Hi everyone,
I am looking to advocate healthcare cost reform in my spare time but want to do so in the most effective way possible. Our basic healthcare costs of prescription drugs and services are out of control compared to the rest of the world indicating a strong case for price gouging.
Now, what I found is that there are actually numerous bills over the years both GOP and Dems that would cut healthcare costs. For example, McCain has sponsored Safe and Affordable Drugs from Canada Act. But as you can see from link https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/01/a-senate-vote-on-prescription-drug-price/, these types of bills will always be blocked by politicians who have been bought by the Big Pharma lobbyists. Keeping in mind that we have a congress bought by corporations who in this case would fight tooth and nail for their bottom line and not American's healthcare I see the following options to advocate.
.1. Fix lobby problem via Anti Corruption Act - by limiting the influence of lobbyists, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.2. Fix lobby problem via public campaign funding - if a system is properly setup to where all campaign funds come from a public fund and zero from donors/groups/corporations/etc (no influence), then effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.3. Raise awareness of lobby bought politicians blocking effective healthcare bills (call for recall elections) - by getting Americans to raise voice against who is blocking affordable healthcare, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.4. Advocate citizens to call representatives on effective healthcare bills - by getting Americans to raise voice in support of good policies, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.5. Back a representative who advocates your agenda - by helping a representative get elected or re elected who supports my agenda, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.6. Advocate a campaign promise tracker - by advocating a method where citizens hold representatives to their campaign processes, such as healthcare costs, effective healthcare bills may have a better chance to pass.
What do you think would be the most effective approach(s)?
Thanks,
J
The only way healthcare will ever be reformed is, get the govt out of it altogether and turn it over to a private entity to oversee.
There is no other answer.
Quote from: Jman22 on June 20, 2017, 07:09:02 PM
Hi everyone,
I am looking to advocate healthcare cost reform in my spare time but want to do so in the most effective way possible. Our basic healthcare costs of prescription drugs and services are out of control compared to the rest of the world indicating a strong case for price gouging.
Now, what I found is that there are actually numerous bills over the years both GOP and Dems that would cut healthcare costs. For example, McCain has sponsored Safe and Affordable Drugs from Canada Act. But as you can see from link https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/01/a-senate-vote-on-prescription-drug-price/, these types of bills will always be blocked by politicians who have been bought by the Big Pharma lobbyists. Keeping in mind that we have a congress bought by corporations who in this case would fight tooth and nail for their bottom line and not American's healthcare I see the following options to advocate.
.1. Fix lobby problem via Anti Corruption Act - by limiting the influence of lobbyists, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.2. Fix lobby problem via public campaign funding - if a system is properly setup to where all campaign funds come from a public fund and zero from donors/groups/corporations/etc (no influence), then effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.3. Raise awareness of lobby bought politicians blocking effective healthcare bills (call for recall elections) - by getting Americans to raise voice against who is blocking affordable healthcare, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.4. Advocate citizens to call representatives on effective healthcare bills - by getting Americans to raise voice in support of good policies, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.5. Back a representative who advocates your agenda - by helping a representative get elected or re elected who supports my agenda, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.6. Advocate a campaign promise tracker - by advocating a method where citizens hold representatives to their campaign processes, such as healthcare costs, effective healthcare bills may have a better chance to pass.
What do you think would be the most effective approach(s)?
Thanks,
J
Why not let the free market take care of pricing?
Quote from: Jman22 on June 20, 2017, 07:09:02 PM
Hi everyone,
I am looking to advocate healthcare cost reform in my spare time but want to do so in the most effective way possible. Our basic healthcare costs of prescription drugs and services are out of control compared to the rest of the world indicating a strong case for price gouging.
Now, what I found is that there are actually numerous bills over the years both GOP and Dems that would cut healthcare costs. For example, McCain has sponsored Safe and Affordable Drugs from Canada Act. But as you can see from link https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/01/a-senate-vote-on-prescription-drug-price/, these types of bills will always be blocked by politicians who have been bought by the Big Pharma lobbyists. Keeping in mind that we have a congress bought by corporations who in this case would fight tooth and nail for their bottom line and not American's healthcare I see the following options to advocate.
.1. Fix lobby problem via Anti Corruption Act - by limiting the influence of lobbyists, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.2. Fix lobby problem via public campaign funding - if a system is properly setup to where all campaign funds come from a public fund and zero from donors/groups/corporations/etc (no influence), then effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.3. Raise awareness of lobby bought politicians blocking effective healthcare bills (call for recall elections) - by getting Americans to raise voice against who is blocking affordable healthcare, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.4. Advocate citizens to call representatives on effective healthcare bills - by getting Americans to raise voice in support of good policies, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.5. Back a representative who advocates your agenda - by helping a representative get elected or re elected who supports my agenda, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.6. Advocate a campaign promise tracker - by advocating a method where citizens hold representatives to their campaign processes, such as healthcare costs, effective healthcare bills may have a better chance to pass.
What do you think would be the most effective approach(s)?
Thanks,
J
Why would anyone use a broken system, to fix a broken system?
That's akin to hiring inmates to guard the prisoners.
Quote from: Solar on June 20, 2017, 07:36:30 PM
Why would anyone use a broken system, to fix a broken system?
That's akin to hiring inmates to guard the prisoners.
Or take your credit card number for a stay at a state or national parks. :popcorn:
Eliminate the government and you eliminate the lobbyists.
Quote from: Jman22 on June 20, 2017, 07:09:02 PM
Hi everyone,
I am looking to advocate healthcare cost reform in my spare time but want to do so in the most effective way possible. Our basic healthcare costs of prescription drugs and services are out of control compared to the rest of the world indicating a strong case for price gouging.
Now, what I found is that there are actually numerous bills over the years both GOP and Dems that would cut healthcare costs. For example, McCain has sponsored Safe and Affordable Drugs from Canada Act. But as you can see from link https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/01/a-senate-vote-on-prescription-drug-price/, these types of bills will always be blocked by politicians who have been bought by the Big Pharma lobbyists. Keeping in mind that we have a congress bought by corporations who in this case would fight tooth and nail for their bottom line and not American's healthcare I see the following options to advocate.
.1. Fix lobby problem via Anti Corruption Act - by limiting the influence of lobbyists, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.2. Fix lobby problem via public campaign funding - if a system is properly setup to where all campaign funds come from a public fund and zero from donors/groups/corporations/etc (no influence), then effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.3. Raise awareness of lobby bought politicians blocking effective healthcare bills (call for recall elections) - by getting Americans to raise voice against who is blocking affordable healthcare, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.4. Advocate citizens to call representatives on effective healthcare bills - by getting Americans to raise voice in support of good policies, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.5. Back a representative who advocates your agenda - by helping a representative get elected or re elected who supports my agenda, effective healthcare bills have a better chance to pass.
.6. Advocate a campaign promise tracker - by advocating a method where citizens hold representatives to their campaign processes, such as healthcare costs, effective healthcare bills may have a better chance to pass.
What do you think would be the most effective approach(s)?
Thanks,
J
You are suggesting all be controlled by the government. It won't go anywhere on this board.
"You are suggesting all be controlled by the government. It won't go anywhere on this board." - I am gathering ideas and feedback on thoughts to fix this problem. What are your suggestions?
"Why not let the free market take care of pricing?" - sounds good to me. For example, we can increase competition by buying FDA approved drugs from other countries. Problem is - big pharma bought lobbyists are voting against.
"Why would anyone use a broken system, to fix a broken system?
That's akin to hiring inmates to guard the prisoners." - that's a really good point Solar. Is there a way to fix then or are we forever stuck allowing corporations to run the government in this current system? I mean it certainly could be worse, but just trying to think how we can make this better.
Quote from: Jman22 on June 21, 2017, 07:57:08 AM
"You are suggesting all be controlled by the government. It won't go anywhere on this board." - I am gathering ideas and feedback on thoughts to fix this problem. What are your suggestions?
"Why not let the free market take care of pricing?" - sounds good to me. For example, we can increase competition by buying FDA approved drugs from other countries. Problem is - big pharma bought lobbyists are voting against.
You'll find that "Big Pharma" knows no borders. You can go to Mexico and pay a third for drugs sold here, by the very same manufacturer under an American label. Again, the problem is govt.
Quote"Why would anyone use a broken system, to fix a broken system?
That's akin to hiring inmates to guard the prisoners." - that's a really good point Solar. Is there a way to fix then or are we forever stuck allowing corporations to run the government in this current system? I mean it certainly could be worse, but just trying to think how we can make this better.
Yes, get govt out of the purchasing end of meds, turn it over to a private entity, one that is not hamstrung by lobbyists for starters.
Change the permitting process/structure, make it cheaper so as to allow smaller labs to submit medications, streamline the process by shortening the time a drug takes to get to market, this was not designed to protect the consumer, no, lobbyists set this up to favor the deep pockets of the huge drug comapnies.
Remove Congress ability to write laws picking winners and killing off competition.
Jman22
Learn to use the quote function it helps everyone.
Also answer only one post at a time by using the quote function. Do not answer 2 or 3 post in one post. It also help people know who ask what or said what with out go back into the thread.
Quote from: walkstall on June 21, 2017, 09:20:01 AM
Jman22
Learn to use the quote function it helps everyone.
Also answer only one post at a time by using the quote function. Do not answer 2 or 3 post in one post. It also help people know who ask what or said what with out go back into the thread.
You could probably link to help where I think we discussed in depth how to quote. I know it took me quite awhile to grasp the concept. :blush:
Quote from: Jman22 on June 21, 2017, 07:57:08 AM
"You are suggesting all be controlled by the government. It won't go anywhere on this board." - I am gathering ideas and feedback on thoughts to fix this problem. What are your suggestions?
"Why not let the free market take care of pricing?" - sounds good to me. For example, we can increase competition by buying FDA approved drugs from other countries. Problem is - big pharma bought lobbyists are voting against.
"Why would anyone use a broken system, to fix a broken system?
That's akin to hiring inmates to guard the prisoners." - that's a really good point Solar. Is there a way to fix then or are we forever stuck allowing corporations to run the government in this current system? I mean it certainly could be worse, but just trying to think how we can make this better.
Please learn to use the quote function. It will save you a lot of time when responding to posts.
The first thing I suggest is give people a choice. Don't make them buy coverage they don't want. Mandates create the shortage of competitors because mandating coverage for pre-existing conditions cannot be reasonably priced. This idea was a fraud put forward by Obamacare. That is just the facts. Finally, let states determine what they desire to do with subsidized coverage. The truth is there is no free lunch - and that's the facts.
Quote from: walkstall on June 21, 2017, 09:20:01 AM
Jman22
Learn to use the quote function it helps everyone.
Also answer only one post at a time by using the quote function. Do not answer 2 or 3 post in one post. It also help people know who ask what or said what with out go back into the thread.
Ah! Will do. Was trying to consolidate the responses. Will quote directly from now on. Apologies.
Quote from: Solar on June 21, 2017, 08:26:02 AM
You'll find that "Big Pharma" knows no borders. You can go to Mexico and pay a third for drugs sold here, by the very same manufacturer under an American label. Again, the problem is govt.
Yes, get govt out of the purchasing end of meds, turn it over to a private entity, one that is not hamstrung by lobbyists for starters.
Change the permitting process/structure, make it cheaper so as to allow smaller labs to submit medications, streamline the process by shortening the time a drug takes to get to market, this was not designed to protect the consumer, no, lobbyists set this up to favor the deep pockets of the huge drug comapnies.
Remove Congress ability to write laws picking winners and killing off competition.
- thanks again Solar. What are your thoughts on allowing FDA approved drugs from Canada and Mexico to be purchased in the US to increase competition? The private entity is an interesting note too. Are any politicians supporting such an approach? My concern would be the private entity continue to engage in predatory pricing similar to current US drug companies today because there are no penalties if they do so.
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 21, 2017, 12:00:32 PM
The first thing I suggest is give people a choice. Don't make them buy coverage they don't want. Mandates create the shortage of competitors because mandating coverage for pre-existing conditions cannot be reasonably priced. This idea was a fraud put forward by Obamacare. That is just the facts. Finally, let states determine what they desire to do with subsidized coverage. The truth is there is no free lunch - and that's the facts.
that's right there is no free lunch. The coverage choice I sometimes see mentioned on the topic. But here is my take, strike insurance out of the equation. The problem is costs! Plain and simple. Prescription drugs how much do they cost without insurance? In Canada or any other country the same pill might cost 3x less. A hip replacement may cost 25k in US on average and 5k on average in other countries, again all without insurance factored. Why? Because in other countries they take measures to prevent predatory pricing in healthcare. Like you said someone has to pay the lunch, whether it is us or the insurance companies. If we can reduce the base costs then it will reduce the premiums.
Quote from: Jman22 on June 21, 2017, 07:59:44 PM
Ah! Will do. Was trying to consolidate the responses. Will quote directly from now on. Apologies.
Your new, their are a lot of people that follow the board and are not in every day. It helps all the way around. They don't and we don't have to keep looking back as to who said what when. Some of us have been doing boards for over 20 years and we find it is best way.
I think it will also save you time in posting.
Quote from: Jman22 on June 21, 2017, 08:31:09 PM
- thanks again Solar. What are your thoughts on allowing FDA approved drugs from Canada and Mexico to be purchased in the US to increase competition? The private entity is an interesting note too. Are any politicians supporting such an approach? My concern would be the private entity continue to engage in predatory pricing similar to current US drug companies today because there are no penalties if they do so.
Congrats! :thumbup:
Now let's keep one reply per post.
Ask yourself why, is there an issue with Canadian and Mexican drugs manufactured by the very same company, with the same stringent regulations as here in the US., yet aren't allowed to come across the border?
Remember that point about competition? They don't want any. Just think, most drugs are made by automation, so it really has nothing to do with labor.
My guess is it has everything to do with import/export fees, taxes, you know, govt red tape.
Thing is, the corporations set it up this way, Congress said we need more tax money, but the corporations don't pay taxes, you and I do, so they agreed and said while you're at it, how about you drop the duty fees on our exports, and tell us we can't import drugs from other countries....
Sweet deal our so called Reps made, isn't it? :glare:
Quote from: Jman22 on June 21, 2017, 07:57:08 AM
"Why not let the free market take care of pricing?" - sounds good to me. For example, we can increase competition by buying FDA approved drugs from other countries. Problem is - big pharma bought lobbyists are voting against.
Eliminate the FDA. The government can never "increase competition".
Quote from: Jman22 on June 21, 2017, 07:57:08 AM
"Why not let the free market take care of pricing?" - sounds good to me. For example, we can increase competition by buying FDA approved drugs from other countries. Problem is - big pharma bought lobbyists are voting against.
Why do you think other countries get the drugs so cheap? We are footing the bill so they can get cheap drugs.
Quote from: walkstall on June 22, 2017, 01:26:27 AM
Why do you think other countries get the drugs so cheap? We are footing the bill so they can get cheap drugs.
We also have out of control lawsuits and years of regulations for new new drugs. Far easier and cheaper for another country to duplicate an existing product than to come up with it on their own.
Quote from: Jman22 on June 20, 2017, 07:09:02 PM
Hi everyone,
I am looking to advocate healthcare cost reform in my spare time but want to do so in the most effective way possible. Our basic healthcare costs of prescription drugs and services are out of control compared to the rest of the world indicating a strong case for price gouging.
Thanks,
J
Welcome to the forum! Healthcare costs will never go down as long as the feds are involved. Opening up the free marketplace is in part the answer. Doctors and nurses shouldn't have their hands tied by what a patient's insurance will and will not cover; Clinton's universal healthcare codes serves a purpose but it also gives insurance companies a way to limit benefits or opt out of paying completely. Case in point; years ago I needed surgery. However my insurance at the time would not approve surgery because I was considered to young and had not exhausted other options. I in fact had a doctor tell me "my hands are tied", she wound up leaving the area soon after. I was put on numerous different drugs, tests, short term procedures, different doctors, psychologists, etc. After 3 years, my husband's employer switched insurance companies and voila ... I was immediately scheduled for surgery by my physician at the time. Keep in mind, that the other insurance company I had was paying for all the unnecessary tests, office visits, procedures, and medications they they knew full well weren't going to work ...not to mention the hell and pain I went through!
There are prescription drugs that are available overseas that aren't available here and vice-versa. Advil for example is available OTC here and not in Europe. My point being, the FDA either needs to be eliminated or seriously revamped. There are countless drugs that have been approved by the FDA that are later found to be very harmful and in some cases fatal. Yet waiting to get FDA approval drives up the costs of the drug...there is too much room for manipulation and corruption and price gouging; again due in part to the involvement of the federal government.
