Socialized Health care

[Parkbandit]

So.. who's for universal health care? I keep hearing that health care is a 'right' of every US citizen.. but why is it? I think there are other 'rights' that are far greater.. like nutrition, shelter, clothing, electricity, water, etc... so should we also provide these to every citizen as well?

[Warriorbird]

If we could become harsher about preventative care... I don't think universal "health care" would be terribly bad. Unhealthy people cost everybody money.

[CrystalTears]

I wouldn't mind having universal health care. I'd actually prefer to pay taxes that go towards a healthier nation.

[Trouble]

I'm in favor for free/subsidized shots and stuff for like the first year/18 months of life.

Semi-related, I also feel that the minimum to qualify for healthcare coverage at work should be changed to 20 hours a week instead of 32/40 (some states already have 20, like HI).

[Warriorbird]

I'd love it if unhealthy people had to suffer a higher tax burden to pay for said universal health care.

[CrystalTears]

What would you consider "unhealthy"?

[Warriorbird]

That'd be the issue.

[Ilvane]

See, that's where the problem would come in. Would cancer patients have to pay more?

I like the idea of universal health care. It's worked relatively well in other countries, we could do it..but it couldn't be made and created by the insurance industries leaders and the like.(the plan in MA is like that, and I don't entirely like it)

Angela

[Gelston]

If they used the taxes gained from cigs and alcohol and put it towards cancer research and stuff, instead of the multitude of other unrelated crap they fund with it, it would make a lot more sense. I think that could take care of cancer patients and the like.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'd love it if unhealthy people had to suffer a higher tax burden to pay for said universal health care.

Retarded.

[Warriorbird]

Why? If you're going to put a dubious concept out...why not charge more for people who cost society more? You could make the tax apply to just those who choose the universal system.

[Celephais]

I'm in favor for free/subsidized shots and stuff for like the first year/18 months of life.
I would think at least until 16/18 years, due to the fact that I think it'd be stupid to say "oh, he's 2 now? now you need to pay" ... why didn't they pay before? If you're fiscally incapable of supporting a child when it's 1, how are you able to when it's 2 (another story about my opinion of who should be allowed to breed)? If the child is capable/legally allowed to work, then pull them off the gravy train.


Semi-related, I also feel that the minimum to qualify for healthcare coverage at work should be changed to 20 hours a week instead of 32/40 (some states already have 20, like HI).
I dislike these kind of set numbers, because then employers seek to skirt them (38 hour/wk employees), I would prefer a sliding scale of coverage provided by the employeer, if you work 36 hours (90% of 40hrs), the employer should pay 90% of the healthcare coverage.


I'd love it if unhealthy people had to suffer a higher tax burden to pay for said universal health care.
I'd like this too, but as has been said, the definition is tough to come by.

[Ilvane]

Why? If you're going to put a dubious concept out...why not charge more for people who cost society more? You could make the tax apply to just those who choose the universal system.

Define unhealthy?

I mean, you might as well shoot the people you are trying to help with this plan if you plan on penalizing the unhealthy.

Maybe you could clarify it?

Angela

[Celephais]

Define unhealthy?

I mean, you might as well shoot the people you are trying to help with this plan if you plan on penalizing the unhealthy.

Maybe you could clarify it?

Angela
Obviously it's impossible to get it perfect, but I'd hope you were at least intelligent enough to understand what he meant and that you're only asking him to clarify so you could find a means to bring up how some fatasses are fat because they can't help it.

He means people who smoke, fatasses who don't stop eatting at McDonalds despite Dr. warnings. The people who are consciously increasing their risk of needing medical aid because they wouldn't have to foot the bill.

[Ilvane]

He didn't *say* that, so I was asking for clarification.:P I never said anything about fatness or whatever..I just asked. Is a cancer patient going to pay more under a plan? What defines "unhealthy?

It was a serious question, and that's what I was asking.

Angela

[radamanthys]

I say drop the whole damn thing and let the free market decide. Then, people wouldn't burden the system with unnecessary stuff, and a person's health would become more important to them. But that might be the libertarian in me talking.

[Hulkein]

So.. who's for universal health care? I keep hearing that health care is a 'right' of every US citizen.. but why is it? I think there are other 'rights' that are far greater.. like nutrition, shelter, clothing, electricity, water, etc... so should we also provide these to every citizen as well?

I think that there should be free healthcare for every child in our country. As for the people who are too lazy to get a job with benefits, fuck yourself.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I'd like to see a mixture of socialized and privatized healthcare, personally. I'd like to see socialized healthcare improved and the "requirements" change slightly, but then I think that people who want to go to the private route and perhaps get more comprehensive/immediate care should be able to opt for that instead. That or I'd want to see some sort of overhaul of the regulation/laws regarding insurance so they an stop fucking people over in general.

[Lyonis]

Why? If you're going to put a dubious concept out...why not charge more for people who cost society more? You could make the tax apply to just those who choose the universal system.


That strikes me as being exactly the same as the system we have right now, it's just called insurance. If healthcare is a right, it should be there regardless of your ability to pay, or in a sense deserve.

My dad who was living in Sweden for about 15 years to ditch child support, a real winner so please take this story with a grain of salt, needed bypass surgery. The wait list was long enough that he would have died if he stayed in Sweden so he flew back to the United States where he got the surgery almost immediately, saving his wretched old life.

There is no such thing as free healthcare, someone has to pay for it. I'd just rather depend on a system built on greed, rather than one dependent on the kindness of others, to keep the money coming.

Then again, I refuse to blame a child for the mistakes of his parents. Little po children should be able to get the care they need. Which the U.S. does better than most.

[Hulkein]

Hah, what's up Cay. It's Grolock!

[Kembal]

I think that there should be free healthcare for every child in our country. As for the people who are too lazy to get a job with benefits, fuck yourself.

Most waiters at restaurants don't get benefits. You calling them lazy?

My opinion on universal healthcare: Necessary, and it must be mandated that everyone have health insurance and that all employers must, in some way, provide it. (whether it be through some government-run plan the employer contributes toward or private insurance, that's not a concern) The mandates are necessary to prevent adverse selection (i.e. healthy people not getting health insurance until they're sick, in which case the insurance companies are screwed).

