Progressives tout California Health care "success"

[Doc]

Investment tends to go to arenas that are the most profitable. The best people tend to go where the best compensation is. Are you saying that we should reduce investment in the pharmacuetical industry, and discourage the best business minds from working in them?

Not to worry. Thanks to Obamacare, the best medical minds will eschew going to medical school and can go into the pharmaceutical industry.

[Jauronimo]

uh, no. take a look at their balance sheets and huge salaries. got a lot of room to cut subsidies before those are consumed. and that's before they stop advertising and paying drug reps. they make a better mousetrap, er drug, it will be prescribed and they will do just fine. can you think of any other private industry that requires this level of subsidy for r and d? letterman mentioned that he was watching the all star game and his kid kept asking about reptile dysfunction. he sorted him out by explaing that what was being advertised was a perfomance enhancing drug. wouldn't it be great if all those ads just disappeared?

I'm having trouble locating the line item "subsidies" on Pfizer's balance sheet. Can you help me locate subsidies or are you just talking out of your ass?

Edited July 18, 2013 by Jauronimo

[B-Man]

More on New York Premiums under Obamacare, Obama’s Health-Care Address Today

 

By Avik Roy

 

 

Yesterday, I pointed out some core flaws with the New York Times article on Obamacare and health insurance premiums in New York. I’ve posted my detailed analysis this morning at Forbes, for those who want to dive into the numbers and the sordid tale of how Mario Cuomo wrecked New York’s individual health insurance market in 1992.

 

Today, at 11:30 a.m., President Obama is to give a formal health-care address, in which he touts another feature of the law — its limits on medical-loss ratios — as a mechanism by which Obamacare will save you money. But the opposite is true. By effectively defining what insurers’ operating margins must be, and turning them into utilities, the health law will create private insurance monopolies and drive premiums upward. I explain it all in this article, but instead of reading that, just watch this brilliant YouTube video that describes it better than I ever could:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PPAtuv6-_w&feature=player_embedded

—Avik Roy is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute

 

 

 

 

President Acknowledges Obamacare ‘Glitches’

 

President Obama conceded problems with the Affordable Care Act’s implementation, which he referred to as “glitches,” and blamed their existence on the size of the country and health-care industry.

 

 

 

 

Fact-Checking Obama’s Health-Care Speech

 

By Grace-Marie Turner

 

The fact-checkers are likely to run out of Pinocchios after President Obama’s speech today at the White House touting Obamacare.

[B-Large]

Investment tends to go to arenas that are the most profitable. The best people tend to go where the best compensation is. Are you saying that we should reduce investment in the pharmacuetical industry, and discourage the best business minds from working in them?

 

Additionally, why do you think it's a good idea to take the marketing of drugs away from those who consume them? The patient shouldn't have any input as to what he wants to put into his own body? He shouldn't know about those products?

 

that's fine they are profitable, for one blockbuster Lipitor there are thousands of write down dogs. The question on my mind is why do we, US citizens, have to be the ones making up for the steep price differentials that Drug Compaines sell to other countries? Why can't we buy the same drug online over the internet from England, Sweden,, Canada? Why can't Medicare, a volume buyer, negotiate for steep price discounts?

[DC Tom]

uh, no. take a look at their balance sheets and huge salaries. got a lot of room to cut subsidies before those are consumed. and that's before they stop advertising and paying drug reps. they make a better mousetrap, er drug, it will be prescribed and they will do just fine. can you think of any other private industry that requires this level of subsidy for r and d? letterman mentioned that he was watching the all star game and his kid kept asking about reptile dysfunction. he sorted him out by explaing that what was being advertised was a perfomance enhancing drug. wouldn't it be great if all those ads just disappeared?

 

Let's start with the car industry, then aerospace...

 

Plus, what are these "subsidies" you speak of? You mean "profits?"

[Jauronimo]

Ed Morrissey: The Great Obamacare Workforce Exodus.

 

 

.

 

I thought this part was pretty interesting

 

Congress based the Affordable Care Act reform in 2010 on a model that made a couple of key assumptions about employment. The White House projected rosy growth that would lead to job creation; and this rapid expansion would take place prior to Obamacare’s implementation, reducing the temporary costs of safety-net programs, including Medicaid.....Neither of these assumptions has panned out for President Obama and his health care plan, and a new study suggests that the latter will make it worse.

 

Do you think passing a law which increases the costs of employing individuals and introduces incredible amounts of uncertainty into the operating environment could have had adverse effects on economic growth effectively shackling the mechanism by which it will be funded???? No, ****.

 

It sounds more and more like the financial model used to justify Obamacare held all other things equal and failed to consider any of the consequences of the passage of the legislation itself.

[birdog1960]

Let's start with the car industry, then aerospace...

 

Plus, what are these "subsidies" you speak of? You mean "profits?"

subsidies, meaning not using enormous (possibly the worlds largest) volume purchases to obtain discounts for buyers. like the VA does. like medicaid does. like nearly every other country on the planet does. these guys can make it on their own. where's that liberterian spirit now?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Actually, Medicare/Medicare is the single largest price-fixing racket in the world; disallowing good to normalize to markets over time, and drive prices down.

[jjamie12]

so what happens if we stop? ya think big pharma folds it's tents and goes home?

 

Can we at least agree that, at a minimum, that this would provide less incentive to create new drugs?

 

Further, can we both agree that, by definition, this will mean that we'll get less innovation because of it?

 

Right?

[DC Tom]

subsidies, meaning not using enormous (possibly the worlds largest) volume purchases to obtain discounts for buyers. like the VA does. like medicaid does. like nearly every other country on the planet does. these guys can make it on their own. where's that liberterian spirit now?

 

I can't even imagine a dumber definition of "subsidy" than that. Bulk purchases of limited formularies by government entities at legislatively mandated discounts and rebates are a subsidiy?

[birdog1960]

I can't even imagine a dumber definition of "subsidy" than that. Bulk purchases of limited formularies by government entities at legislatively mandated discounts and rebates are a subsidiy?

the drug bill passed during the bush administration specifically disallowed medicare from negotiating en masse for drug prices. look it up. i'll make it easy: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/sep/04/tammy-baldwin/uncle-sam-barred-bargaining-medicare-drug-prices-s/ here's that bleeding heart liberal, bruce bartlett commenting on that bill: http://www.forbes.co...e-bartlett.html). that's a subsidy. and big pharma is still saying "thanks george! you know your people when you see em".

 

Can we at least agree that, at a minimum, that this would provide less incentive to create new drugs?

 

Further, can we both agree that, by definition, this will mean that we'll get less innovation because of it?

 

Right?

can we agree that the scientists that make the discoveries and enable the development of new wonder drugs rarely make the big bucks (see the thread on science majors for unsolicited opinions)? can we agree that they almost always give up rights to intellectual property when they sign on (as they do at govt orgs and universities)? can we agree that it would be possible to give them the same or better incentives at the nih of nsf to do the same work but focused on the development of drugs/ devices/procedures that are generally agreed to likely be cost effective and beneficial to society rather than patent extenders or me too's? i suppose we'll agree to disagree. Edited July 19, 2013 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

the drug bill passed during the bush administration specifically disallowed medicare from negotiating en masse for drug prices. look it up. i'll make it easy: http://www.politifac...-drug-prices-s/ here's that bleeding heart liberal, bruce bartlett commenting on that bill: http://www.forbes.co...e-bartlett.html). that's a subsidy. and big pharma is still saying "thanks george! you know your people when you see em".

 

can we agree that the scientists that make the discoveries and enable the development of new wonder drugs rarely make the big bucks (see the thread on science majors for unsolicited opinions)? can we agree that they almost always give up rights to intellectual property when they sign on (as they do at govt orgs and universities)? can we agree that it would be possible to give them the same or better incentives at the nih of nsf to do the same work but focused on the development of drugs/ devices/procedures that are generally agreed to likely be cost effective and beneficial to society rather than patent extenders or me too's? i suppose we'll agree to disagree.

So you've determined that inventors and cutting edge scientits are also good business people? Further you've determined that good business people aren't central to supply, marketing, and distribution?

[jjamie12]

the drug bill passed during the bush administration specifically disallowed medicare from negotiating en masse for drug prices. look it up. (here's that bleeding heart liberal, bruce bartlett commenting on that bill: http://www.forbes.co...e-bartlett.html) that's a subsidy. and big pharma is still saying "thanks george! you know your people when you see em".

 

can we agree that the scientists that make the discoveries and enable the development of new wonder drugs rarely make the big bucks (see the thread on science majors for unsolicited opinions)? can we agree that they almost always give up rights to intellectual property when they sign on (as they do at govt orgs and universities)? can we agree that it would be possible to give them the same or better incentives at the nih of nsf to do the same work but focused on the development of drugs/ devices/procedures that are generally agreed to likely be cost effective and beneficial to society rather than patent extenders or me too's? i suppose we'll agree to disagree.

 

Yes. Everything you said is, theoretically, possible. Great job.

 

I tried. I really did. I'll stop now.

 

So you've determined that inventors and cutting edge scientits are also good business people? Further you've determined that good business people aren't central to supply, marketing, and distribution?

Nope. None of that matters. Profit-driven medicine is evil and nothing good ever came of it. Furthermore, we can (and should!) completely take away the profit motive and employ some scientists in government and NOTHING will be different! We'll get the same amount of innovation, it will just cost less! AND the scientists will be the ones with the cool cars! Won't it be great?

Edited July 19, 2013 by jjamie12

[birdog1960]

So you've determined that inventors and cutting edge scientits are also good business people? Further you've determined that good business people aren't central to supply, marketing, and distribution?

don't know about scientits but scientists needn't be (that scientist, freud, would have a field day). fact is that many aren't. francis collins of the nih actually recently proposed a hybrid model where the nih engages in the discovery and industry finishes the development of drugs. seems perfectly logical and very likely effective. but then who would develop the me too's and patent extenders? unsurprisingly, that idea hasn't gone far. Edited July 19, 2013 by birdog1960

[birdog1960]

Yes. Everything you said is, theoretically, possible. Great job.

 

I tried. I really did. I'll stop now.

 

 

Furthermore, we can (and should!) completely take away the profit motive and employ some scientists in government and NOTHING will be different! We'll get the same amount of innovation, it will just cost less! AND the scientists will be the ones with the cool cars! Won't it be great?

yeah, never happened before...http://www.atomicheritage.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_Scientists_behind_the_Manhattan_Project. why would it work now?

[B-Man]

FACT CHECK: Obama spins health insurance rebates

By CALVIN WOODWARD

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Another year, another round of exaggeration from President Barack Obama and his administration about health insurance rebates.

 

In his speech defending his health care law Thursday, Obama said rebates averaging $100 are coming from insurance companies to 8.5 million Americans. In fact, most of the money is going straight to employers who provide health insurance, not to their workers, who benefit indirectly.

 

Obama danced around that reality in remarks that also blamed problems in establishing affordable insurance markets on political opponents, glossing over complex obstacles also faced in states that support the law.

 

A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts:

 

-"Last year, millions of Americans opened letters from their insurance companies. But instead of the usual dread that comes from getting a bill, they were pleasantly surprised with a check. In 2012, 13 million rebates went out, in all 50 states. Another 8.5 (million) rebates are being sent out this summer, averaging around 100 bucks each."

 

- After introducing several people who got rebate checks last year: "And this is happening all across the country. And it's happening because of the Affordable Care Act. Hasn't been reported on a lot. I bet if you took a poll, most folks wouldn't know when that check comes in that this was because of Obamacare that they got this extra money in their pockets. But that's what's happening."

 

-" If they're (insurers) not spending your premium dollars on your health care - at least 80 percent of it - they've got to give you some money back."

 

THE FACTS: Just as he did a year ago, Obama made a splashy announcement about rebates that incorporates misleading advertising.

The health care law requires insurance companies that spend too much on administrative expenses to issue rebates to customers. But those customers are often employers that in turn offer insurance to workers and bear the bulk of the costs. In workplace plans, the rebate goes to the employer, which must use it for the company health plan but does not have to pass all or part of it on to the worker. People who buy their own insurance and qualify for a rebate get it directly.

 

http://hosted.ap.org...-07-19-04-00-11

 

 

 

 

.

Edited July 19, 2013 by B-Man

[TakeYouToTasker]

don't know about scientits but scientists needn't be (that scientist, freud, would have a field day). fact is that many aren't. francis collins of the nih actually recently proposed a hybrid model where the nih engages in the discovery and industry finishes the development of drugs. seems perfectly logical and very likely effective. but then who would develop the me too's and patent extenders? unsurprisingly, that idea hasn't gone far.

Explain why it's logical, and how it's effective. Then explain logical and effective relative to, and pertaining to, what.

[Nanker]

What? I won't be able to keep my doctor like you promised? But, but, but... you Promised!

Say it ain't so, Joe!

[IDBillzFan]

http://hosted.ap.org...-07-19-04-00-11

 

My company got a credit to our account for $134.40 last month. To a policy that will pay over $72,000 this year for coverage on five employees and their families. The employees got nothing.

 

Now, to be fair, $134.40 may not seem like a lot, but we're using it to expand our operations by paying cash for the city of Detroit.

[B-Man]

HHS Admits: You Might Not Be Able to Keep Your Doctor Under Obamacare

 

Flashback: "If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor," Obama said.

 

As Obamacare was being pushed through Congress in 2010, the Obama administration and its allies were unequivocal in two claims: If you like your doctor and you like your current health care plan, you can keep them both. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius and then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi backed the president fully in this regard. The White House even went so far as to post a "Health Insurance Reform Reality Check" on its website, where "Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform debunks the myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors." President Obama upped the ante, putting the promise in the form of a "guarantee":

 

 

THE PRESIDENT:

Here is a guarantee that I've made.

If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor.

 

Nobody is trying to change what works in the system. We are trying to change what doesn't work in the system.

 

While there has been sniping back and forth between the administration and its detractors about the real-world application and implementation of Obamacare, the new Healthcare.gov website has taken some of the mystery out of the controversy. And President Obama and his administration do not fare well in this latest "reality check." Among the questions that HHS recently added to the website: "Can I keep my own doctor?":

 

.