I'm with this writer 100%. I have the same questions but I don't have the answer for them.
One of the main questions is why not put forth that health care Bill that the 115 congress passed but Obama vetoed....? Why not....?
The 2015 repeal bill is sitting in committee. There's only one viable reason it's not being pushed.
For the last two weeks, a replica of the successful 2015 House Obamacare repeal bill has been "languishing in committee," as Andrea Ruth mentioned yesterday. Most will readily acknowledge that the primary reason it hasn't been moved forward is because they wanted Obamacarelite (the AHCA) to pass instead. Now that it hasn't, shouldn't the doors be open to the old bill that passed easily two years ago?
According to Ruth:
After a bill has been in committee for a certain period of time, a discharge petition can be circulated, which is privileged, to bring a bill out of committee and to the floor. But it must have a majority of the House. After the AHCA debacle that may seem unlikely, but consider the fact that this bill already passed in the last Congress. Repeal is the one thing a majority ostensibly agree upon.
I'm not buying into the notion that the liberal wings of the Republican Party are simply too leftists to really want such a bill to pass. It's not ideal by any means (in their opinion, not mine), but a full repeal at this point with a bill that already passed before seems to be the no-brainer than isn't getting discussed enough by pundits and politicians. After the embarrassment of Obamacarelite, surely House GOP members can see the benefits of bringing this bill to the floor. If it didn't pass, all we'd have to do is isolate those who voted for it in 2015 but changed their vote in 2017 since President Obama isn't there to protect them with a veto.
READ MORE......
http://thenewamericana.com/2017/03/27/2015-repeal-bill-sitting-committee-theres-one-viable-reason-not-pushed/
I agree with repeal and, on the surface, using this bill might be a good way to go. I wish they could see that the more they meddle, the more they will muddle the health care market. Let it go back to a free, competitive market.
However, as discussed in other threads, the landscape has changed from 2015. There are a lot of people in OB-care that would be dropped. The current stake in the ground (that all ideas swarm about) seems to be about providing a transition out of OB-care with a place for these to land and moving to lower rates - an impossibility since one is at the expense of the other. This issue is now about constituents for some. It's a RINO facade all the way - but the current administration won't do the hard things of the republic as they try to pretend to also be a democracy.
Trump seems set on letting pressure build as OB-care fails and a change is required. Unfortunately, many people will be crushed while OB falls apart.
The OB-fail may force the dims to join in the conversation, but they will fight to the death on their core evils and so the best outcome would be that we end up polarized again. The worst would be to compromise some of the conservative principles to the dims! Isn't bipartisan folklore? Isn't it an oxymoron based on principle? Why do some keep hoping it will happen - the comprises the dims would want gut the core values of the republic.
The dims are on their heals - the dim party is like dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah. I say kill the dims while their failure is obvious - don't leave one of them standing. We don't need two parties - bring the people on the dim side to the rep side. Even compromise into a RINO party that pulls in some of the environmental and PC crap that let's this push to the right. If we could get the media to tip onto a RINO party, this would fall pretty fast. I know - some would hate the idea. But it's the same people who are willing to play games with EOs to change past wrongs ... that's a form of a compromise not unlike allowing some further RINO compromise to crush the dims.
Is there any precedence on holding a failed party underwater while it's constituents moving to a new party? I don't know of any. But that's what we should be thinking about. This is a very strong idea - worth working towards over time. While the dims fail, provide their constituents a safe landing area that gives them a transition that contains some of the things they love but are minimally damaging, then crush the dims and dump the most evil ideas they keep in play.
The RINO's and Conservatives can find enough common ground to work this - and they can keep their foot on the neck of the dims who have proven that they will like, cheat, steal, and kill to have their way ... because they can't get their evils ways by honest techniques. Most of the dim ideals lead us into a government controlled dark age - not toward freedom, hope, and prosperity.
Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 06:06:16 AM
I agree with repeal and, on the surface, using this bill might be a good way to go. I wish they could see that the more they meddle, the more they will muddle the health care market. Let it go back to a free, competitive market.
However, as discussed in other threads, the landscape has changed from 2015. There are a lot of people in OB-care that would be dropped. The current stake in the ground (that all ideas swarm about) seems to be about providing a transition out of OB-care with a place for these to land and moving to lower rates - an impossibility since one is at the expense of the other. This issue is now about constituents for some. It's a RINO facade all the way - but the current administration won't do the hard things of the republic as they try to pretend to also be a democracy.
Trump seems set on letting pressure build as OB-care fails and a change is required. Unfortunately, many people will be crushed while OB falls apart.
The OB-fail may force the dims to join in the conversation, but they will fight to the death on their core evils and so the best outcome would be that we end up polarized again. The worst would be to compromise some of the conservative principles to the dims! Isn't bipartisan folklore? Isn't it an oxymoron based on principle? Why do some keep hoping it will happen - the comprises the dims would want gut the core values of the republic.
The dims are on their heals - the dim party is like dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah. I say kill the dims while their failure is obvious - don't leave one of them standing. We don't need two parties - bring the people on the dim side to the rep side. Even compromise into a RINO party that pulls in some of the environmental and PC crap that let's this push to the right. If we could get the media to tip onto a RINO party, this would fall pretty fast. I know - some would hate the idea. But it's the same people who are willing to play games with EOs to change past wrongs ... that's a form of a compromise not unlike allowing some further RINO compromise to crush the dims.
Is there any precedence on holding a failed party underwater while it's constituents moving to a new party? I don't know of any. But that's what we should be thinking about. This is a very strong idea - worth working towards over time. While the dims fail, provide their constituents a safe landing area that gives them a transition that contains some of the things they love but are minimally damaging, then crush the dims and dump the most evil ideas they keep in play.
The RINO's and Conservatives can find enough common ground to work this - and they can keep their foot on the neck of the dims who have proven that they will like, cheat, steal, and kill to have their way ... because they can't get their evils ways by honest techniques. Most of the dim ideals lead us into a government controlled dark age - not toward freedom, hope, and prosperity.
Those on Bammycare crushed? Those on Bammycare would have the opportunity to replace it with a better plan. Those that didn't want to participate in the new healthcare plan wouldn't have to. Regardless of what plan is put in place you are going to have a transition period. There is going to have to be a rollover period, where for instance there would be a 90 day window where both policies would be accepted and after the 90 day period Bammycare would be complete phased out. It's no different than one health insurance company buying out another company and those under one plan have to switch over to another. It's not like health insurance providers have never dealt with this situation. IF Bammycare is kept you are still going to have those unable to afford insurance and those deciding whether to eat or afford health insurance. IF Basmmycare is kept you are still going to have employers limiting employee hours so they can escape the burden of providing health insurance.
I see the notion of those on Bammycare getting crushed as liberal leftist mental midget mentality.
Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 06:06:16 AM
I agree with repeal and, on the surface, using this bill might be a good way to go. I wish they could see that the more they meddle, the more they will muddle the health care market. Let it go back to a free, competitive market.
However, as discussed in other threads, the landscape has changed from 2015. There are a lot of people in OB-care that would be dropped. The current stake in the ground (that all ideas swarm about) seems to be about providing a transition out of OB-care with a place for these to land and moving to lower rates - an impossibility since one is at the expense of the other. This issue is now about constituents for some. It's a RINO facade all the way - but the current administration won't do the hard things of the republic as they try to pretend to also be a democracy.
Trump seems set on letting pressure build as OB-care fails and a change is required. Unfortunately, many people will be crushed while OB falls apart.
The OB-fail may force the dims to join in the conversation, but they will fight to the death on their core evils and so the best outcome would be that we end up polarized again. The worst would be to compromise some of the conservative principles to the dims! Isn't bipartisan folklore? Isn't it an oxymoron based on principle? Why do some keep hoping it will happen - the comprises the dims would want gut the core values of the republic.
The dims are on their heals - the dim party is like dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah. I say kill the dims while their failure is obvious - don't leave one of them standing. We don't need two parties - bring the people on the dim side to the rep side. Even compromise into a RINO party that pulls in some of the environmental and PC crap that let's this push to the right. If we could get the media to tip onto a RINO party, this would fall pretty fast. I know - some would hate the idea. But it's the same people who are willing to play games with EOs to change past wrongs ... that's a form of a compromise not unlike allowing some further RINO compromise to crush the dims.
Is there any precedence on holding a failed party underwater while it's constituents moving to a new party? I don't know of any. But that's what we should be thinking about. This is a very strong idea - worth working towards over time. While the dims fail, provide their constituents a safe landing area that gives them a transition that contains some of the things they love but are minimally damaging, then crush the dims and dump the most evil ideas they keep in play.
The RINO's and Conservatives can find enough common ground to work this - and they can keep their foot on the neck of the dims who have proven that they will like, cheat, steal, and kill to have their way ... because they can't get their evils ways by honest techniques. Most of the dim ideals lead us into a government controlled dark age - not toward freedom, hope, and prosperity.
A couple of things here. One, Newt killed off the Conservative side of the dim party by allowing Dims to jump ship and infect the GOP, further watering down the GOP and leaving the Dim party with hardcore leftists/Marxists.
Second, these leftist RINO in the party are just that, leftists, the Establishment is a creation of Dims, no, not necessarily actual Dims, but people that were placed into the party by the very same people that pull the strings of the Dim party, some are actual Marxist, but most are crony capitalists, people that don't give a shit about our country, people from other countries on boards like GE, Kellog's much of Silicon Valley is made up of these same investors that steer their money toward leftist ideals with a side benefit of killing off the US.
That's where we are today, fighting for our very identity as a Free Nation.