BTW, I can't recall who advocated just letting everything go to the free market, but I can tell you what would happen: every insured cancer patient would get dropped off their plan immediately. And there would be even more uninsured people than there are now.

[Lyonis]

Hah, what's up Cay. It's Grolock!

What up dude!!!

I don't think WoW was ever as fun as leveling up with you, Stabbers, Arkans, Nien alt #4346324634, and SerGAY.

You still playing?

[Hulkein]

No, waiters aren't lazy at all. If they can't get health coverage then they are stupid, though.

People work as waiters because of how much money you make with almost no education needed. It's not taxed either. Pay for your own healthcare or get a job working at a department store or some other low-form of work that offers health benefits and work the minimum amount of hours to qualify. You can wait and work another job that provides benefits. Or you can just pay for your own coverage.

[Hulkein]

What up dude!!!

I don't think WoW was ever as fun as leveling up with you, Stabbers, Arkans, Nien alt #4346324634, and SerGAY.

You still playing?

I know man, it was a lot of fun.

I might fire up the account after my last final next Monday. We'll see. If I do it'll probably just result in me playing for two days and stopping again but you never know.

[peam]

I vote fuck it all.

Grow some herbs and purchase a mortar and pestle.

[Ilvane]

I think that there should be free healthcare for every child in our country. As for the people who are too lazy to get a job with benefits, fuck yourself.

Only problem with this concept is that some people work very, very hard and don't get insurance included. I've been lucky where I've been, but I've had friends who haven't and had to work say, two part time jobs as grad students, and they don't get offerred insurance except at a seriously large price.

Another issue with people just going without insurance is that most states have what is called a "free care" pool. This is for people who don't have insurance in emergency or hospitalization situations. This is partially paid for by the insurance companies who put in a percentage each year to these pools. This is *also* paid for by the states.

So people who don't have insurance are actually more of a burden on the taxpayers, as well as the medical system. Studies have shown that people without insurance go longer without preventative care, and actually cost more because the preventative/routine coverage is important to finding illnesses in people before they get too large, and then cost larger amounts to treat.

I think what most people who don't support universal or subsidized health care don't realize is that in the end, it would save money. Preventative care makes sick care cheaper in most cases.

Anyway, I've been in health care for way too long. Thankfully, I'll be a practitioner in the end instead of just an insurance person.

Angela

[Gan]

I dont support universal healthcare. It draws the government into areas of teh personal life that they should not be managing.

[Hulkein]

I'm just opposed to the principle of it, Ilvane. I know the system isn't perfect now, but I also know it won't be much better (if at all) if it was 'free', and it creates a nanny-state which is something I'd like to avoid as much as possible.

The federal government is much too big as it is now.

[Sean of the Thread]

Why? If you're going to put a dubious concept out...why not charge more for people who cost society more? You could make the tax apply to just those who choose the universal system.

Start charging black people more for diabetes medication.. old people for being old...etc etc etc.

[Lyonis]

I know man, it was a lot of fun.

I might fire up the account after my last final next Monday. We'll see. If I do it'll probably just result in me playing for two days and stopping again but you never know.

I haven't played in at least a couple months. I'm more than likely going to give access to my account to my little cousins. May those immature children achieve what I was never able to in my hours of griefing, a post on the Dunemaul forums by some alliance nub about how much of an immature child I was for corpse camping them for the last three hours. One can only hope...

[Clove]

I think health insurance should be a public utility. It should be a federally regulated private monopoly. Not like the competition system we have now and NOT like Medicaid.

Ordinarily I dig free-market competition, but in the case of insurance the larger the pool of participants, the cheaper the insurance is per capita. Insurance companies competing for clientele divides the pool and increases cost.

[Clove]

I'd love it if unhealthy people had to suffer a higher tax burden to pay for said universal health care.

Can I get a tax credit for not having children to send to public school, or not owning a car to use public roads with?

[Celephais]

He didn't *say* that, so I was asking for clarification.:P I never said anything about fatness or whatever..I just asked. Is a cancer patient going to pay more under a plan? What defines "unhealthy?

It was a serious question, and that's what I was asking.

Angela

I think it would be impossible to determine what people deserve to pay more for health insurance, as it stands right now I don't think it's very fair that if I know I have cancer I can't go buy insurance on my own for as cheap as someone who doesn't know they have cancer. On the other hand I think it's perfectly fine to charge someone who smokes, more for health insurance than someone who doesn't smoke.


Start charging black people more for diabetes medication.. old people for being old...etc etc etc.

I think the metric would have to be as close as we can get to "intentional increased health risk", this would allow for the "Free market" benefit of people doing things to improve their health on their own, but at the same time allow for those in financially difficult positions access to preventative care they would have gone without if they had to pay out of pocket.


Can I get a tax credit for not having children to send to public school, or not owning a car to use public roads with?
You actually do pay less for not owning a car, so that arguement is out. As for the kid, it could be argued that children are the future, and hence they're seen as an investment for the state :P (There are certainly things that I wouldn't have a smartass answer for, but a lot of them I personally feel the government shouldn't be involved in).

[Necromancer]

One of the fundamental inequalities of health care in this nation is precisely that some people are expected to pay more than others- particularly those who need it more. Universalized Health Care helps the system in many ways, and one of the biggest ways is in equalizing what people are paying. You can't create a universal health care system where you are charging some people more than others- it defeats the purpose.

Right now, the US has a system that makes most of the world cringe at the thought. HMOs insure about 60% of the US, with that group being largely the healthiest people in the country. It uses adverse selection to ensure that the people who would cost the most are the ones that are not covered, and then they work to cover as little as possible. The end result is that the other 40% or so are covered either by government programs (Medicare and Medicaid programs) or not at all. The latter use Emergency Rooms for primary care, which usually result in bills that are not paid- so the tax payers pay for them. The society as a whole loses productivity from those who are too sick to work and are sick more often because they cannot access regular health care and from those who die (about 18,000 people a year according to the Institute of Medicine). Meanwhile, the HMOs squeeze out as much profit from their clients as possible.

HMOs continue to increase costs for coverage as their profit margins continue to climb. The result is that the average salary in the US is 40-60% benefits. So in many instances the person is seeing about half of their compensation package, and the other half is going to insurance companies. Then they're hit again by the tax burden of paying for the desperate and uninsured so that HMOs can maintain their profits.

So this is the system we have. HMOs group people to take all of the profits from insurance and selectively group out the biggest liabilities and make the rest of society pay for it socially and financially. It is a system designed entirely for the benefit of these large corporations and at the expense of the Federal and State governments and the citizens.

The fact that we willingly sacrifice billions of dollars and 18,000 lives a year in support of a system that leaves 1/4 of our citizens without health care and the other 3/4 worried that even though they are insured they won't be able to have X procedure covered says something about us, and it's not a good thing. Political rhetoric tells you that this is the most 'efficient' way to do 'business' (When did our nation's health, and the health of our loved ones, become so easily boiled down to business?), but it's a uniquely, and distinctly, American fuck up.

[Sean of the Thread]

Oh I forgot.

Gay Sorcs are a drain too.. simu should charge them more as well.

[Necromancer]

Agreed

[Clove]

You actually do pay less for not owning a car, so that arguement is out. As for the kid, it could be argued that children are the future, and hence they're seen as an investment for the state :P (There are certainly things that I wouldn't have a smartass answer for, but a lot of them I personally feel the government shouldn't be involved in).

Not to the Feds you don't. Car, no car, your income tax goes to Federal disbursements for I-95 (or whatever the fuck they have out in Kansas/California).

I don't mind you being a smartass, as long as you're not a dumbass.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm drawn on this:

On the one hand, I like containing certain populations with a bit of money to feed into their instincts, because I sometimes like to not be stabbed in the neck for my Folex.

On the other hand, if the government starts handing out money, I'll laugh.

On the foot, toenails. Metatarsals, too. Maybe even a bunion.

[Necromancer]

People are not wildlife, they are not to be "contained". That's sick.

Crime is a symptom of a greater problem, it is not a problem in and of itself. Treating symptoms instead of the disease results in nothing more than an endless supply of symptoms.

[Stanley Burrell]

People are not wildlife, they are not to be "contained". That's sick.

Crime is a symptom of a greater problem, it is not a problem in and of itself. Treating symptoms instead of the disease results in nothing more than an endless supply of symptoms.

You don't say?

[weasel82]

I think that there should be free healthcare for every child in our country. As for the people who are too lazy to get a job with benefits, fuck yourself.

A resounding applause comes from this side of the table!

Cheers to you madam!

[weasel82]

I dont support universal healthcare. It draws the government into areas of teh personal life that they should not be managing.

Agreed, just one more aspect of control in my life that I don't need, nor want.

[Stanley Burrell]

A resounding applause comes from this side of the table!

Cheers to you madam!

That madam has a scrotum probably. Madams should not, I don't think, have the male reproductive organs. They can't. Physics.

[crb]

Why is it when dealing with issues of education everyone realizes that class sizes and classroom technology matters and makes things better, and yet when dealing with healthcare people think cutting doctors and technology is the way to go?

Make no mistake about it, if you're for socialized medicine you're for cutting doctors, technology, and research.

As someone above mentioned already, in socialized countries you get wait listed because there are not enough doctors and facilities to deal with all the medical problems.

Raise your hand if you think the cause of our healthcare problems is not enough people have insurance? Okay... people with your hands raised slap yourself on the forehead.

Lack of insurance isn't the problem, it is merely a symptom of the problem. The real problem is healthcare costs have been rising at ridiculous yearly rates (thus causing premiums to increase, thus causing companies to stop paying for it). Changing who pays for the costs doesn't fix the problem, it just shifts responsibility. The government cannot wish up more money, so they end up having to do cuts and limit access to care (rationing). Do you think changing who pays for healthcare will suddenly stop the drastic upward tick of total costs? I don't.

So, that is why you always end up with cuts and rationing.

Also, statistics are bullshit. You know those healthcare statistics all the lefties shove showing how the US is like 34th in the world in healthcare. Do you know how they get those statistics? Life expectancy. That is all it is, life expectancy. As if the healthcare system is the only variable in life expectancy, it couldn't possibly be diet or lifestyle, could it? I mean big macs and Must See TV?

If you look at statistics for say, post diagnosis survival rates of cancer, the US comes out #1 on average for most diseases. American's might not live as long as people from other countries, but if you get sick here you have a better chance to survive than elsewhere.

Universal healthcare scares the shit out of me. I might get cancer one day, and I don't want to have to go on a waiting list to get it treated.

Then consider all the foreign doctors. Most socialized countries not only pay doctors less than here, but also they subject them to more regulations (where/what they can practice, assigning doctors to certain places, etc). Anyone who has been to a hospital has probably seen atleast one doctor who wasn't born here, right? You know what I'm talking about. What happens when it is no longer worth it to them to work here because we fucked our system up? They all go home, and talk about doctor shortage then right.

Another problem of course is that if healthcare is free, people will not value it as much, and they'll waste time going to the doctor's for every little thing. Thus, more rationing.

Then, yes, I'd also get pissed off if my tax dollars went to pay for healthcare for a 300 pound smoker. I'm in really good shape and I recently got life insurance and qualified for their ultra-preferred rate which the insurance guy said was really uncommon. So apparently I'm very healthy. If we did do universal healthcare why couldn't we use the same system the life insurance industry uses and then give tax deductions to people who life healthy? Not additional taxes for the unhealthy, but cuts for the healthy.

Bush actually had a good proposal what, last year was it? Where he wanted a standardized tax deduction for health insurance, which would make it easier for people to afford to buy their own insurance and stop penalizing them vs. people who get it through a company. It was stopped by the dem. congress (at the behest of labor union leadership I don't doubt).

The other thing you gotta do is tort reform. People like to look at jury awards vs total spending and say it is a small amount, but that isn't close to the whole picture. 95% of suits are settled because it is too expensive to fight them in court. Then, a doctor might know what is wrong with someone, or be reasonably sure, but in order to cover their butt they do a $1000 test so if they get sued they can say they did do the test. This defensive medicine causes a problem as well.

Then of course, all the administrative costs from medical billing to compliance to everything else.

Personally, I would like to see every hospital bill itemized with costs based on the hospital's budget.

Mr. Johnson, your bill is $1000, based on our budget that means.

xxx is going for insurance
xxx is going for facilities
xxx is going for equipment
xxx is going for nurses
xxx is going for doctors
xxx is going for non-medical administrative staff


Put that on every bill, I think you'd change attitudes pretty quick.

My wife is in medical school and I have doctors in the family so I may have a unique perspective on this, but I want to point something out. When my wife starts residency she'll make 42k a year, on 90 hour weeks. The doctors you are most likely to interact with in a hospital are residents. When you figure out the hourly rate that is less than many other jobs, in an extremely high stress job. In fact, when she was a receptionist she made 24k a year on 40 hour weeks, so technically its a paycutt. So, don't blame the "rich" doctors, please.

PS, health savings accounts ftw.

[weasel82]

That madam has a scrotum probably. Madams should not, I don't think, have the male reproductive organs. They can't. Physics.

Totally right...let me amend...

"Cheers to you madman"

[Kyra231]

No, waiters aren't lazy at all. If they can't get health coverage then they are stupid, though.

People work as waiters because of how much money you make with almost no education needed. It's not taxed either. Pay for your own healthcare or get a job working at a department store or some other low-form of work that offers health benefits and work the minimum amount of hours to qualify. You can wait and work another job that provides benefits. Or you can just pay for your own coverage.

Heh, that's just insane to generalize that people who work at a job without health insurance are lazy.

I.E. Lady I worked with, 56 y/o with diabetes, emerging glaucoma, emphesyma & hypertension gets fired from her job of 20 years for attendance(due to health problems). She cannot drive far to get another job(glaucoma) so has to take a job in the small town she works in leaving her with a choice of a gas station or a small adult foster care neither of which offer healthcare.

So she works 2 jobs, suffers without her medication & will probably die in a few years because the state says she doesn't 'qualify' for any assistance with her medication or insurance.

But yeah she's a lazy, stupid fucker....along with how many other people in the same position.

I've worked at too many health care jobs where they will work you under the minimum hours/days to GET health insurance? If you have to work to support yourself or a family your ability to be picky and wait for the 'right' job goes to hell.

~K.

[LazyBard]

INSERT WALL OF TEXT HERE

Another big problem isn't health care industry itself its the pharmaceutical companies. My mother is currently fighting cancer and has been declared permanently disabled due to the damage to her pelvic bones and spine.
Her medical insurance (a HMO) will not cover the bone hardening perscription
which costs $1200 for a 2 oz dose once a month. Although it does cover $225 of the $470 of her cancer medication. The same drug she has finally gotten to see a doctor in Vancouver BC to get a perscription for costs $192 across the border. Needless to say she is still waiting to see how much cheaper it is for the bone hardening drug.


With the price of drugs and the cost to the insurance companies when the pharmaceutical companies charging 2000 to 3000 % more then it costs to make of course the amount hospitals charge is going to reflect that as well.

[Hulkein]

Heh, that's just insane to generalize that people who work at a job without health insurance are lazy.

I.E. Lady I worked with, 56 y/o with diabetes, emerging glaucoma, emphesyma & hypertension gets fired from her job of 20 years for attendance(due to health problems). She cannot drive far to get another job(glaucoma) so has to take a job in the small town she works in leaving her with a choice of a gas station or a small adult foster care neither of which offer healthcare.

So she works 2 jobs, suffers without her medication & will probably die in a few years because the state says she doesn't 'qualify' for any assistance with her medication or insurance.

But yeah she's a lazy, stupid fucker....along with how many other people in the same position.

I've worked at too many health care jobs where they will work you under the minimum hours/days to GET health insurance? If you have to work to support yourself or a family your ability to be picky and wait for the 'right' job goes to hell.

~K.

I was over-generalizing to be dramatic. Not everyone without health care is lazy.

It may sound cold but I'd rather have a system where a large majority of people don't have to wait to get a life-saving procedure as opposed to one where everyone can get the procedure after waiting until it is too late.

[ElanthianSiren]

Or you could just check out the Oregon plan.

I believe the idea that everyone should have insurance stems from the time in America when working 40 hours a week garnered insurance.

As for Universal Healthcare, I don't believe you'll ever see it in this country, but I'd be all for making sure US citizens can get some level of care. More than likely, what we'll see instead is a half-assed attempt at healthcare reform.

[Drew]

The entire health care problem we have today is due to over-regulation by Papa Government who think he knows better. And now people want to add more regulation? This will do what?

The solution is to deregulate the health care industry, completely.

[chillmonster]

My dad who was living in Sweden for about 15 years to ditch child support, a real winner so please take this story with a grain of salt, needed bypass surgery. The wait list was long enough that he would have died if he stayed in Sweden so he flew back to the United States where he got the surgery almost immediately, saving his wretched old life.

There is no such thing as free healthcare, someone has to pay for it. I'd just rather depend on a system built on greed, rather than one dependent on the kindness of others, to keep the money coming.

You're right, but a system that combines gov't run program with private industry wouldn't prevent your dad for paying for healthcare if he wanted. It could, however, save the guy making 20k a year and perhaps prevent the condition from ever becomming so dire since he'd be getting preventative care he otherwise couldn't afford.

Another consequence would be to incentivise the insurance industry to provide better care to their customers instead of always searching for any way possible to deny coverage.

[crb]

I.E. Lady I worked with, 56 y/o with diabetes, emerging glaucoma, emphesyma & hypertension gets fired from her job of 20 years for attendance(due to health problems). She cannot drive far to get another job(glaucoma) so has to take a job in the small town she works in leaving her with a choice of a gas station or a small adult foster care neither of which offer healthcare.

3 preventable conditions she has. Maybe she isn't a stupid fucker now, but had she not smoked and ate all that junk food maybe she wouldn't have all those problems?

[crb]

Another big problem isn't health care industry itself its the pharmaceutical companies. My mother is currently fighting cancer and has been declared permanently disabled due to the damage to her pelvic bones and spine.
Her medical insurance (a HMO) will not cover the bone hardening perscription
which costs $1200 for a 2 oz dose once a month. Although it does cover $225 of the $470 of her cancer medication. The same drug she has finally gotten to see a doctor in Vancouver BC to get a perscription for costs $192 across the border. Needless to say she is still waiting to see how much cheaper it is for the bone hardening drug.


With the price of drugs and the cost to the insurance companies when the pharmaceutical companies charging 2000 to 3000 % more then it costs to make of course the amount hospitals charge is going to reflect that as well.
I don't begrudge pharmaceutical companies a single penny.

Look at all the shit they have to put up with? Vioxx worked based on all the studies they had, the FDA approved it after more studies (we have more drug regulation than pretty much any other country). So the FDA, that is the federal government, said it was safe. Then turns out it isn't safe, and Merck loses billions of dollars in lawsuits.

Michigan, where I live, has a unique law that exempts pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits if the FDA approved their drug and they didn't fudge any research or do anything illegal with the approval process. This law makes sense, if the federal government says a drug is safe, why should we punish a company to the tune of billions of dollars because they were not omnipotent?

People think it prevents the CEO from buying a boat or whatever. Look at the budget for a drug company, their business is R&D. That money comes directly from their R&D budget, and all the money they make off drugs comes directly from their R&D.

The reason the same drug can cost different amounts in different countries is because almost all other countries have tort reform that puts caps on lawsuits and as well almost all other countries have significantly less regulation. For instance a drug for cancer was recently rejected by the FDA because it caused hypertension. In other countries this drug would be approved, but here, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing it, nope, hypertension is worse than cancer???

Drug companies lose their patents after 14 years, which is a very limited window for them to recoup their R&D expenses, especially when R&D is so hit or miss and they might get 1 drug to market for every 5 they develop. But I do not begrudge them a single penny, because they're doing amazing things.

Look at how many new medications we've gotten in the last 20 years and how they have changed diseases. Certain cancers are now 100% curable, or even preventable with vaccines. AIDS is turning into a manageable disease like diabetis instead of a death sentence. The cholesterol lowering drugs we have now are amazing.

You have to realize most of what you spend on drugs (when you're not buying generics) goes to R&D and finding new drugs, new cures. So I don't begrudge them the money.

I do think if Michigan's law were adopted countrywide then we could see lower prices. Good luck getting that past a personal injury lawyer supported congressional majority though.

[crb]

You're right, but a system that combines gov't run program with private industry wouldn't prevent your dad for paying for healthcare if he wanted. It could, however, save the guy making 20k a year and perhaps prevent the condition from ever becomming so dire since he'd be getting preventative care he otherwise couldn't afford.

Another consequence would be to incentivise the insurance industry to provide better care to their customers instead of always searching for any way possible to deny coverage.
You know if you can afford cable TV, you can afford health insurance. When I made $20k a year I had health insurance. It was $50 every 2 months, had a huge ($1000) deductible, but it was insurance, not maintenance. Had I needed surgery, got into an accident, cancer, etc, it'd cover it.

I also find the preventative care argument just a little bit bunk, as if seeing a doctor a couple times per will get someone to change their lifestyle if they aren't motivated. As if your body is like your teeth and you just need regular cleanings. I know plenty of fat smoking unhealthy people who see a doctor regularly and they do not change. Sure, if you see a doctor regularly there is a greater chance of finding something like cancer early, but then again routine physicals don't usually include cancer screenings, other than, you know, the dreaded finger.

It might help a little bit, to you know force (I mean help) everyone to see a doctor yearly, but I don't know if it'd help enough to justify socializing healthcare.

I suppose though I could support a federal program based on a coupon system where you could go to a doctor and get a physical once per year and have the doctor give you a coupon for a $150 (should be a little more than the physical) tax deduction you include with your taxes.

[Gan]

What I'd like to see is the de-regulation of participant pooling so people arent bound to a limited pool size (and plan costs) based on only their employer's participation level. The more people in the pool, the more monthly premiums available to the insurance provider, the more the provider can be leveraged in providing additional coverages at less costs to the participants.

As it stands now, I'm limited to only the participants on my specific insurance carrier at through my employer as a permium/coverage pool. Ergo that drives up my premium and deductable costs, even though the insurance provider has other employers on similar plans in the same provider area.

Its the company store monopoly all over again.

[Tsa`ah]

As for the people who are too lazy to get a job with benefits, fuck yourself.

This comment is of Dave caliber.

Tell me, have you investigated the job market in reference to provided health coverage and the type of coverage offered? Let alone the cost of actually buying one's own health coverage that is worth a damn?

How about the number of people in the nation that are without healthcare? Are each and every one of these people "too lazy to get a job with benefits"?

Here's one for you ... go fuck yourself you ignorant little bastard.

[Celephais]

This comment is of Dave caliber.

Tell me, have you investigated the job market in reference to provided health coverage and the type of coverage offered? Let alone the cost of actually buying one's own health coverage that is worth a damn?

How about the number of people in the nation that are without healthcare? Are each and every one of these people "too lazy to get a job with benefits"?

Here's one for you ... go fuck yourself you ignorant little bastard.
I'm a lazy fuck.. who drinks, and I have a job with health benefits. How lazy are these assholes that they can't manage that?

[Tsa`ah]

I'm a lazy fuck.. who drinks, and I have a job with health benefits. How lazy are these assholes that they can't manage that?

Do you need an answer for this? You can't be that stupid.

[Celephais]

Do you need an answer for this? You can't be that stupid.
It was rhetorical. I know that I have a good job because I'm white.

... I feel like I should add this to my sig: "I do not italicise sarcasm because I find it hilarious when people can't see it"

[Tsa`ah]

Or maybe because you have a college education, or maybe because you live in an area with a competitive job market, or maybe because you are employed by an entity that realizes the worth of it's employees.

[Hulkein]

This comment is of Dave caliber.

