3rdnlng Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47745646/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/ "After weeks of talks, drug industry lobbyists were growing nervous. To cut a deal with the White House on overhauling health care, they needed to be sure that President Obama would stop a proposal intended to bring down medicine prices." "The e-mail exchange three years ago was among a cache of messages obtained from the industry and released in recent weeks by House Republicans — including a new batch put out Friday detailing the industry’s advertising campaign supporting Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul. The broad contours of his dealings with the industry were known in 2009, but the newly public e-mails open a window into the compromises underlying a health care law now awaiting the judgment of the Supreme Court. Mr. Obama’s deal-making in 2009 represented a pivotal moment in his young presidency, a juncture where the heady idealism of the campaign trail collided with the messy reality of Washington policy making. A president who had promised to negotiate on C-Span cut a closed-door deal with a powerful lobby, signifying to disillusioned liberal supporters a loss of innocence, or perhaps even the triumph of cynicism. Tax cut ahead if high court voids health care law But the bargain was one that the president deemed necessary to forestall industry opposition that had thwarted efforts to cover the uninsured for generations. Without the deal, in which the industry agreed to provide $80 billion to expand coverage in exchange for protection from policies that would cost more, Mr. Obama calculated he might get nowhere." Edited June 9, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 A president who had promised to negotiate on C-Span cut a closed-door deal with a powerful lobby, signifying to disillusioned liberal supporters a loss of innocence, or perhaps even the triumph of cynicism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Can you blame Obama for making an 80 billion dollar deal with big pharm to artificially keep drug prices higher so that he could save us from the increased cost of healthcare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I guess I'm ambivalent.... For decades the Pharma lobby has insured we pay high prices here domestically, while other customers in world pay much less... Part D was a gift to the Drug makers.... Why would that change now with Barry and his cronies? I have always been and continue to be a supporter of the ACA.... But when our Federal government, the single largest purchaser of meds can't negotiate, you know we're gonna be bent over the barrel... At this point I'll take legally enforceable right to buy some coverage over exclusion from existing condition.... Can you blame Obama for making an 80 billion dollar deal with big pharm to artificially keep drug prices higher so that he could save us from the increased cost of healthcare? But people are against price controls and the government being in power to negotiate drug prices, or intervene in the Heath system.... Also many drugs have patent protection so a competitor can't copy and make generics..... The drug maker has all the control.... Which is good since they developed the product, bad because for 10 years they charge what they want.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Old news? Obama compromised to get the bill he believes in (right or wrong)....how terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Barry cut deals with Big Pharma and the hospitals, told the AARP and AMA to endorse Obamacare or lose their Medigap policies or CPT monopoly respectively, and did nothing to address tort reform, to appease Barry's co-horts. Which is why Obamacare won't do a thing about health care costs and will bankrupt the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Ugh Doc...get your tort reform out of here. If someone doesn't wake up one day b/c you are negligent for God's sake don't look to some statute to put low price on their life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Ugh Doc...get your tort reform out of here. If someone doesn't wake up one day b/c you are negligent for God's sake don't look to some statute to put low price on their life. I think tort reform can stay here: http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news/2012/may/31/family-awarded-3-million-in-mans-sex-death/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 LOL the legal system isn't perfect so let's start capping everything by statute. A bad verdict? Some bad lawsuits the judge didn't have the wisdom the throw out? Let's just be unfair to everybody and solve the problem. And lets distort the facts on the overall cost argument to make it seem like people should support this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Old news? Obama compromised to get the bill he believes in (right or wrong)....how terrible. Actually, he compromised to get the bill he could pass. I doubt he believed in this piece of **** legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Actually, he compromised to get the bill he could pass. I doubt he believed in this piece of **** legislation. He stated in the past that it would be a couple of decades to get to universal government controlled healthcare. He's trying to implement it by starting the snowball rolling down the hill. If the SCOTUS or new legislature can't or won't get rid of this schit, we'll be saddled with a European or Canadian healthcare system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Tort