As I see things, the biggest problem with simply repealing ACA, with or without buffers and transitions periods, is that, like ACA itself, does absolutely nothing about the cost of health care in the first place. The facts are that health care costs have outpaced general inflation by a factor of 2 over the past several decades. This is the base reason health care is an issue in the first place. Think about it: if the costs of health care had stayed in the realm of general inflation these past 30+ years, it would not even be an issue on the political landscape.
We need to find and eliminate those factors which are causing unreasonable inflation rates in the healthcare industry, and most of the other problems, including affordable HC insurance (which would likely end up limited to catastrophic insurance), will automatically dwindle to background noise.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 27, 2017, 07:56:18 AM
Those on Bammycare crushed? Those on Bammycare would have the opportunity to replace it with a better plan. Those that didn't want to participate in the new healthcare plan wouldn't have to. Regardless of what plan is put in place you are going to have a transition period. There is going to have to be a rollover period, where for instance there would be a 90 day window where both policies would be accepted and after the 90 day period Bammycare would be complete phased out. It's no different than one health insurance company buying out another company and those under one plan have to switch over to another. It's not like health insurance providers have never dealt with this situation. IF Bammycare is kept you are still going to have those unable to afford insurance and those deciding whether to eat or afford health insurance. IF Basmmycare is kept you are still going to have employers limiting employee hours so they can escape the burden of providing health insurance.
I see the notion of those on Bammycare getting crushed as liberal leftist mental midget mentality.
You missed the point of what the "crusher" is. What was said was that as Trump waits out BOCare to fail worse than it already has (so that more votes move his way due to constituent pressure) those on BOCare will be crushed by it. So you might want to read a little more carefully and think a little further.
Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 09:36:13 AM
You missed the point of what the "crusher" is. What was said was that as Trump waits out BOCare to fail worse than it already has (so that more votes move his way due to constituent pressure) those on BOCare will be crushed by it. So you might want to read a little more carefully and think a little further.
Wow! I didn't realize that you were now the resident forum expert!! :thumbsup: For future reference you just might want to put your big boy pants on, lose the attitude, read a little more carefully and think a little further. :lol: :popcorn:
Quote from: zewazir on March 27, 2017, 09:33:49 AM
As I see things, the biggest problem with simply repealing ACA, with or without buffers and transitions periods, is that, like ACA itself, does absolutely nothing about the cost of health care in the first place. The facts are that health care costs have outpaced general inflation by a factor of 2 over the past several decades. This is the base reason health care is an issue in the first place. Think about it: if the costs of health care had stayed in the realm of general inflation these past 30+ years, it would not even be an issue on the political landscape.
We need to find and eliminate those factors which are causing unreasonable inflation rates in the healthcare industry, and most of the other problems, including affordable HC insurance (which would likely end up limited to catastrophic insurance), will automatically dwindle to background noise.
I believe that the most fundamental issue with achieving affordable HC is that we're keeping people alive too long at costs that the insurance products / pools can't sustain. The new technologies and treatments are amazing, but so are the prices ... and they are causing costs to rise. Until those creating the law face this fact head on, it will be impossible to have affordable HC. Sure, there is fat in what the insurance industry sucks out of our wallets. But the costs for some of the types of drugs / care is also a major part of the problem.
Based on what we know, what does affordable look like? For the sake of discussion, consider that there are no subsidies even by companies ... just to bracket what affordable looks like.
The young and healthy don't need much - so let's say they pay about $100 a month per individual ... if they have jobs and can afford it. Sure, there may be exceptions that get it for free (e.g., orphans) but they are marginal exceptions. No one gets it for free except for some of the helpless cases.
Then the stats will dictate what aging or older people without pre-existing conditions can buy - say it costs $400 - $800 per month per individual which is about what seems to have existed before BOCare.
Finally, consider those with pre-existing conditions. Their health condition will slot them into statistical distributions that will determine what the expected value of the cost (and variance) of the health care will be. This is nothing new - it's what the industry has done until BOcare showed up and decided not to allow consideration of pre-existing conditions and to blindly subsidize at least half the country (those two aspects are insane Hussein!). But some folks will have "typical" risks where costs can be estimated in the 100's of thousands if an event occurs over the pool while others may have indicators that put them at high risk of events that run into the millions - think of these as distinct pools. The former group's health care will probably fall into the $1500 per month category while the latter may have to pay about $100,000 per month.
Given current constraints, that's what I think affordable looks like. And if anyone can't pay, then they need to prepare for another way to deal with it whether putting up with an issue or even end-of-life if a critical event hits them. So, yeah, many people in the $1500 per month group and the $100k per month group may not get care because they can't afford the "affordable coverage".
It's not a big surprise ... you can't have a product that you can't afford. That's what this whole dialogue on HC seems to be having trouble owning up to.