Also, IMHO using the words John McCain in any sentence other than one that would announce he's retiring is offensive.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on June 22, 2017, 05:37:14 AM
Also, IMHO using the words John McCain in any sentence other than one that would announce he's retiring is offensive.
What about his obituary? :biggrin:
Quote from: quiller on June 22, 2017, 06:16:27 AM
What about his obituary? :biggrin:
...certainly a different way of retiring! :lol:
Quote from: Ms.Independence on June 22, 2017, 08:09:42 AM
...certainly a different way of retiring! :lol:
(*best Mr. Rogers voice*) Can you say, "overdue"?
Quote from: Ms.Independence on June 22, 2017, 05:37:14 AM
There are prescription drugs that are available overseas that aren't available here and vice-versa. Advil for example is available OTC here and not in Europe. My point being, the FDA either needs to be eliminated or seriously revamped. There are countless drugs that have been approved by the FDA that are later found to be very harmful and in some cases fatal. Yet waiting to get FDA approval drives up the costs of the drug...there is too much room for manipulation and corruption and price gouging; again due in part to the involvement of the federal government.
Thanks Ms. Independence.
Interesting points brought up by you and others on FDA revamp or even removal. I did some research and indeed does seem to be articles showing the inefficiency of FDA and would be an important factor to address in this price gouging situation by pharma companies. Like everyone has said there are many factors here. Are you aware of any bills introduced that would revamp or remove the FDA? Or any politicians who support this approach?
What's clear is that big pharma companies like Phizer have a 42% profit margin so the current FDA setup is clearly in their favor. So, whatever is introduced through legislation pharma companies will use their lobbying power to full extent to allow them to continue the predatory pricing practice.
So, again it comes down to me the influence of lobbying on the government. While there are anti corruption acts out there being advocated, here is the thing. Lobbying is constitutional acceptable. Because constitutional acceptable, companies may sue and challenge any passed laws as unconstitutional. For example the citizens united vs fec in 2010 ruling campaign contributions as a right of free speech for corporations. So, I did some research into any movements to amend the constitution so that corporate lobbying is included and addressed.
Has anyone heard of https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment ? What is your take on this proposed amendment?
No I figured out exactly how to completely reform health care and actually have it cost less for all citizens
Ready?
Drumroll:
Forget about universal health care - simply create a Government run Pharmaceutical company using fair prices for all their products which will force Big Pharma like Merck to stop being so greedy and have competitive prices from then on for their products . Theres the solution the Obama Admin couldn't see- well nobody could. Big Pharma is too much of a monopoly .They need stiff competition. Then those Sobs wouldn't get insanely rich while forcing US citizens to pay for their badly needed medication.
I'm not saying it would be easy (and the GOP gets $$ from Big Pharma ) but think about it- If you were someone in the GOP sold this idea to the public- could you name 1 GOP senator and congressman who would oppose this idea? they would never get elected again if they opposed this idea. 95% of the country would be for it- upper middle and lower classes would love this idea.
This is the best( and ONLY ) solution to health care. Universal Health care could never work in the US. You cant have half the hard working country taking care of the lazy other half. Non sustainable business model.Too many people and illegals here.
Quote from: DoctorinPA73 on June 29, 2017, 08:32:23 PM
No I figured out exactly how to completely reform health care and actually have it cost less for all citizens
Ready?
Drumroll:
Forget about universal health care - simply create a Government run Pharmaceutical company using fair prices for all their products which will force Big Pharma like Merck to stop being so greedy and have competitive prices from then on for their products . Theres the solution the Obama Admin couldn't see- well nobody could. Big Pharma is too much of a monopoly .They need stiff competition. Then those Sobs wouldn't get insanely rich while forcing US citizens to pay for their badly needed medication.
I'm not saying it would be easy (and the GOP gets $$ from Big Pharma ) but think about it- If you were someone in the GOP sold this idea to the public- could you name 1 GOP senator and congressman who would oppose this idea? they would never get elected again if they opposed this idea. 95% of the country would be for it- upper middle and lower classes would love this idea.
This is the best( and ONLY ) solution to health care. Universal Health care could never work in the US. You cant have half the hard working country taking care of the lazy other half. Non sustainable business model.Too many people and illegals here.
So your cure is to Nationalize pharmaceuticals? No free mkt approach? Where's the profit?
Back to the drawing table...
Quote from: DoctorinPA73 on June 29, 2017, 08:32:23 PM
No I figured out exactly how to completely reform health care and actually have it cost less for all citizens
Ready?
Drumroll:
Forget about universal health care - simply create a Government run Pharmaceutical company[/b] using fair prices for all their products which will force Big Pharma like Merck to stop being so greedy and have competitive prices from then on for their products . Theres the solution the Obama Admin couldn't see- well nobody could. Big Pharma is too much of a monopoly .They need stiff competition. Then those Sobs wouldn't get insanely rich while forcing US citizens to pay for their badly needed medication.
I'm not saying it would be easy (and the GOP gets $$ from Big Pharma ) but think about it- If you were someone in the GOP sold this idea to the public- could you name 1 GOP senator and congressman who would oppose this idea? they would never get elected again if they opposed this idea. 95% of the country would be for it- upper middle and lower classes would love this idea.
This is the best( and ONLY ) solution to health care. Universal Health care could never work in the US. You cant have half the hard working country taking care of the lazy other half. Non sustainable business model.Too many people and illegals here.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - President Reagan Aug. 12, 1986
Was true then and is even more true now.
Normally I would agree, but we tried the free market approach. Look where it got us- Big Pharma insanely rich and meanwhile patients pay 12 bucks for an aspirin in the hospital.
And there are plenty of profits to be made- I just said fair prices so Big Pharma would have to lower thiers to compete. Big Pharma will still make profits as well as the govt run company.
Biologics such as infliximab(Remicade) cost 18,000/dose. Trust me it doesn't cost that much to make it
Big Pharma is why the ACA- and ANY health care plan is so damn expensive. You have to get to the root cause to fix things- not force the middle class to pay for the lower classes birth control like Obama did
Obama gave a way the damn store there.
This could work or we can sit around while Big Pharma keeps getting richer and the middle class keeps getting poorer. tick tock tick tock....
I know some people who pay 860 for the ACA health care plan in 2017( up from 560 the year before). Gonna be 1000 bucks next year unless the ACA gets repealed soon.
Quote from: DoctorinPA73 on June 29, 2017, 08:44:16 PM
Normally I would agree, but we tried the free market approach. Look where it got us- Big Pharma insanely rich and meanwhile patients pay 12 bucks for an aspirin in the hospital.
And there are plenty of profits to be made- I just said fair prices so Big Pharma would have to lower thiers to compete. Big Pharma will still make profits as well as the govt run company.
Biologics such as infliximab(Remicade) cost 18,000/dose. Trust me it doesn't cost that much to make it
Big Pharma is why the ACA- and ANY health care plan is so damn expensive. You have to get to the root cause to fix things- not force the middle class to pay for the lower classes birth control like Obama did
Obama gave a way the damn store there.
There was something sometime back that said what each pill was made of and how much it cost to make. Q may remember it.
Just pass a law that you can not charge the U.S. more then you do other country's. That the most I would like government getting in the way. IF I can get it for 10 dollars in Mexico or Canada then it should be the same in the U.S. I should not be subsidized Mexico or Canada Rx's for them.
The TRUE Cost Of Your Prescription Drugs!
http://rense.com/general54/preco.htm
yeah , awful isn't
Al I i am saying it would fix the health care issue- without any doubt. I am not saying it would be easy. the politicians are getting so much money from Big Pharma they will come up with lame excuses on now to do this. Just because its the best( or only) solution, that doesn't mean someone will be rational enough to attempt it.
The only ones who will lose big is some greedy politician getting rick from lobbyists bribes( er I mean donations ) and of course Big Pharma( and they can still make a profit if they just lower costs- Merck boardmembers will still make out fine if they have some competition with a govt run pharma co. Everyone else( and I mean EVERYONE else) Will win big with this. People could afford health care, and the rates for the middle class will plummet while still providing decent medicine to the masses
Quote from: DoctorinPA73 on June 29, 2017, 09:19:37 PM
yeah , awful isn't
Al I i am saying it would fix the health care issue- without any doubt. I am not saying it would be easy. the politicians are getting so much money from Big Pharma they will come up with lame excuses on now to do this. Just because its the best( or only) solution, that doesn't mean someone will be rational enough to attempt it.
The only ones who will lose big is some greedy politician getting rick from lobbyists bribes( er I mean donations ) and of course Big Pharma( and they can still make a profit if they just lower costs- Merck boardmembers will still make out fine if they have some competition with a govt run pharma co. Everyone else( and I mean EVERYONE else) Will win big with this. People could afford health care, and the rates for the middle class will plummet while still providing decent medicine to the masses
Well it's not just the pill makers. You also have hospital charging patients 12 bucks for an aspirin. They will not let you bring in your Rx's from home, so you paying even more for them in the hospital.
Then you have doctors that you have to pay 150$ for an office call just to get a Rx that you have been taken of 10 to 20 years, every year.
All the government has done for me is cost me 6000$ more a year.
Quote from: walkstall on June 29, 2017, 10:30:15 PM
Well it's not just the pill makers. You also have hospital charging patients 12 bucks for an aspirin. They will not let you bring in your Rx's from home, so you paying even more for them in the hospital.
Then you have doctors that you have to pay 150$ for an office call just to get a Rx that you have been taken of 10 to 20 years, every year.
All the government has done for me is cost me 6000$ more a year.
Yes of course the hospitals and the Drs too but by using my idea, it will take a massive dent out of the health care costs for the american people. If only Trump and other politicians could stand up to the Big Pharma + the lobbyists .
Quote from: DoctorinPA73 on June 29, 2017, 08:32:23 PM
No I figured out exactly how to completely reform health care and actually have it cost less for all citizens
Ready?
Drumroll:
Forget about universal health care - simply create a Government run Pharmaceutical company using fair prices for all their products which will force Big Pharma like Merck to stop being so greedy and have competitive prices from then on for their products . Theres the solution the Obama Admin couldn't see- well nobody could. Big Pharma is too much of a monopoly .They need stiff competition. Then those Sobs wouldn't get insanely rich while forcing US citizens to pay for their badly needed medication.
I'm not saying it would be easy (and the GOP gets $$ from Big Pharma ) but think about it- If you were someone in the GOP sold this idea to the public- could you name 1 GOP senator and congressman who would oppose this idea? they would never get elected again if they opposed this idea. 95% of the country would be for it- upper middle and lower classes would love this idea.
This is the best( and ONLY ) solution to health care. Universal Health care could never work in the US. You cant have half the hard working country taking care of the lazy other half. Non sustainable business model.Too many people and illegals here.
This is one of the stupidest posts ever posted on this forum. It shows that you don't understand free market capitalism.
Quote from: DoctorinPA73 on June 29, 2017, 08:44:16 PM
Normally I would agree, but we tried the free market approach.
You are mistaken because you don't have any understanding of what the free market is.
Quote
Look where it got us- Big Pharma insanely rich and meanwhile patients pay 12 bucks for an aspirin in the hospital.