Tell me, have you investigated the job market in reference to provided health coverage and the type of coverage offered? Let alone the cost of actually buying one's own health coverage that is worth a damn?

How about the number of people in the nation that are without healthcare? Are each and every one of these people "too lazy to get a job with benefits"?

Here's one for you ... go fuck yourself you ignorant little bastard.

How about you read the following responses. It was an obvious generalization.

Do you not get laid or are you just that miserable? Have you had any family members off themselves because of having to deal with you on a regular basis? You make people on this board depressed, I can't imagine what people who are forced to associate with you in real life go through. :club:

[Tsa`ah]

Coming from a guy that spews the bullshit on the level that you do? Heh ... I'll take it as a compliment from the clueless.

[Hulkein]

You realize that your canned response to every single person you argue with on this board is 'coming from someone like you? Hah, thanks for the compliment!'

Your act is tired old man. We know you are the self-appointed authority on every subject that is debatable, so how about you just spare us the embarrassment that your intellect always brings.

[Tsa`ah]

This is of course your opinion. You can't come up with one of your own ... considering your use of "self appointed authority".

I self appoint myself as nothing. I can't help it that you, among others, are too feeble minded to debate and have to resort to the same old same old.

Look up hypocrisy, and please ... do try to understand the definition.

[Hulkein]

Are you proving my point as a return for some favor I did for you that I don't remember or what?

[ElanthianSiren]

3 preventable conditions she has. Maybe she isn't a stupid fucker now, but had she not smoked and ate all that junk food maybe she wouldn't have all those problems?

Uh... you do know that there's more than One type of diabetes right? (Cue Sean2). You do also know that one type of diabetes is not preventable (at all) (cue sean2^2). You do also know that diabetics who maintain controllable blood sugar levels remain at higher risk for glaucoma, heart disease etc than their non-diabetic cohorts?

Diabetes isn't just "Oh you take a pill, take a shot, and you're all better." It's a polygenic disorder with tons of pleotrophic conditions, of which, individuals have very little control. Stand there and yell at your body to absorb more magnesium, and see what that does for you.

Once you read up and google all those words, we can continue the discussion.

[Celephais]

Do people who have genetically higher metabolisms get discounts on food because they have to eat more to survive?

Oh..

If your genes are fucked up, you verywell may have to make some sacrifices, otherwise darwin might lose.

[Daniel]

Do people who have genetically higher metabolisms get discounts on food because they have to eat more to survive?

Oh..

If your genes are fucked up, you verywell may have to make some sacrifices, otherwise darwin might lose.


Wow.

Talk about stupid.

[Lyonis]

Drug companies lose their patents after 14 years, which is a very limited window for them to recoup their R&D expenses, especially when R&D is so hit or miss and they might get 1 drug to market for every 5 they develop. But I do not begrudge them a single penny, because they're doing amazing things.



Exactly. They want to make a ton of money and God bless them for doing so. While the new medication they spent the money to develop may not be available to everyone that needs it when it is owned solely by the company that created it, when the patent expires it will become available in all sorts of generic Flintstone chewable flavors for even the poor man to obtain.

It sucks that some that need the drug during that initial period of the patent won't be able to get their hands on it. I think it would suck a lot worse if the drug was never created though. Do you honestly think any of these drug companies would bother investing all that money if the pay out wasn't substantial?

I think this clip sums that idea up well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apM0d3M-sps

[Gan]

Bottom line. Having insurance is gambling on the fact that you will need healthcare.

Insurance companies are gambling on the hopes that you wont need as much healthcare as you pay in on premiums.

Risks are mitigated by underwriting, pre-existing condition clauses, and coverage caps coupled with high deductables. Oh, and the ever present coverage denial.

[Daniel]

So, the only way to encourage research is to promise massive profits at the expense of people's lives?

Uh. Okay.

[Celephais]

Wow.

Talk about stupid.
I really need to track down that Gif of Homer making the Whoooosh sound as he waves his hand over his head...

[Daniel]

I really need to track down that Gif of Homer making the Whoooosh sound as he waves his hand over his head...

No. I got your analogy. It's just pretty stupid.

[Tsa`ah]

Are you proving my point as a return for some favor I did for you that I don't remember or what?

Are you in the running for the Dave Jr award? If not, let me be the first to nominate you.

If you don't like the responses to your generalized (and completely retarded) statements ... don't make them. Your post showed nothing but ignorance, backpedaling to clarify didn't help much either.


Uh... you do know that there's more than One type of diabetes right? (Cue Sean2). You do also know that one type of diabetes is not preventable (at all) (cue sean2^2). You do also know that diabetics who maintain controllable blood sugar levels remain at higher risk for glaucoma, heart disease etc than their non-diabetic cohorts?

Diabetes isn't just "Oh you take a pill, take a shot, and you're all better." It's a polygenic disorder with tons of pleotrophic conditions, of which, individuals have very little control. Stand there and yell at your body to absorb more magnesium, and see what that does for you.

Once you read up and google all those words, we can continue the discussion.

But but ... aren't you fat and didn't you eat yourself into a diabetic comma at one time???!!!

[Tsa`ah]

Exactly. They want to make a ton of money and God bless them for doing so. While the new medication they spent the money to develop may not be available to everyone that needs it when it is owned solely by the company that created it, when the patent expires it will become available in all sorts of generic Flintstone chewable flavors for even the poor man to obtain.

It sucks that some that need the drug during that initial period of the patent won't be able to get their hands on it. I think it would suck a lot worse if the drug was never created though. Do you honestly think any of these drug companies would bother investing all that money if the pay out wasn't substantial?

I think this clip sums that idea up well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apM0d3M-sps

I missed the post you were responding to and had to go back for the laugh.

14 years is a narrow margin to recoup the R&D expense? What planet are you (not Cay) from?

The patent for atrivent (Ipratropium Bromide) in treating asthma expired a few months ago. A one month supply of duo neb (nebulized treatment) ran in excess of 300 bucks. A single inhaler (combivent) ran anywhere from 185 - 210 bucks.

Guess how many uninsured asthmatics, ineligible for any state assistance, could afford it? I'm guessing none. I'm also guessing that at those prices .... R&D was recouped within the year.

