B-Man Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 When everything is a catastrophe to media and dems, nothing is. Healthcare hysterics are largely being ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 I call it bribery ( I have first hand knowledge) You're looking at the micro sample effect of a macro issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 It's not to push generics, just saying. I'm not against lower drug prices for the 3rd world countries by any means. Equating the industry with the hackneyed stereotype of the mustache-twirling villain is not the way to identify the reasons for the high cost of pharmaceuticals. Sorry to jump in the middle of a good discussion. But I'm surprised no one has ever advocated for a single payer system just for Americans under the age of 18, at least not that I've seen. Can any legislator in good conscience oppose that? I think it's a dystopian horror that parents have to create Go Fund Me's for their sick kids. I can understand personal responsibility at a certain age but it blows my mind kids that need chemo need to do all these fundraisers. Surely we could at least afford health care for every child in America. Is this naive? I honestly don't know. The defense budget is pretty huge, I'll bet we could give every child free health care just from that pool. That sounds like one of those too simple to be true solutions and I'm admittedly not too educated on the finances involved. I would imagine that children are covered on their parents' plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 I call it bribery ( I have first hand knowledge) I also have first hand knowledge, and given that, I assume you feel that all sales and marketing directed at end suppliers is bribery, given the logical extensions of your position. Which is absurd. Yet, it's even more absurd that you feel this is worth discussing as a major driver of pharma costs when compared to our subsidization of costs for the rest of the world. Let me say this as directly as possible: The reason all of Europe and the rest of the socialized West is able to artificially keep the costs of their drugs down is because the US subsidizes those costs. It's not a replicatable model, and if we do as GG suggests (and I happen to agree), drug companies will be forced to raise their costs with other developed nations, which will break their already strained (and in several cases already failing) models. Sorry to jump in the middle of a good discussion. But I'm surprised no one has ever advocated for a single payer system just for Americans under the age of 18, at least not that I've seen. Can any legislator in good conscience oppose that? I think it's a dystopian horror that parents have to create Go Fund Me's for their sick kids. I can understand personal responsibility at a certain age but it blows my mind kids that need chemo need to do all these fundraisers. Surely we could at least afford health care for every child in America. Is this naive? I honestly don't know. The defense budget is pretty huge, I'll bet we could give every child free health care just from that pool. That sounds like one of those too simple to be true solutions and I'm admittedly not too educated on the finances involved. If you pull the demographics most likely to be healthy out of the risk pool, you drive up costs for those on the other end of the spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 (edited) house plan getting absolutely scorched in national dialog. rightly so, its an utter piece of crap not to say that the popular opinion is always the right one, but don might have miscalculated by pushing through a known cartoon strip of a plan just to get it to the senate. now the entire thing starts from scratch, which is a monster undertaking. if the senate fails then don is right back where he started, except that now most of the country is pissed at him not just the right wingers a real solution needs to be bipartisan. he might regret starting that process before it even got to the senate. we'll see Edited May 5, 2017 by Meathead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 house plan getting absolutely scorched in national dialog. rightly so, its an utter piece of crap not to say that the popular opinion is always the right one, but don might have miscalculated by pushing through a known cartoon strip of a plan just to get it to the senate. now the entire thing starts from scratch, which is a monster undertaking. if the senate fails then don is right back where he started, except that now most of the country is pissed at him not just the right wingers a real solution needs to be bipartisan. he might regret starting that process before it even got to the senate. we'll see By national "dialog" [sic], I assume you mean elected Democrats and main stream media outlets who are their mouth piece. You partisan hack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 a real solution needs to be bipartisan. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... <breath> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 If you pull the demographics most likely to be healthy out of the risk pool, you drive up costs for those on the other end of the spectrum. Is this supposed to convince me that sick children should suffer if their parents' health insurance doesn't cover their illness? I don't think there should be any co-pays or any money at all coming from the families of these children. I think their care should be a universal coverage system. Unless I'm way off that's not how the current system works, or else there wouldn't be charity events "Help Timmy afford his liver transplant" which is absolutely an everyday occurrence in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 house plan getting absolutely scorched in national dialog. rightly so, its an utter piece of crap not to say that the popular opinion is always the right one, but don might have miscalculated by pushing through a known cartoon strip of a plan just to get it to the senate. now the entire thing starts from scratch, which is a monster undertaking. if the senate fails then don is right back where he started, except that now most of the country is pissed at him not just the right wingers a real solution needs to be bipartisan. he might regret starting that process before it even got to the senate. we'll see Even if Senate passes the bill it has to go back to the House and it will be somewhat closer to election time so they're going to have to do a good job of selling the bill. Bipartisanship died in 2010 with the rise of the Tea Party. Now it looks like the left will go the progressive route of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren so good luck with congress working across the aisle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Even if Senate passes the bill it has to go back to the House and it will be somewhat closer to election time so they're going to have to do a good job of selling the bill. Bipartisanship died in 2010 with the rise of the Tea Party. Now it looks like the left will go the progressive route of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren so good luck with congress working across the aisle. 2010, really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 2010, really? I know, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 2010, really? Well, it's been slowly deteriorating for a long time before that, but that's when it turned into pure gridlock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Quick reminder for those with blinders on. The Affordable Care Act, deemed "Obamacare" by some, received no Republican votes in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. In the Senate, the bill was passed with a total of 60 votes, or 58 Democratic Party votes and 2 Independent Party votes. 0 - GOP The House passed the legislation with 219 Democratic votes, 0 - GOP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 FAKE NEWS: No, the AHCA Doesn’t Make Rape a Preexisting Condition. by Elizabeth Nolan Brown The latest less-than-truthful meme about Republicans' Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA), passed by the U.S. House on Thursday, is that it makes rape a "preexisting condition" for health-insurance purposes. According to a host of women's publications and an army of outraged tweeters, sexual assault and domestic abuse survivors could soon be forced to disclose their attacks to insurance companies, which could subsequently deny them health-insurance coverage because of it. None of this is true. Like, not even a little bit. And the fact it's not just being shared by shady social-media activists and their unwitting dupes but by ostensibly-legitimate media outlets is another sad indictment of press standards these days. Nothing in the new Republican health care bill specifically addresses sexual assault or domestic violence whatsoever. What it does say is that states can apply for waivers that will allow insurance companies, under certain limited circumstances, to charge higher premiums to people based on their personal medical histories—that's it. (States that are granted the waivers must also set up special high-risk insurance pools to try and help defray costs for these people.) Under Obamacare, no such price variances based on preexisting conditions are permitted. {snip} If Democrats and progressives would just stick to actual details of the AHCA, they would still have plenty of material to make Republicans look bad. But once again, that's not enough for them. In their zeal to portray Donald Trump and the current GOP as worse than Nazis, the actual details of the bill don't matter—and if that terrifies a ton of sexual-assault survivors and terrorizes American women in the process, so be it. More at the link: . The rape thing was totally made up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 The rape thing was totally made up? As Gina Scaramella, executive director of the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, argued in an Op-ed for The Hill, the so-called “MacArthur-Meadows amendment” lets states waive the Obamacare ban on charging higher premiums for women who have been raped, for example — which is a thing that actually happened pre-Obamacare. “In one widely reported case, a 45-year-old woman met two men at a bar in Florida who bought her a drink. Hours later, she found herself lying by the side of the road with injuries indicating that she had been raped and that the men had spiked her drink. Her doctor prescribed a treatment of anti-viral, post-HIV exposure drugs to protect against HIV transmission,” Scaramella wrote to explain what women who were victims of sexual assault experienced before Obamacare. “When the woman lost her health insurance several months after the attack, she was unable to obtain new insurance due to the health care treatment she had received for the assault,” Scarmella wrote. (That case was first reported on by HuffPost’s Investigative Fund.