I claim that, and it seems obvious, that it is impossible to find a HC plan that admits all pre-existing conditions, gives health care to everyone, and is affordable. Any plan that comes out will just like pushing on a barrel of ping-pong balls ... you can push one down but others will pop up (zero sum game for the most part) until we recognize that we're not all going to have it ... or make it.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 27, 2017, 09:50:40 AM
Wow! I didn't realize that you were now the resident forum expert!! :thumbsup: For future reference you just might want to put your big boy pants on, lose the attitude, read a little more carefully and think a little further. :lol: :popcorn:
I'm not the expert. I think you see what I was saying - sorry for the Trump-like reprisal to your leftist dig. It will be a relief when BOCare is gone. I so wish the government would just get out of the HC business (repeal) and other aspects of our lives. But I have this feeling that they are seeing dollar signs and will try and keep a cut of HC for themselves.
Quote from: Solar on March 27, 2017, 08:11:44 AM
A couple of things here. One, Newt killed off the Conservative side of the dim party by allowing Dims to jump ship and infect the GOP, further watering down the GOP and leaving the Dim party with hardcore leftists/Marxists.
Second, these leftist RINO in the party are just that, leftists, the Establishment is a creation of Dims, no, not necessarily actual Dims, but people that were placed into the party by the very same people that pull the strings of the Dim party, some are actual Marxist, but most are crony capitalists, people that don't give a shit about our country, people from other countries on boards like GE, Kellog's much of Silicon Valley is made up of these same investors that steer their money toward leftist ideals with a side benefit of killing off the US.
That's where we are today, fighting for our very identity as a Free Nation.
That's some interesting history and characterizations regarding factions - most of which I was not aware of. I'm not sure how to digest it yet but will look into it more.
Stepping in recently and observing without seeing such history, it seems that the platforms of the Dims and Pubs are strikingly different. So even if Dims have now changed color, they still are at least under the Pubs platform. What you are saying logically suggests why the Dims have moved even more to the left - those toward center moved out. So the hardcore Dims (that hold to their platform overtly) will keep distancing themselves from the center and right. Although as long as they keep giving things away (with strings) there will always be many who side with them - no matter how left they are. I have family like that - it's so irrational.
But you identify some behind the Dim party pulling the stings. I guess you're thinking of guys like Soros? I don't see how you neutralize that. The only way is to having counterparts pulling strings for the conservative side?
And the Crony Capitalists - as you say don't give a crap about the nation as long as they make money. They buy the influence that benefits them most regardless of impact to the republic. What can be done to neutralize them?
It still seems that small steps should be taken - conservatives should work to at least kill off the failing democratic party proper while they are on their heals. The complexity you've identified clouds how that might happen though. Clearly the idea of working "across the isle" is a non-starter.
Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 10:22:19 AM
I'm not the expert. I think you see what I was saying - sorry for the Trump-like reprisal to your leftist dig. It will be a relief when BOCare is gone. I so wish the government would just get out of the HC business (repeal) and other aspects of our lives. But I have this feeling that they are seeing dollar signs and will try and keep a cut of HC for themselves.
Actually, IMHO the vast majority have already been crushed by Bammycare; they may continue to feel the effects of losing their doctors, losing their healthcare, reduced hours, rising premiums, etc., but those issues were put into effect by Bammycare, and wouldn't necessarily be a result of phasing out what was a really bad program to begin with and transitioning to a new program. Sorry any way you cut it, the DEMS, leftists and RINO's already own Bammycare. To not move forward because of fear of someone getting 'crushed' who is currently on Bammycare to me is a bunch of b.s.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 27, 2017, 10:51:29 AM
To not move forward because of fear of someone getting 'crushed' who is currently on Bammycare to me is a bunch of b.s.
We're still missing each other. You and I are in violent agreement. I join you in saying let's move forward so we can get out from under BOCare as fast as we can. Put a stake in the heart of this government controlling, 2000+ page travesty. Do it today!
But Trump has stated that he's going to let the Dim's BOCare keep going because it will fail on it's own. And when it fails, then the Dims will have the mud all over them and will be forced to work for a change. That was his sentiment the day after the RyanCare bill was pulled.
But my point was that Trump's position to leave it for awhile is very harmful to many. While Trump leaves BOCare in-place - and as it fails - the consequence is that there will be even more people who will be crushed during that period of time.
I don't think Trump should let BOCare ride at the expense of these. Why not, as Bronx (this) thread suggests, call a vote to repeal it based on the 2015 repeal bill. Or put in a revised repeal bill. The Pubs can carry the day without the Dims if they can get on the same page. You would think that Repeal would be enough to gather the votes. But then other factors, also mentioned in this thread, come into play for some of the RINOs which is why I don't think we hear about a repeal bill from them.
Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 11:27:34 AM
We're still missing each other. You and I are in violent agreement. I join you in saying let's move forward so we can get out from under BOCare as fast as we can. Put a stake in the heart of this government controlling, 2000+ page travesty. Do it today!
But Trump has stated that he's going to let the Dim's BOCare keep going because it will fail on it's own. And when it fails, then the Dims will have the mud all over them and will be forced to work for a change. That was his sentiment the day after the RyanCare bill was pulled.