That's not capitalism. That's government.
Quote
And there are plenty of profits to be made- I just said fair prices so Big Pharma would have to lower thiers to compete. Big Pharma will still make profits as well as the govt run company.
You really haven't thought this through.
Quote
Biologics such as infliximab(Remicade) cost 18,000/dose. Trust me it doesn't cost that much to make it
Big Pharma is why the ACA- and ANY health care plan is so damn expensive. You have to get to the root cause to fix things- not force the middle class to pay for the lower classes birth control like Obama did
Obama gave a way the damn store there.
This could work or we can sit around while Big Pharma keeps getting richer and the middle class keeps getting poorer. tick tock tick tock....
I know some people who pay 860 for the ACA health care plan in 2017( up from 560 the year before). Gonna be 1000 bucks next year unless the ACA gets repealed soon.
If free market capitalism doesn't work, then why is it cheaper to pay the doctor in cash when the insurance company is left out?
Quote from: DoctorinPA73 on June 29, 2017, 10:55:28 PM
Yes of course the hospitals and the Drs too but by using my idea, it will take a massive dent out of the health care costs for the american people. If only Trump and other politicians could stand up to the Big Pharma + the lobbyists .
If the drug is so cheap to make, then why is it so expensive?
Quote from: walkstall on June 29, 2017, 09:10:32 PM
There was something sometime back that said what each pill was made of and how much it cost to make. Q may remember it.
Nope. But isn't it just fascinating how newbies sign in for the topic du jour? You'd think it was some kind of polling outfit taking our pulse....
Quote from: taxed on June 29, 2017, 11:45:04 PM
This is one of the stupidest posts ever posted on this forum. It shows that you don't understand free market capitalism.
If this is how the admin treats its members, then I wont be spending another moment on this board. You need to grow up. goodbye.Admins are supposed to be calm and rational. Enjoy your nazi board where you attack members just because you disagree with them.
Quote from: DoctorinPA73 on June 30, 2017, 06:32:58 AM
If this is how the admin treats its members, then I wont be spending another moment on this board. You need to grow up. goodbye.Admins are supposed to be calm and rational. Enjoy your nazi board where you attack members just because you disagree with them.
I'm sorry. Is there anything I can do to make your stay more comfortable?
Quote from: DoctorinPA73 on June 30, 2017, 06:32:58 AM
If this is how the admin treats its members, then I wont be spending another moment on this board. You need to grow up. goodbye.Admins are supposed to be calm and rational. Enjoy your nazi board where you attack members just because you disagree with them.
This is an adult Conservative board not a PC board. Taxed is being calm, he is the nice one this month.
Quote from: walkstall on June 30, 2017, 06:56:22 AM
This is an adult Conservative board not a PC board. Taxed is being calm, he is the nice one this month.
He's a sock puppet. I can't remember his previous name.
Quote from: DoctorinPA73 on June 29, 2017, 08:44:16 PM
Normally I would agree, but we tried the free market approach.
We did have the free Mkt system and it worked just fine, but it changed, and I bet you don't even know why.
Quote from: taxed on June 30, 2017, 06:58:53 AM
He's a sock puppet. I can't remember his previous name.
The word "Nazi" said it all.
Quote from: walkstall on June 30, 2017, 07:07:52 AM
The word "Nazi" said it all.
Yet they're the socialists who hate Jews... they always walk into that.
Well, that was an interesting and quick exchange.
Quote from: DoctorinPA73 on June 29, 2017, 08:32:23 PM
No I figured out exactly how to completely reform health care and actually have it cost less for all citizens
Ready?
Drumroll:
Forget about universal health care - simply create a Government run Pharmaceutical company using fair prices for all their products which will force Big Pharma like Merck to stop being so greedy and have competitive prices from then on for their products . Theres the solution the Obama Admin couldn't see- well nobody could. Big Pharma is too much of a monopoly .They need stiff competition. Then those Sobs wouldn't get insanely rich while forcing US citizens to pay for their badly needed medication.
I'm not saying it would be easy (and the GOP gets $$ from Big Pharma ) but think about it- If you were someone in the GOP sold this idea to the public- could you name 1 GOP senator and congressman who would oppose this idea? they would never get elected again if they opposed this idea. 95% of the country would be for it- upper middle and lower classes would love this idea.
This is the best( and ONLY ) solution to health care. Universal Health care could never work in the US. You cant have half the hard working country taking care of the lazy other half. Non sustainable business model.Too many people and illegals here.
Indeed many countries have government entities to successfully help in one way or another to combat price gouging of healthcare services and drugs. But what happens if that entity itself becomes corrupt or too big and inefficient as many have rightfully argued with regard to the FDA in this thread? It then becomes part of the problem or perhaps makes it worse.
Plus a few more points, one - because of corporate lobbying initial adoption of such a model would be hard pressed (it's not about what the people want). Two - even if relative legislation were to be passed, it can be just as quickly and quietly subverted through subsequent individual lobbying influences.
Finally, as I've asked a few times in this thread as opinions are floated - are there any politicians or movements or introduced bills who are advocating such an approach?
So again, to me the focus comes down to limiting lobbying influence to give such proposed changes a chance.
What is everyone's take at doing this at the constitutional level? For example what is everyone's opinion of the following movement?
https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment
Quote from: Jman22 on June 30, 2017, 08:47:15 PM
Well, that was an interesting and quick exchange.
Indeed many countries have government entities to successfully help in one way or another to combat price gouging of healthcare services and drugs. But what happens if that entity itself becomes corrupt or too big and inefficient as many have rightfully argued with regard to the FDA in this thread? It then becomes part of the problem or perhaps makes it worse.