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/under-the-new-healthcare-bill-rape-could-be-a-pre-existing-condition_us_590b3773e4b0bb2d0875ea54 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 (edited) Quick reminder for those with blinders on. The Affordable Care Act, deemed "Obamacare" by some, received no Republican votes in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. In the Senate, the bill was passed with a total of 60 votes, or 58 Democratic Party votes and 2 Independent Party votes. 0 - GOP The House passed the legislation with 219 Democratic votes, 0 - GOP Dems had the House and the Super majority once Ted Kennedy's replacement was put in of September of '09 making it 60-40 (Lieberman and Sanders were basically Democrats labeled Independents) and that's when the ACA passed. If it wasn't for Lieberman the public option would of been included. Why in the world would you need bipartanship then? Edited May 5, 2017 by Doc Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 When everything is a catastrophe to media and dems, nothing is. Healthcare hysterics are largely being ignored. All a show. All fake by the communist Democrats. It's all about control and wealth transference. They could give a shite about babies dying or pre existing conditions or anything else. No rocket science here. Free market and I mean a real free market. Not something heavily regulated by the government because they fug everything up. Free market will do what it always does. Create a better product for cheaper. Stop. If you can't get insurance well I guess you get medicade or a state run thing like here it's Medical. If thats not good enough for you improve your station in life and get with a good provider . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Another reminder for those with blinders on....................... Nothing in the new Republican health care bill specifically addresses sexual assault or domestic violence whatsoever. What it does say is that states can apply for waivers that will allow insurance companies, under certain limited circumstances, to charge higher premiums to people based on their personal medical histories—that's it. (States that are granted the waivers must also set up special high-risk insurance pools to try and help defray costs for these people.) Under Obamacare, no such price variances based on preexisting conditions are permitted. Historically, conditions that could trigger higher premiums or coverage denials have been mostly chronic diseases and syndromes. Some insurance plans also included pregnancy as a preexisting condition, which—contra the current pop narrative—did not mean that any woman who was or had been pregnant would be denied insurance coverage altogether, simply that those applying for new health insurance while currently pregnant might not be eligible for immediate maternity/prenatal care. And for a while, in the 1980s, it was apparently not unheard of for health insurance companies to deny coverage to domestic abuse victims. By 2009, however, all but eight U.S. states had passed laws directly prohibiting the practice, and as of July 2014, all but six states had.* Even if Obamacare is replaced by the AHCA tomorrow, insurers in 44 states will still be barred by law from considering domestic and sexual abuse a preexisting condition. Doesn't that mean there's a possibility that those other six states could choose to apply for waivers, and then insurance companies within them could perhaps choose to charge higher premiums for abuse victims? ..............................................As simpletons who read HuffPo suggest Yes. They also could choose to charge higher premiums for prior victims of car accidents and ingrown toenails. It doesn't mean they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted May 6, 2017 Share Posted May 6, 2017 the free market doesnt work in healthcare mainly bc the insurance companies always end up defacto colluding to cover only the most profitable ppl: the well-off, the well-working, and the healthy in multiple instances throughout american history, they were caught actually intentionally colluding to that end. but even when they dont do it intentionally, thats the way it ends up as policies always coalesce to the natural and obvious heart of the profit curve. everyone else gets left with scraps at best what you end up with are armies of duplicated administrators sucking money from a system that becomes increasingly non-competition oriented thus healthcare simply is not well suited for reliance on the profit motive as a self-regulating entity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 6, 2017 Share Posted May 6, 2017 the free market doesnt work in healthcare mainly bc the insurance companies always end up defacto colluding to cover only the most profitable ppl: the well-off, the well-working, and the healthy in multiple instances throughout american history, they were caught actually intentionally colluding to that end. but even when they dont do it intentionally, thats the way it ends up as policies always coalesce to the natural and obvious heart of the profit curve. everyone else gets left with scraps at best what you end up with are armies of duplicated administrators sucking money from a system that becomes increasingly non-competition oriented thus healthcare simply is not well suited for reliance on the profit motive as a self-regulating entity You !@#$ing retard. LEARN ABOUT INSURANCE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts