is still there, although many reports say it may dry up because of the large mass of "baby-boomer" which are now entering retirement, it does not help that unemployment is high at the moment which pays for current and soon to be SS users.
Personally, getting into costly, useless, with no win wars and that we pay on at a rate of $2-3 billion per week is a failed government aspect. But that is just me.

Quote:

Amazing how there are so many quick to jump on my posts with puerile "nut-swinger" comments, and make weak attempts at discrediting me for my principles, but no one will step up to the plate here.

Well, when one miss-quotes, twists, can't comprehend, dis-credit an opposing view, and basically feels as if your talking to a wall in a rebuttal, why carry on with them?




THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:36 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Here's one of the things that people miss: right now, private insurance companies generally pay more for the same procedures and medications than Medicare or Medicaid.

I would like to see where did you get this info, and please don't give me FOX, Rush, Ann coulter. Please provide a neutral news source as would like to know more on these claims.


tabs wrote:


i just started working for an insurance company and this past week we were doing training on claims. i couldnt believe how little medicare/caid pays! some procedures would be in the THOUSANDS of dollars and the "medicare allowed amount", as it is called, is literally only a few hundred dollars. some drugs used by hospitals can only be billed for a PENNY! thats not an exaggeration, its 100% true. while it could be said that hospitals/doctors are inflating their prices, when a claim is paid at less than 1/10th its billed price, something is definitely wrong.

so what quick is saying is true--medicare/caid pays an unfairly low price yet is in shambles. expanding a horribly broken government system will do nothing to solve the problem--it will only make it worse.

i realize you arent going to take that as a "reputable" source just because i am on the opposing side, but that doesnt make it any less true. its a simple enough search to find that info yourself, but i doubt you will because it will prove your side wrong. either way, its readily available info if you feel the urge.





Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:37 PM on j-body.org
Thanks for proving my point. You will never have any substance to offer, so you make weak attempts at discrediting those who do.





Re: Socialized Health Care or No?
Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:54 PM on j-body.org
So in other words there is none.
Thank-you and very informative.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search