Plus a few more points, one - because of corporate lobbying initial adoption of such a model would be hard pressed (it's not about what the people want). Two - even if relative legislation were to be passed, it can be just as quickly and quietly subverted through subsequent individual lobbying influences.
Finally, as I've asked a few times in this thread as opinions are floated - are there any politicians or movements or introduced bills who are advocating such an approach?
So again, to me the focus comes down to limiting lobbying influence to give such proposed changes a chance.
What is everyone's take at doing this at the constitutional level? For example what is everyone's opinion of the following movement?
http://www.heritage.org/commentary/want-limit-lobbying-cut-government
Quote from: Jman22 on June 30, 2017, 08:47:15 PM
Well, that was an interesting and quick exchange.
Indeed many countries have government entities to successfully help in one way or another to combat price gouging of healthcare services and drugs. But what happens if that entity itself becomes corrupt or too big and inefficient as many have rightfully argued with regard to the FDA in this thread? It then becomes part of the problem or perhaps makes it worse.
Plus a few more points, one - because of corporate lobbying initial adoption of such a model would be hard pressed (it's not about what the people want). Two - even if relative legislation were to be passed, it can be just as quickly and quietly subverted through subsequent individual lobbying influences.
Finally, as I've asked a few times in this thread as opinions are floated - are there any politicians or movements or introduced bills who are advocating such an approach?
So again, to me the focus comes down to limiting lobbying influence to give such proposed changes a chance.
What is everyone's take at doing this at the constitutional level? For example what is everyone's opinion of the following movement?
https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment
Do you remember what brought about the law in the first place? If memory sereves, it was a court battle over Union influence using dues taken from members, regardless of their political orientation.
Allowing corporate influence and super PACS was designed to level the playing field because, in truth, money is free speech whether it's given by a church, or an individual for radio an/orTV/Print etc ads, it's still giving everyone the Right to lobby Congress as stipulated in the Constitution.
Yes, money is that vehicle for many, just like hiring a lawyer, someone is paid to speak on your behalf.
From your link.
QuoteThe judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
What that site is advocating is not legal under the Constitution when you really think about it.
Eg. I fly drones, as an individual, I have no voice outside of writing a letter re: laws being written that might make it illegal for me to fly here in the forest, so I donate along with thousands of others to hire people to go to DC to speak on mine and others, behalf.
The same applies to all large groups, as individuals we are voiceless, but as a group with money, we can influence with lobbyists.
Maybe it's time to look at gifting to Representatives, not limit the individual of their Right to Address Congress.
Quote from: Solar on July 01, 2017, 06:30:06 AM
Do you remember what brought about the law in the first place? If memory sereves, it was a court battle over Union influence using dues taken from members, regardless of their political orientation.
Allowing corporate influence and super PACS was designed to level the playing field because, in truth, money is free speech whether it's given by a church, or an individual for radio an/orTV/Print etc ads, it's still giving everyone the Right to lobby Congress as stipulated in the Constitution.
Yes, money is that vehicle for many, just like hiring a lawyer, someone is paid to speak on your behalf.
From your link.
What that site is advocating is not legal under the Constitution when you really think about it.
Eg. I fly drones, as an individual, I have no voice outside of writing a letter re: laws being written that might make it illegal for me to fly here in the forest, so I donate along with thousands of others to hire people to go to DC to speak on mine and others, behalf.
The same applies to all large groups, as individuals we are voiceless, but as a group with money, we can influence with lobbyists.
Maybe it's time to look at gifting to Representatives, not limit the individual of their Right to Address Congress.
I see no violation of the proposed amendments by you and thousands of others hiring people to travel to D.C. to protest on your behalf to oppose bill which makes flying drones illegal in forrests. I would see a violation of proposed amendments if those hired on your behalf donated to a congressman campaign fund to influence his election and/or gift congressman in exchange for a vote against the bill.
The first paragraph of section 2 calls for state and federal measures to limit the influence that a candidate achieved economic status has on their political campaign. Depending on nature of measures, it hopefully would not even be in his best interest to entertain accepting your groups politcal contributions. Certainly paying folks to go to D.C. to voice opinion though, I don't see anything wrong with that.
But if those folks were to pull a congressman aside and say if you vote against this bill then we will gift you x amount and contribute x amount to your party campaign fund of choice, and then congressman agrees. I do see something wrong with that.
Quote from: Jman22 on July 01, 2017, 10:10:17 PM
I see no violation of the proposed amendments by you and thousands of others hiring people to travel to D.C. to protest on your behalf to oppose bill which makes flying drones illegal in forrests. I would see a violation of proposed amendments if those hired on your behalf donated to a congressman campaign fund to influence his election and/or gift congressman in exchange for a vote against the bill.
The first paragraph of section 2 calls for state and federal measures to limit the influence that a candidate achieved economic status has on their political campaign. Depending on nature of measures, it hopefully would not even be in his best interest to entertain accepting your groups politcal contributions. Certainly paying folks to go to D.C. to voice opinion though, I don't see anything wrong with that.
But if those folks were to pull a congressman aside and say if you vote against this bill then we will gift you x amount and contribute x amount to your party campaign fund of choice, and then congressman agrees. I do see something wrong with that.
Read closely.
"Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures"
Then they claim "to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process".
How is that possible, they just placed more restrictions on individuals?
QuoteFederal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.
I see no guidelines, all I see is this group giving yet, even more power to govt to regulate money/speech.
The idea is to remove govt, not grow it, not expand its reach with more laws.
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2017, 07:03:37 AM
Read closely.
"Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures"
Then they claim "to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process".
How is that possible, they just placed more restrictions on individuals?
I see no guidelines, all I see is this group giving yet, even more power to govt to regulate money/speech.
The idea is to remove govt, not grow it, not expand its reach with more laws.
I appreciate the responses and thoughts on this subject. "Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures... to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process". I don't personally see any conflicts with this statement. It calls for guidelines to be introduced at the local and federal levels so that all has access to the political process and not allow an economic status to give an advantage in a given campaign. It will leave the specific guidelines up to federal and local governments to decide to achieve the intended results.
Because the importance of economic status in today's environment, currently politicians spend more than 50% of their working hours fund raising and not working on behalf of their constituents. If the importance of economic status is removed, they will not need to entertain receiving the large corporate donations of say big pharma companies and will not be so beholden to them during the next bill voting session.
Now, to your point, will this likely be achieved through more restriction, more oversight, and more laws as a result of this amendment? Yes, you are correct in that it would. But, what is the better way? I have heard and read about an approach via less government. I agree less government would certainly limit lobbying influence because by nature the government footprint has been reduced and that sounds great. But we always must elect someone to represent our interests even with less government. I still would be concerned that my representative is looking out for company xyz's interests and not mine even with less government.
Quote from: Jman22 on July 02, 2017, 05:13:22 PM
I appreciate the responses and thoughts on this subject. "Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures... to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process". I don't personally see any conflicts with this statement. It calls for guidelines to be introduced at the local and federal levels so that all has access to the political process and not allow an economic status to give an advantage in a given campaign. It will leave the specific guidelines up to federal and local governments to decide to achieve the intended results.
Because the importance of economic status in today's environment, currently politicians spend more than 50% of their working hours fund raising and not working on behalf of their constituents. If the importance of economic status is removed, they will not need to entertain receiving the large corporate donations of say big pharma companies and will not be so beholden to them during the next bill voting session.
Now, to your point, will this likely be achieved through more restriction, more oversight, and more laws as a result of this amendment? Yes, you are correct in that it would. But, what is the better way? I have heard and read about an approach via less government. I agree less government would certainly limit lobbying influence because by nature the government footprint has been reduced and that sounds great. But we always must elect someone to represent our interests even with less government. I still would be concerned that my representative is looking out for company xyz's interests and not mine even with less government.
Problem is, they are using the very entity that created the mess in the first place.
What I believe needs to take place is remove the Fed entirely, turn all oversight to the private sector, design it to the point where the pols are forced to account for every cent taken in, and can be audited at any time for any reason.
This oversight committee will also be in charge of pay, travel benefits as well as healthcare. In other words, the Fox will noi longer be allowed to guard the hen house.
All pay and benefits will be paid out in the open, the people will finally be allowed to see just where their money come from. Write a book? The committee will oversee the contract and just who is buying 10 thousand copies at once.
No, it's time to yank the Feds power once and for all, because as long as it in the hands of a bureaucracy, they will always find a creative workaround.
Why not simply go back to the original intent of health insurance and focus on why health care is so expensive?
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2017, 06:42:30 PM
Problem is, they are using the very entity that created the mess in the first place.
What I believe needs to take place is remove the Fed entirely, turn all oversight to the private sector, design it to the point where the pols are forced to account for every cent taken in, and can be audited at any time for any reason.
This oversight committee will also be in charge of pay, travel benefits as well as healthcare. In other words, the Fox will noi longer be allowed to guard the hen house.
All pay and benefits will be paid out in the open, the people will finally be allowed to see just where their money come from. Write a book? The committee will oversee the contract and just who is buying 10 thousand copies at once.
No, it's time to yank the Feds power once and for all, because as long as it in the hands of a bureaucracy, they will always find a creative workaround.
Got it! I could get behind that approach to a degree as well. Are you aware of any politicians or groups advocating such an approach?
I particularly like the oversight committee in charge of pay, travel, etc comment. Politician can't be bought if it is not allowed.
Quote from: Jman22 on July 03, 2017, 10:21:03 AM
Got it! I could get behind that approach to a degree as well. Are you aware of any politicians or groups advocating such an approach?
I particularly like the oversight committee in charge of pay, travel, etc comment. Politician can't be bought if it is not allowed.
I have completely given up on the thought of govt fixing anything. :biggrin:
Since 1990 there have been several groups that come to mind, but not one of them could agree on the best approach.
What I mentioned comes from a paper I wrote for one group, an early TEA group, their problem was, it was tied to a church, and they had some really touchy feely moderates that thought they could get Legislation to fix the problem, which brings us full circle on allowing the Fox in the hen house.
After that debacle, I decided to only mention it when the issue arose. It really needs someone like Cruz to put it down in writing to make sure all the "T's" are crossed and the "I's" are dotted, if for no other reason, than to assure it was Constitutional.
Quote from: Solar on July 03, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
I have completely given up on the thought of govt fixing anything. :biggrin:
Since 1990 there have been several groups that come to mind, but not one of them could agree on the best approach.
What I mentioned comes from a paper I wrote for one group, an early TEA group, their problem was, it was tied to a church, and they had some really touchy feely moderates that thought they could get Legislation to fix the problem, which brings us full circle on allowing the Fox in the hen house.
After that debacle, I decided to only mention it when the issue arose. It really needs someone like Cruz to put it down in writing to make sure all the "T's" are crossed and the "I's" are dotted, if for no other reason, than to assure it was Constitutional.
Thanks very much Solar and to all on this topic. It has been very enlightening. If you do come across a particular movement advocating this approach, please let me know. I will probably put my efforts behind movetoamend for now, as I do believe this will give long term healthcare costs reform a better fighting chance, albeit on a judicial and then legislative level only which I certainly understand the concerns regarding, but if anyone is made aware of the mentioned private entity approach, please just post below.