reform. The ACA. Let's all just believe the machine on every issue. Edited June 13, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Ugh Doc...get your tort reform out of here. If someone doesn't wake up one day b/c you are negligent for God's sake don't look to some statute to put low price on their life. Sorry, no. Tort reform needs to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Sorry, no. Tort reform needs to happen. Well agree to disagree. The facts are grossly distorted. Obviously the simple phrase "tort reform" is meaningless and there may in fact be laws in some states that could use a second look...but the "tort reform movement" as it is...is nothing short of evil....use enough money and misinformation to take people's rights away and they'll thank you for it. Edited June 13, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Well agree to disagree. The facts are grossly distorted. Obviously the simple phrase "tort reform" is meaningless and there may in fact be laws in some states that could use a second look...but the "tort reform movement" as it is...is nothing short of evil....use enough money and misinformation to take people's rights away and they'll thank you for it. You don't know what you are talking about. Doctors are practicing "defensive medicine". The John Edwards of this world have contributed to that. I've personally been involved with this and although innocent, realize that maybe I shouldn't have been given $15,000 worth of tests for a f'n, warped contact. I know, you'll say that's anectdotel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) I'm sorry you are in such a hurry to marginalize the civil justice system in the name of lobbying forces who have misled you 3rdling. Edited June 13, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 I'm sorry you are in such a hurry to marginalize the civil justice system in the name of lobbying forces who have misled you 3rdling. That's just idiotic. Consider this, do you really want to be characterized as MDP's twin? That's how you are acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 That's just idiotic. Consider this, do you really want to be characterized as MDP's twin? That's how you are acting. On this issue I'm fairly passionate so sure. MDP me on tort reform. Hell I would just encourage you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions and I'm sure you wouldn't have it any other way. There is a fairly well received documentary that I can link you to if you would like to spend 90 minutes and hear one side of the argument through that and then do whatever additional research on your own you want to affirm or refine your own opinion. I would have to PM it to you though so you can PM if you want the link....it's not some come-to-jesus fight propaganda w/ propaganda video but it is admittedly anti-tort reform...in either event for 99% of people it's worth watching. You or anybody else that wants it can PM I'll paste the link and you catch it, bash it, find some parts reasonable others unreasonable...ignore it...it's just a movie...you can do whatever you want with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 On this issue I'm fairly passionate so sure. MDP me on tort reform. OK, the awards given are ridiculous but not anywhere approaching the amount of money spent by doctors practicinf defensive medicine. The multi-million dollar awards make the headlines, but the $20,000 tests that are hiden under the radar and are bs still need to be paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 On this issue I'm fairly passionate so sure. MDP me on tort reform. Hell I would just encourage you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions and I'm sure you wouldn't have it any other way. There is a fairly well received documentary that I can link you to if you would like to spend 90 minutes and hear one side of the argument through that and then do whatever additional research on your own you want to affirm or refine your own opinion. I would have to PM it to you though so you can PM if you want the link....it's not some come-to-jesus fight propaganda w/ propaganda video but it is admittedly anti-tort reform...in either event for 99% of people it's worth watching. You or anybody else that wants it can PM I'll paste the link and you catch it, bash it, find some parts reasonable others unreasonable...ignore it...it's just a movie...you can do whatever you want with it. And fairly ignorant, I suspect. But after an hour of looking...it seems everyone is. I can't find a single reliable calculation of the cost of defensive medicine/malpractice/civil restitution. Best I found is http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/3/3/128.full.pdf, which basically does nothing more than say "We don't know, but it's a really complex issue." But as for actual numbers...I found a study based on surveys of orthopedists that says about 30% of the costs of orthopedic medicine is directly related to defensive medicine, without considering anything else; and another study (much dumber - more of a pamphlet) that shows that malpractice insurance costs less than 1% of all health care costs. I'm pretty sure both those numbers are bull **** (particularly the second, which is just facile). Still...there's the range of costs you two are arguing in. Have at it. (And I should add: one interesting thing I found is that many of the "it's no big deal, it doesn't cost that much" sources add "...but it's still a !@#$ed-up system that needs to be reform.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts