It is the small things that start to get to you.  I have taken thyroid medicine for over 20 years now.   Because I take a generic, Levothyroxine,  I was getting my prescription for $3.99 at the pharmacy.  I am now being charged $10 a month which is my co-pay for generic drugs..

According to Drug Price Search, currently, a 30-day supply of Tirosint 100 mcg now costs approximately $75. Synthroid costs approximately $34, and generic levothyroxine costs approximately $12.

http://thyroid.about.com/b/2013/08/06/the-wild-west-of-thyroid-drugs-forests-levothroid-discontinued-levoxyl-recall-continues-synthroid-and-tirosint-prices-rise.htm

I have found a way around this by ordering on-line with a 90 day prescription.  As long as my levels stay the same I am ok but since my thyroid levels are a moving target sometimes I could end up with several different doses each costing me $20 for 90 days.  I also find it interesting that this all happened January 1st.

Toy

Quote from: walkstall on February 17, 2014, 05:57:17 PM

Shaboom

Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 05:06:35 PM
The exchanges are after the fact. The need for Obamacre was sold to us as protection from doctors that do unnecessary procedures for profit, health insurance companies that do not cover certain procedures and medicines and people to maximize products and pharmaceutical companies that make certain medicine too expensive for many people to buy to maximize profits.

The 'Need' for Obamacare, or more appropriately health care reform, was that our old medical system was broken. yes, I get called a RINO on this particular issue all the time, but bear with me for a moment.

It would be difficult for any sane person to argue that our old medical system was working, when we were producing some of the worst health care outcomes of any first world state, and yet spending more money per capita on health care than all these better-producing states. And we had people literally dying because of lack of health care. Our system was broken and desperately needed to be fixed.

However, while I can reluctantly credit the democrats for genuinely trying to fix a problem that needed to be fixed, I am amazed (and yet nor surprised) by their ability to take a bad situation and make it worse. Obamacare solved few to none of the serious problems of the old system, and adds a whole bunch of new problems on top of them. I was thrilled when a serious health-care reform plan was announced, and horrified with the burocratic drivel we ended up with.

Obamacare is a catastrophe, but lets not kid ourselves: we cant go back to the way things were which was also pretty weak. The US needs proper, sane health care reform.

Quote from: Gaunt on February 18, 2014, 02:12:36 AM
The 'Need' for Obamacare, or more appropriately health care reform, was that our old medical system was broken. yes, I get called a RINO on this particular issue all the time, but bear with me for a moment.

It was not "broken".

Quote
It would be difficult for any sane person to argue that our old medical system was working, when we were producing some of the worst health care outcomes of any first world state, and yet spending more money per capita on health care than all these better-producing states. And we had people literally dying because of lack of health care. Our system was broken and desperately needed to be fixed.

Incorrect.  We have the best medical system on the planet. It had too much government, but that is an easy fix with conservatives in office.

Quote
However, while I can reluctantly credit the democrats for genuinely trying to fix a problem that needed to be fixed,

What problem?  You don't solve a problem of a system that has too much government with more government.  Please elaborate on your logic.

Quote
I am amazed (and yet nor surprised) by their ability to take a bad situation and make it worse. Obamacare solved few to none of the serious problems of the old system, and adds a whole bunch of new problems on top of them. I was thrilled when a serious health-care reform plan was announced, and horrified with the burocratic drivel we ended up with.

What health care plan were you thrilled about?  And at what point did you think this whole thing was about health care?

Quote
Obamacare is a catastrophe, but lets not kid ourselves: we cant go back to the way things were which was also pretty weak. The US needs proper, sane health care reform.

Wrong.  We need to go back to our old system, at the least, and reduce government to bring about a system that is consumer-centric.

Quote from: Gaunt on February 18, 2014, 02:12:36 AM
The 'Need' for Obamacare, or more appropriately health care reform, was that our old medical system was broken. yes, I get called a RINO on this particular issue all the time, but bear with me for a moment.

It wasn't broken. Over 277 million had coverage. Anyone can go to the ER and be treated. Yes there were problems but the majority of those problems were caused by the government.

QuoteIt would be difficult for any sane person to argue that our old medical system was working, when we were producing some of the worst health care outcomes of any first world state, and yet spending more money per capita on health care than all these better-producing states. And we had people literally dying because of lack of health care. Our system was broken and desperately needed to be fixed.

See above

QuoteHowever, while I can reluctantly credit the democrats for genuinely trying to fix a problem that needed to be fixed, I am amazed (and yet nor surprised) by their ability to take a bad situation and make it worse. Obamacare solved few to none of the serious problems of the old system, and adds a whole bunch of new problems on top of them. I was thrilled when a serious health-care reform plan was announced, and horrified with the burocratic drivel we ended up with.

Nothing in the ACA address any of the problems with our old system aside from preexisting conditions.

QuoteObamacare is a catastrophe, but lets not kid ourselves: we cant go back to the way things were which was also pretty weak. The US needs proper, sane health care reform.

Really? More people had coverage and access to healthcare before Obamacare

Quote from: Mountainshield on February 17, 2014, 12:34:24 AM
Know I have stated this many times on this forum, but since UN ranks Norway at the top in healthcare and US liberals view Norway as a model I will state it again.

To use some anecdotal examples from my own family, my grandfather waited 6 months before cancer treatment could start due to long waiting lines, and he had to wait 2 years before the hospital committee decided to give the specific medicine needed only to be then dissaproved by the hospital manager and by then it was already too late even if he had approved it, my grandfather was dead. My mother now is waiting treatment because she is sick, the problem is that the committee on this area only meets once every other month to approve or disapprove people for check/treatment, so we don't know what she has and by the time we do know it might already be too late. You can get normal appointment with doctor in 2-5 days, but getting the real scans or general diagnosis can take months because the doctors too need to deal with bureaucracy to get approval for anything.

But to give some facts about Norway "great" single payer system

In 1965 there were one doctor for 940 people, in 2000 there were one doctor for 295 people. Yet the number of patients that has waited above 6 months for treatment was in 1995 over 95000 patients and in 2010 it had risen to over 260,000 patients. This is despite the expenditures of Norwegian healthcare cost has quadrupled in the last 30 years, and was in 2003 10% of total GNP.

Adjusted for inflation the price for each person in the healthcare system has increased by 70% in the last 30 years and to top it off the National Health Care patient bed capacity has decreased 67% in the last 25 years from 21000 to 14200 capacity.

But like they said on National Workers Party TV Channel (a service you are obligated to pay $450 annal tax for) last night, the healthcare is as much mine as it is yours, wellfare is security and Norway has the best system of health in the world. Thank you Goebbels 

Wow!!

Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 18, 2014, 04:00:30 PM
It wasn't broken. Over 277 million had coverage. Anyone can go to the ER and be treated. Yes there were problems but the majority of those problems were caused by the government.

yes, 277 million had some form of coverage, in many cases coverage which failed to actually cover critical, chronic or expensive health concerns. Thats why such a high percentage of US bankrupcies were health care related. And even regardless of that, 277 is not 320 million.

Your second point is EXACTLY the problem.

Yes, anyone can go to the ER and get treated, though only for emergent conditions (good luck getting chemo from the ER).

But then, what happens when those people go to the ER for emergent conditions? They go bankrupt and the TAXPAYER pays for their health care.

Quote
Nothing in the ACA address any of the problems with our old system aside from preexisting conditions.

Really? More people had coverage and access to healthcare before Obamacare

Agreed completely. perhaps you missed the point where I said Obamacare is a catastrophe that does not fix any of the old problems (save, as you said, pre-existing conditions), while creating a host of new problems.

Nothing in my post could in any way be construed as a defence of the abominable ACA, just pointing out that our old status quo was seriously lacking as well.

Quote from: taxed on February 18, 2014, 11:20:21 AM
It was not "broken".

perhaps 'broken' was overstating it, but sub-optimal for sure.

QuoteIncorrect.  We have the best medical system on the planet.

Did we? Thats not backed by any data I have ever seen.
We have the best top hospitals in the world, very true. But 99.99% of Americans dont go to Johns Hopkins of Chicago general.

Our average level of care as measured by health care outcomes was below a number of our first world peers, and thats only for those people who were insured.

We are America, we can do better than that.

Sadly, what was got was the ACA, which took most of the problems that existed and either didnt solve them or made them worse. Way to Go Obama.

Quote
What problem?  You don't solve a problem of a system that has too much government with more government.  Please elaborate on your logic.

I think 'too much government' is a bit of a simplistic summary of the existing problems. yes, overregulation was part of it, but our mal[practice system is broken, and the fact that the poor use ERs as general clinics at the taxpayer's expense was a huge problem.

QuoteWhat health care plan were you thrilled about?  And at what point did you think this whole thing was about health care?
Wrong.  We need to go back to our old system, at the least, and reduce government to bring about a system that is consumer-centric.

You mistake me. I was never thrilled about any proposed plan. I was (briefly and naively) thrilled that someone was trying to fix American health care. sadly the cure turned out to be far worse than the problems.

Quote from: Mountainshield on February 17, 2014, 12:34:24 AM
Know I have stated this many times on this forum, but since UN ranks Norway at the top in healthcare and US liberals view Norway as a model I will state it again.

I dont know Norway: never been though I would like to.

My model of choice would likely be Germany (where I actually am, at this moment).
-Germany has better average health care outcomes for almost all medical services than the United States,
-Germany spends significantly less per capita on health care than the United States,
-wait times for procedures and to see specialists in Germany are on average less than in the United States.

Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 03:24:59 AM
yes, 277 million had some form of coverage, in many cases coverage which failed to actually cover critical, chronic or expensive health concerns. Thats why such a high percentage of US bankrupcies were health care related. And even regardless of that, 277 is not 320 million.

Your second point is EXACTLY the problem.

Yes, anyone can go to the ER and get treated, though only for emergent conditions (good luck getting chemo from the ER).

But then, what happens when those people go to the ER for emergent conditions? They go bankrupt and the TAXPAYER pays for their health care.


Agreed completely. perhaps you missed the point where I said Obamacare is a catastrophe that does not fix any of the old problems (save, as you said, pre-existing conditions), while creating a host of new problems.

Nothing in my post could in any way be construed as a defence of the abominable ACA, just pointing out that our old status quo was seriously lacking as well.

"yes, 277 million had some form of coverage, in many cases coverage which failed to actually cover critical, chronic or expensive health concerns. Thats why such a high percentage of US bankrupcies were health care related. And even regardless of that, 277 is not 320 million."

The great majority of these people had the coverage that fit their needs and what they could afford. Their choice. As a country there is no obligation to provide coverage some politician/bureaucrat feels is what best for the masses. The current system is market driven and, while there are opportunities for improvement, the marketplace will adjust to situations like over use of the ER's.

Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 03:24:59 AM
yes, 277 million had some form of coverage, in many cases coverage which failed to actually cover critical, chronic or expensive health concerns. Thats why such a high percentage of US bankrupcies were health care related. And even regardless of that, 277 is not 320 million.

Your second point is EXACTLY the problem.

Yes, anyone can go to the ER and get treated, though only for emergent conditions (good luck getting chemo from the ER).

But then, what happens when those people go to the ER for emergent conditions? They go bankrupt and the TAXPAYER pays for their health care.


Agreed completely. perhaps you missed the point where I said Obamacare is a catastrophe that does not fix any of the old problems (save, as you said, pre-existing conditions), while creating a host of new problems.

Nothing in my post could in any way be construed as a defence of the abominable ACA, just pointing out that our old status quo was seriously lacking as well.

If you understood the system as it was designed you would see that it worked fine and it wasn't until the government got involved that problems began to arise.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 10:57:36 AM
If you understood the system as it was designed you would see that it worked fine and it wasn't until the government got involved that problems began to arise.

One thing I didn't like about the old system was health insurance being tied to my job. Because I'm a mechanic my medical procedure might be 2000, but the plumber down the street might only be charged 1500 for the same exact procedure.

How would you feel about having the state exchanges (with more options) available to everyone, but zero government subsidies for the poor. Basically separating the cost of my medical treatment from my employment. I always felt they should be unrelated.

The portion that my employer pays will be available to me to apply to any plan of my choosing on the exchange.

Quote from: lindcamp on February 19, 2014, 11:13:17 AM
One thing I didn't like about the old system was health insurance being tied to my job. Because I'm a mechanic my medical procedure might be 2000, but the plumber down the street might only be charged 1500 for the same exact procedure.

How would you feel about having the state exchanges (with more options) available to everyone, but zero government subsidies for the poor. Basically separating the cost of my medical treatment from my employment. I always felt they should be unrelated.

The portion that my employer pays will be available to me to apply to any plan of my choosing on the exchange.

It wasn't designed that way. That was started by employers to attract quality employees and became permanent in the 50's thanks to the auto union.

Quote from: lindcamp on February 19, 2014, 11:13:17 AM
One thing I didn't like about the old system was health insurance being tied to my job. Because I'm a mechanic my medical procedure might be 2000, but the plumber down the street might only be charged 1500 for the same exact procedure.

How would you feel about having the state exchanges (with more options) available to everyone, but zero government subsidies for the poor. Basically separating the cost of my medical treatment from my employment. I always felt they should be unrelated.

The portion that my employer pays will be available to me to apply to any plan of my choosing on the exchange.

"Because I'm a mechanic my medical procedure might be 2000, but the plumber down the street might only be charged 1500 for the same exact procedure. "

Please explain what you mean by the above quote. Are you suggesting that providers charge different amounts for the same procedure based on their occupation? If that is so, what is your proof source?