But my point was that Trump's position to leave it for awhile is very harmful to many. While Trump leaves BOCare in-place - and as it fails - the consequence is that there will be even more people who will be crushed during that period of time.
I don't think Trump should let BOCare ride at the expense of these. Why not, as Bronx (this) thread suggests, call a vote to repeal it based on the 2015 repeal bill. Or put in a revised repeal bill. The Pubs can carry the day without the Dims if they can get on the same page. You would think that Repeal would be enough to gather the votes. But then other factors, also mentioned in this thread, come into play for some of the RINOs which is why I don't think we hear about a repeal bill from them.
Violent agreement? Not at all. My point is that the harm (crushing) has already been done period. To try to lay any blame on Trump for potentially harming those on Bammycare I see as absurd. I noticed in one of your previous posts that you stated "I believe that the most fundamental issue with achieving affordable HC is that we're keeping people alive too long..." Really? Wow. Try telling someone who is battling cancer and fighting for their lives, or someone who has a chronic illness and battling with their disease on a daily basis; "sorry, we can no longer afford to sustain your care because of cost"!
--End of discussion on this with you --
Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 10:11:35 AM
I believe that the most fundamental issue with achieving affordable HC is that we're keeping people alive too long at costs that the insurance products / pools can't sustain. The new technologies and treatments are amazing, but so are the prices ... and they are causing costs to rise. Until those creating the law face this fact head on, it will be impossible to have affordable HC. Sure, there is fat in what the insurance industry sucks out of our wallets. But the costs for some of the types of drugs / care is also a major part of the problem.
Disagree with your assessment of where the costs of healthcare originate. Have you any idea how much money is spent getting our beloved nanny state to approve a new medication, a new treatment protocol, or even a new style of scalpel? Then there is the fact that less than one in 50 medications which even make it to stage 0 (animal) trials will make it all the way through levels I, II, and III to be marketed. An economist, Joseph DiMasi, performed a study which concluded that the total cost for getting a new medication to market averages $802 million when adding in the costs associated with the 49 failed medications that go with each success. As such, pharmaceutical companies find themselves having to come up with $802 million in revenues from each new drug marketed just to break even with the development costs!
(http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PharmaceuticalsEconomicsandRegulation.html)
New medical equipment is not quite as bad, but none the less, considering more ideas fail during clinical trials than succeed, nand figuring the costs of pushing a new idea through all the levels of development, medical equipment companies face horrendous development costs in meeting the regulatory requirements of the government.
Then there are the costs of screwups. Malpractice insurance premiums have skyrocketed over the last couple decades, primarily due to ever increasing jury awards when things go wrong. (http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2002/12/02/story2.html)
Think about it: when a specialist's insurance rates exceed the median income of their patients, where is that money going to come from? Increased fees for office visits, increased fees for consults, increased fees for prescribing fracking Tylenol. But doctors are not the only ones facing what are becoming outrageous expenses in malpractice premiums. Drug companies are especially susceptible to huge malpractice awards because if one of their medications turns out to have a problem not caught in clinical trials, they will face enormous class action suits. We have even seen drug companies face huge class actions for side-effects, or adverse reactions to primary effects, even when those possible reactions were fully disclosed! (Read about what is happening against the makers of Xarelto.)
Yes, with increased life spans - and the fact that many of those life spans increase through the use of medical technologies - is having an effect on health care. But the costs of those new drugs, new equipment, and new treatment protocols are all being drastically affected by the same people bringing us O-Care: The United States Government and their regulatory agencies whose primary purpose is justifying the money they spend ramming the big green pickle up our nethers.
Quote from: zewazir on March 27, 2017, 12:57:04 PM
Disagree with your assessment of where the costs of healthcare originate. Have you any idea how much money is spent getting our beloved nanny state to approve a new medication, a new treatment protocol, or even a new style of scalpel? Then there is the fact that less than one in 50 medications which even make it to stage 0 (animal) trials will make it all the way through levels I, II, and III to be marketed. An economist, Joseph DiMasi, performed a study which concluded that the total cost for getting a new medication to market averages $802 million when adding in the costs associated with the 49 failed medications that go with each success. As such, pharmaceutical companies find themselves having to come up with $802 million in revenues from each new drug marketed just to break even with the development costs!
(http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PharmaceuticalsEconomicsandRegulation.html)
New medical equipment is not quite as bad, but none the less, considering more ideas fail during clinical trials than succeed, nand figuring the costs of pushing a new idea through all the levels of development, medical equipment companies face horrendous development costs in meeting the regulatory requirements of the government.
Then there are the costs of screwups. Malpractice insurance premiums have skyrocketed over the last couple decades, primarily due to ever increasing jury awards when things go wrong. (http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2002/12/02/story2.html)
Think about it: when a specialist's insurance rates exceed the median income of their patients, where is that money going to come from? Increased fees for office visits, increased fees for consults, increased fees for prescribing fracking Tylenol. But doctors are not the only ones facing what are becoming outrageous expenses in malpractice premiums. Drug companies are especially susceptible to huge malpractice awards because if one of their medications turns out to have a problem not caught in clinical trials, they will face enormous class action suits. We have even seen drug companies face huge class actions for side-effects, or adverse reactions to primary effects, even when those possible reactions were fully disclosed! (Read about what is happening against the makers of Xarelto.)
Yes, with increased life spans - and the fact that many of those life spans increase through the use of medical technologies - is having an effect on health care. But the costs of those new drugs, new equipment, and new treatment protocols are all being drastically affected by the same people bringing us O-Care: The United States Government and their regulatory agencies whose primary purpose is justifying the money they spend ramming the big green pickle up our nethers.
I would like to briefly share what happened to me years ago, when HMO's first came out. We had insurance through my husband's employer (paid for by the employer 100%); the employer was self-insured through Aetna. I went into the hospital for surgery. The hospital billed the insurance company for the same surgery two days in a row! In other words my husband's employer was billed twice for the same surgery. The mistake was blatantly obvious. I called my husband's employer and told them what had happened and the answer was, mistakes happen and since we're self-insured there's not much we can do! So....here we sit years and years later, with HMO;s, PPO's POS's, Bammycare ,etc., and people are scratching their heads as to why things have gotten so out of reach as far as affordability. In the scenario I gave, the hospital charged twice, the doctor charged twice and the insurance company paid it! It didn't cost us a dime then, but there aren't any employers anymore that I know of that can now afford to pay for the cost of their employees health insurance 100% anymore. Costs have skyrocketed because of corruption; corruption on the part of the doctor, insurance company, the hospitals and add to that millions of people who benefit from the system that haven't paid a dime and you have what we are experiencing today; unaffordable health insurance and skyrocketing costs for health care.
Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 10:46:44 AM
That's some interesting history and characterizations regarding factions - most of which I was not aware of. I'm not sure how to digest it yet but will look into it more.
You can look it up, it happened when Newt was Speaker of the House, and no, oddly enough it's never ever talked about.
QuoteStepping in recently and observing without seeing such history, it seems that the platforms of the Dims and Pubs are strikingly different. So even if Dims have now changed color, they still are at least under the Pubs platform.
If you compare the two, there is no mention of socialism in the dim party either.
Look at the GOP and you won't find crony capitalism either, but the party is full of it. Neither party has even remotely resembled it's platform in nearly 40 years.
QuoteWhat you are saying logically suggests why the Dims have moved even more to the left - those toward center moved out. So the hardcore Dims (that hold to their platform overtly) will keep distancing themselves from the center and right. Although as long as they keep giving things away (with strings) there will always be many who side with them - no matter how left they are. I have family like that - it's so irrational.
Honestly, the left purged the party of the last moderates years ago. And you're right, some will always vote D
(D) regardless, not because they love th party, but rather despise the GOP, and who can blame them?
QuoteBut you identify some behind the Dim party pulling the stings. I guess you're thinking of guys like Soros? I don't see how you neutralize that. The only way is to having counterparts pulling strings for the conservative side?
Soros works both party's, don't think his money only flows to the coffers of Dims. Then again, this proves my point of leftists in both party's.
Here's just a taste from 2014, but search deeper and you'll be shocked just how bad it is.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/michelle-malkin/2014/01/13/column-beware-soros-funded-main-street-republicans
QuoteAnd the Crony Capitalists - as you say don't give a crap about the nation as long as they make money. They buy the influence that benefits them most regardless of impact to the republic. What can be done to neutralize them?
We're doing it, have been since 2010 and 2014 and will continue to well after 2018.
QuoteIt still seems that small steps should be taken - conservatives should work to at least kill off the failing democratic party proper while they are on their heals. The complexity you've identified clouds how that might happen though. Clearly the idea of working "across the isle" is a non-starter.
Yeah, we are, meaning TEA Conservatives, but the GOP loves playing victim to the nonexistent Dim party.
A victim needs a bully, so they'll do their damndest to see that it remains viable.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 27, 2017, 09:50:40 AM
Wow! I didn't realize that you were now the resident forum expert!! :thumbsup: For future reference you just might want to put your big boy pants on, lose the attitude, read a little more carefully and think a little further. :lol: :popcorn:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crswrwsrbqkdbfgfxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fbkkwskfbxssqrtwrst%2F1%2F1595431%2F10163839%2Fsnork01_288x105-vi.jpg&hash=bc5ab04218b8e763384e9926c5c04af1f32a0189)
Quote from: zewazir on March 27, 2017, 12:57:04 PM
Disagree with your assessment of where the costs of healthcare originate. Have you any idea how much money is spent getting our beloved nanny state to approve a new medication, a new treatment protocol, or even a new style of scalpel? Then there is the fact that less than one in 50 medications which even make it to stage 0 (animal) trials will make it all the way through levels I, II, and III to be marketed. An economist, Joseph DiMasi, performed a study which concluded that the total cost for getting a new medication to market averages $802 million when adding in the costs associated with the 49 failed medications that go with each success. As such, pharmaceutical companies find themselves having to come up with $802 million in revenues from each new drug marketed just to break even with the development costs!
(http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PharmaceuticalsEconomicsandRegulation.html)
New medical equipment is not quite as bad, but none the less, considering more ideas fail during clinical trials than succeed, nand figuring the costs of pushing a new idea through all the levels of development, medical equipment companies face horrendous development costs in meeting the regulatory requirements of the government.
Then there are the costs of screwups. Malpractice insurance premiums have skyrocketed over the last couple decades, primarily due to ever increasing jury awards when things go wrong. (http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2002/12/02/story2.html)
Think about it: when a specialist's insurance rates exceed the median income of their patients, where is that money going to come from? Increased fees for office visits, increased fees for consults, increased fees for prescribing fracking Tylenol. But doctors are not the only ones facing what are becoming outrageous expenses in malpractice premiums. Drug companies are especially susceptible to huge malpractice awards because if one of their medications turns out to have a problem not caught in clinical trials, they will face enormous class action suits. We have even seen drug companies face huge class actions for side-effects, or adverse reactions to primary effects, even when those possible reactions were fully disclosed! (Read about what is happening against the makers of Xarelto.)
Yes, with increased life spans - and the fact that many of those life spans increase through the use of medical technologies - is having an effect on health care. But the costs of those new drugs, new equipment, and new treatment protocols are all being drastically affected by the same people bringing us O-Care: The United States Government and their regulatory agencies whose primary purpose is justifying the money they spend ramming the big green pickle up our nethers.
Yes - very valid point that malpractice is a part of the equation. The providers need to be responsible for their screw-ups. But many suits are about when something doesn't go how the patient wanted it to then sues. It's rampant. I have friends that espouse conservative views all the time. But when one was treated for pancreatic cancer (hail mary surgery) but the sickness was later diagnosed as a very rare type of auto immune disease, he sued for malpractice. I didn't agree with his decision - thought he was violating the values he espoused. But many will throw a lot of values overboard when it's their life in the balance.
Doctors aren't going to get rare diagnosis right every time. And that's just one case of an espoused conservative - it goes on and on. A lot of treatments are just trial and error - they worked before, so probably will work again - but sometimes do not. It's less science than we care to admit. But it is getting more quantitative and accurate as individual observables improve and databases are correlated with past history, clincial, and physiological results.
There is a lot of talk about releasing drugs early. Certainly with those with no other hope than what the drug suggests might happen. But some will be dissapointed when the drug doesn't work as planned. To re-emphasize your data - 49 failures for each success. I'm not convinced that much can be recovered in the pharma area; hope I'm wrong.
No one wants to let people go (suffer or die) when there are treatments that can help. As Ms. Indepedence mentioned, when someone is dying of cancer and fighting for their life it's even harder. But if the cost is $10M over the span of treatment, where does that money come from? And what if it's effect is to extend life for a year or two. Is it still worth it. Certainly to the loved ones. Maybe to the patient. But multiply this by millions of people. Limiting care is part of the equation when it comes to finding an "affordable" path.
It's collecting dust in committee because leadership was only concerned with what would pass easily.
Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 04:38:49 PM
Yes - very valid point that malpractice is a part of the equation. The providers need to be responsible for their screw-ups. But many suits are about when something doesn't go how the patient wanted it to then sues. It's rampant. I have friends that espouse conservative views all the time. But when one was treated for pancreatic cancer (hail mary surgery) but the sickness was later diagnosed as a very rare type of auto immune disease, he sued for malpractice. I didn't agree with his decision - thought he was violating the values he espoused. But many will throw a lot of values overboard when it's their life in the balance.
Doctors aren't going to get rare diagnosis right every time. And that's just one case of an espoused conservative - it goes on and on. A lot of treatments are just trial and error - they worked before, so probably will work again - but sometimes do not. It's less science than we care to admit. But it is getting more quantitative and accurate as individual observables improve and databases are correlated with past history, clincial, and physiological results.
From what I have read - and been involved in - a large number of malpractice suits are formed around retribution. Something bad happened, and the quest is to make them "pay." Sadly, even in those cases when there was a genuine lapse in standard of care, it is not the responsible party who pays, but rather the insurance company, whose premiums the suit settlement is paid out of is simply passed onto other patients. That is why we need torte reform. The opponents of torte reform claim it is wrong to put a price tag on life, yet that is exactly what the lawsuit does. The dead little girl who should not BE dead is worth so many millions? (most of which ends up lining the lawyers pockets...) Nope. If there was a lack of care to the point someone is actually liable for a death or extreme damage, then the laws need to be written so they are criminally liable - not just civilly liable. Then limit awards that can be gained from the civil liability based on actual damage, with severe limits put on things like "mental anguish" and other snowflake excuses.
Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 04:38:49 PM
There is a lot of talk about releasing drugs early. Certainly with those with no other hope than what the drug suggests might happen. But some will be dissapointed when the drug doesn't work as planned. To re-emphasize your data - 49 failures for each success. I'm not convinced that much can be recovered in the pharma area; hope I'm wrong.
Releasing new medications "early" is but one area that could significantly reduce the costs of development. As usual, the bureaucracy of the federal government has become more about justifying a bunch of federal administrators' salaries than it is about actually keeping the public safe. There are undoubtedly ways to revamp how FDA works which would reduce the costs of medical R&D, not only shortening the time between phase I trials and permission to market a new drug/device/protocol, but also reducing the expenses involved in each phase of trials. (One of those areas would be related to torte reform in the area of awardable damaged resulting from a trial gone bad. Where is the justice when a patient is told the possible consequences of participating in a trial, then sues and wins when the trial goes bad?) Simply put, regardless of the fact that only about 2% of new medications make it through to market, the fact that it cost an average of $820 million (in 2000, undoubtedly well over a billion now) in total R&D costs for every successful new medication is just STUPID WRONG. Considering how many of FDA's regulations are reactionary to unique events, I would wager that R&D costs could potentially be cut by 75% or more - 90% with decent torte reform thrown in.
Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 04:38:49 PM
No one wants to let people go (suffer or die) when there are treatments that can help. As Ms. Indepedence mentioned, when someone is dying of cancer and fighting for their life it's even harder. But if the cost is $10M over the span of treatment, where does that money come from? And what if it's effect is to extend life for a year or two. Is it still worth it. Certainly to the loved ones. Maybe to the patient. But multiply this by millions of people. Limiting care is part of the equation when it comes to finding an "affordable" path.
No, limiting care is not an acceptable option. But just as there are ways to feed people who cannot afford food, and housing people who cannot afford housing, there are ways of covering people who cannot afford health care.
If we get malpractice costs under control, cut R&D costs by 75% or more, it won't take $10M to treat a single cancer patient. As for what costs remain that some may not be able to afford, take it to the people. Private charities - especially faith based charities - still do most of the helping in the world.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 27, 2017, 06:49:53 PM
It's collecting dust in committee because leadership was only concerned with what would pass easily.
I think this Bill would pass easily, but because of the damage it would do in exposing just who is against killing Commiecare in the GOP, it will never see the light of day.
Odd, it's the very Bill the people are demanding, but our elected Representatives refuse to do what the people demand.
I say push it on Ryan, force him to call a vote, get these names on record that support Commiecare so come Midterms we can run the assholes out of DC once and for all!
Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 05:25:30 AM
I think this Bill would pass easily, but because of the damage it would do in exposing just who is against killing Commiecare in the GOP, it will never see the light of day.
Odd, it's the very Bill the people are demanding, but our elected Representatives refuse to do what the people demand.
I say push it on Ryan, force him to call a vote, get these names on record that support Commiecare so come Midterms we can run the assholes out of DC once and for all!
There is a report this morning that talks continue behind the scenes. This is fine as we do not need pontificating politicians racing to the nearest microphone. The conservatives have the leverage as it is pure fantasy to think the democrats will help Trump. Let's hope the next bill is not a charade like the bill Ryan proposed.
Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 05:25:30 AM
I think this Bill would pass easily, but because of the damage it would do in exposing just who is against killing Commiecare in the GOP, it will never see the light of day.
Odd, it's the very Bill the people are demanding, but our elected Representatives refuse to do what the people demand.
I say push it on Ryan, force him to call a vote, get these names on record that support Commiecare so come Midterms we can run the assholes out of DC once and for all!
Sounds like an excellent plan to me! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 05:25:30 AM
I think this Bill would pass easily, but because of the damage it would do in exposing just who is against killing Commiecare in the GOP, it will never see the light of day.
Odd, it's the very Bill the people are demanding, but our elected Representatives refuse to do what the people demand.
I say push it on Ryan, force him to call a vote, get these names on record that support Commiecare so come Midterms we can run the assholes out of DC once and for all!
You are right but the GOP still hasn't found it's testicles.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 28, 2017, 04:50:12 PM
Sounds like an excellent plan to me! :thumbsup:
:biggrin:
Something tells me that's the plan the Conservative Caucus has in mind.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 28, 2017, 06:25:15 PM
You are right but the GOP still hasn't found it's testicles.
Marxists never had any to start with.
Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 06:32:35 PM
Marxists never had any to start with.
And sadly in the congress the Freedom Caucus doesn't make a full scrotum.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 28, 2017, 06:34:36 PM
And sadly in the congress the Freedom Caucus doesn't make a full scrotum.
But we have the balls to fill it. Just don't get them excited. :wink:
Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 06:45:53 PM
But we have the balls to fill it. Just don't get them excited. :wink:
That could get messy.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 28, 2017, 06:25:15 PM
You are right but the GOP still hasn't found it's testicles.
Michelle has them yet.