Now that the patent is expired, other companies can move in (and have) to offer the same product at a more affordable price. I picked up the generics of either for under 200 bucks (both combined in a month's supply).

The notion that prices are as they are due to the necessity to recoup expenses is laughable.

[ElanthianSiren]

Aren't those prices the same in other countries though? :whistle:

[CrystalTears]

Pharmaceutical companies pay millions for the research and development on each drug. Some released drugs sales don't even help them break even once the patent is released.

I'm not condoning the prices of some drugs out there, but I understand why it is.

[Tsa`ah]

Aren't those prices the same in other countries though? :whistle:

Haha ... given the current slide of the USD ... they will be in a year or so.


Pharmaceutical companies pay millions for the research and development on each drug. Some released drugs sales don't even help them break even once the patent is released.

I'm not condoning the prices of some drugs out there, but I understand why it is.

I'm sorry, but when your profit for one drug is in the millions each year ... your R&D department has no reign on spending and your CFO needs fired if expenses are that tight. You make it sound as if these companies are just scraping by and not reporting record profits every other second.

There really is no excuse for a vast majority of prices on many drugs with current patents.

[Lyonis]

So, the only way to encourage research is to promise massive profits at the expense of people's lives?

Uh. Okay.

Yup! Like a wise man once told me, "There's the way things should be, then again there's the way things are." It's a sick, sad world. Play accordingly.

It really is a shitty choice to make. You either get poor people getting screwed out of their medicine for the duration of the patent or you get no medicine for anyone at all. Believe me when I say that I love to help people in need out. Show a picture of my face to the bums around my house or where I work and they'll tell you that Chris is a cool dude. Not just because I feed a lot of people out of my own pocket but because I always have the time to talk to someone and treat them like a person, no matter how fucked up they look.

I didn't make the game, and I certainly didn't make the rules, I just live in it.



The notion that prices are as they are due to the necessity to recoup expenses is laughable.

It's not about recouping expenses, it's about incentive. I think we'd both agree that drug companies do very little out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because they can make a buck. I don't like it any more than you do, I assure you, but c'est la vie.

[Daniel]

The fallacy is that Pharm companies would simply fold up if they weren't making record profits. Basic economic principals say that companies will produce even when marginal cost is equal to marginal revenue. In fact, the market is most efficient at that point.

There is no need to give pharm companies a de facto monopoly when it comes to drugs.

There are also other alternatives, like funding research through universities which we have used to considerable success in other areas.

[CrystalTears]

I'm sorry, but when your profit for one drug is in the millions each year ... your R&D department has no reign on spending and your CFO needs fired if expenses are that tight. You make it sound as if these companies are just scraping by and not reporting record profits every other second.

There really is no excuse for a vast majority of prices on many drugs with current patents.
And I'm just saying that every drug that they research is not successful and that's millions of dollars that they will not get back because of that drug's failure.

I'm not saying they're suffering and I do realize that they're in this to make money just like everyone else, but pharm companies do lose money at times and have to do mass layoffs to make up for some losses.

[Clove]

I'm sorry, but when your profit for one drug is in the millions each year ... your R&D department has no reign on spending and your CFO needs fired if expenses are that tight. You make it sound as if these companies are just scraping by and not reporting record profits every other second.

There really is no excuse for a vast majority of prices on many drugs with current patents.

Take what you like from this but I worked as an accountant at a global pharmaceutical from 2001-2003. My primary responsibility was reconciling their capital expenses. From my insight into their development costs I can say without reservation that taking a potential new drug to FDA trials can easily cost hundreds of millions, and there is no guarantee it will be approved for sale.

This isn't a defense of pharmaceuticals; however, you should recognize that they are in the business of making as much profit as they can from the market and the risks they take in the process are staggering.

That being said I resent their practice of selling products at a loss in third world regions and making up their margin by overcharging us; then again I don't have stock in pharmaceuticals.

[Hulkein]

Are you in the running for the Dave Jr award? If not, let me be the first to nominate you.

If you don't like the responses to your generalized (and completely retarded) statements ... don't make them. Your post showed nothing but ignorance, backpedaling to clarify didn't help much either.

You already used the Dave joke. Come back with something fresh or go home.

Take some of your own advice and read. I don't care that people responded to the generalization. Did it get the least bit contentious with anyone else who responded to me? No. You are just a miserable person. It's too hard to pass up the opportunity to get your temper flaring like a bitch on her period.

[ElanthianSiren]

That being said I resent their practice of selling products at a loss in third world regions and making up their margin by overcharging us; then again I don't have stock in pharmaceuticals.

-Only in the third world? Do they also lose money in canada, europe etc? Genuine curiosity here. My aspiration has always been purely curative research.

[Clove]

-Only in the third world? Do they also lose money in canada, europe etc? Genuine curiosity here. My aspiration has always been purely curative research.

It depends on the medicine and the company, they profit from some in those markets, but as a general rule the margins in Canada and Europe are more reasonable than in the US. When it comes to medicine the American consumer subsidizes the world's socialized healthcare.

[Tsa`ah]

You already used the Dave joke. Come back with something fresh or go home.

Remember what I said about looking up hypocrisy?


Take some of your own advice and read.

I did .... and I can't believe you're incapable of understanding your own drivel. (Nice edit btw)


I don't care that people responded to the generalization. Did it get the least bit contentious with anyone else who responded to me? No. You are just a miserable person. It's too hard to pass up the opportunity to get your temper flaring like a bitch on her period.

What can I say .... I'm a bit intolerant of ignorant bullshit from kids with no grasp of reality.

Since you took the opportunity to edit ... let me post what you claimed was a recant and/or clarification.


No, waiters aren't lazy at all. If they can't get health coverage then they are stupid, though.

People work as waiters because of how much money you make with almost no education needed. It's not taxed either. Pay for your own healthcare or get a job working at a department store or some other low-form of work that offers health benefits and work the minimum amount of hours to qualify. You can wait and work another job that provides benefits. Or you can just pay for your own coverage.

This is an equally ignorant statement. Not only at the notion of tips not being taxed, granted the amount taxed only goes as far as the person's honesty, but that anyone can just get a job with benefits ... or afford to pay for their own.

I think it's time for you to join the army and lose a tooth.

[Parkbandit]

Remember what I said about looking up hypocrisy?




Must....


Refrain.....

From.......

Commenting........

[Hulkein]

I I did .... and can't believe you're incapable of understanding your own drivel.

This is another one of your canned responses. You realize that everyone knows what is going to follow when they see your username, right? It's the same lame comebacks no matter the situation. Fact is I wasn't at all upset about someone responding to my generalization. It didn't get contentious with any of them. It wasn't until I saw the opportunity to get under your thin skin that I may have seemed to care.



This is an equally ignorant statement. Not only at the notion of tips not being taxed, granted the amount taxed only goes as far as the person's honesty, but that anyone can just get a job with benefits ... or afford to pay for their own.

I think it's time for you to join the army and lose a tooth.

It's not an ignorant statement at all. If you have the capabilities to be a waiter you have the capabilities to get a low-end job that offers benefits at a department store, Wawa, etc.

Again, learn how to read. I didn't say anyone in the country can get a job with benefits. I also didn't say anyone could get a job making enough to pay for their own coverage. However, a person with the physical ability to wait tables (a stressful job, mentally and physically) surely has the ability to get a job that offers mediocre pay but has benefits. Depending on the restaurant the person may not even need the second job because it can be a lucrative job and they can get their own plan. Hopefully it sinks in this time. (Disclaimer: I realize you may know one waiter who works on a prosthetic leg with an oxygen tank in tow and receives dialysis twice a week, but this is another time where we're glossing over the minuscule exceptions to the rule).

A lot of waiters don't report any tips. Most don't report even close to what they get. Saying it is 'untaxed' is just a quick way of referring to something that most people who will debate social health-care already knows, genius. It didn't need to be clarified by you.

I think it's time for you to take another hiatus from this forum. Either that or get laid. Choose the one that we all know is easier for you to accomplish, please.

[Daniel]

What if no places are hiring, because say..the economy is down?

[Gan]

What if no places are hiring, because say..the economy is down?

I could see that in a depression scenario. I cant see that in today's multi-faceted marketplace where not all sectors are down at the same time.

In these cases, looking for jobs in different sectors would be better than not expanding the search beyond their current specialization.

Any job > no job.

[Necromancer]

Pharm companies always love to shove the cost of drug development in everyone's face when people critique their profits. It's a slick move because on the surface the argument seems valid. "They sink a lot in, and they need to make a lot to recoup", but the question remains: how much profit is understandable and how much profit is not?

If you think the prices you are being charged are entirely based on recoupment expectations, you could not be more incorrect. The prices are based on what you will pay.

The ADHD Drug Market (I know this one better than most) is a perfect example of the system. There are two primary drugs, both developed in the 60's for treatment: apmhetamine and methylphenidate. Their profits were made a long time ago; there are no R&D costs at this point. However, in order to keep a competative edge and their patents, the drug companies have created new variations on the drugs. Amphetamine (Obetrol originally) was remarketed as Adderall for ADHD (New 14 year patent), then right before that patent wore off Adderall XR was released (same drug, new delivery system, new 14 year patent), and right before Adderall XRs patent expires they have released Vyvanse (same drug, prodrug version, different delivery system, new 14 year patent). Each drug has been more expensive than the last, holding inflation constant. In fact, the increase in drug costs per year is about 5x that of inflation. Methylphenidate has been through the same process. In order to keep patents, the drug companies have re-marketed the drug as Concerta, Ritalin LA, Daytrana, etc. each the same exact drug with a new delivery system, and each time they get a new 14 year patent.

These drug companies are not struggling companies. During the big recession in 2001 when the average Fortune 500 profits were falling, the drug companies on that list had an average increase of 33% in profits. The top 5 execs in these companies made over $183 million last year combined.

No one seems to be asking, "How much is too much?". A system to protect investments in drugs, say through the government agreeing to provide R&D costs for any drugs that reach Phase III trials but fails to reach market or is received poorly by the market would make a lot more sense than 14 year patents on reprocessed drugs (which is the norm at this point, by the way). Our system is set up to give drug companies incredible profits not set up to prevent them from going under.

So yeah, don't buy that argument without questioning a few things. Yes it's true that drugs can be expensive to develop (CAN BE), but how does that convince us that the companies on the Fortune 500 that are seeing the largest profits are the ones that are most in peril of going under?

[crb]

I'm sorry, but when your profit for one drug is in the millions each year ... your R&D department has no reign on spending and your CFO needs fired if expenses are that tight. You make it sound as if these companies are just scraping by and not reporting record profits every other second.

Not millions, billions.

So... and what do those record profits fund, hmmm? 500 foot yacht for the CEO, boats for all employees? Hmm....

A drug company has 14 years to earn off their discoveries, 14 years. That means, if 14 years go by without a drug company coming up with a new drug, they cease to exist.

So they plug those profits directly into R&D, to ensure their very survival. You see, it is actually in a drug company's best interest to produce needed medications, why? The profit motive.



Amphetamine (Obetrol originally) was remarketed as Adderall for ADHD (New 14 year patent), then right before that patent wore off Adderall XR was released (same drug, new delivery system, new 14 year patent), and right before Adderall XRs patent expires they have released Vyvanse (same drug, prodrug version, different delivery system, new 14 year patent).

This is true, but misleading, the original patent expires, only the new, slightly altered, compound is patented. So you'll still be able to get generic prices on the original compound, if its good enough for you. If you absolutely always have to have the newest drug, you'll have to pay more for it. Just like you'll have to pay more to see a new release in the theaters than on cable.

[crb]

Uh... you do know that there's more than One type of diabetes right? (Cue Sean2). You do also know that one type of diabetes is not preventable (at all) (cue sean2^2). You do also know that diabetics who maintain controllable blood sugar levels remain at higher risk for glaucoma, heart disease etc than their non-diabetic cohorts?

Diabetes isn't just "Oh you take a pill, take a shot, and you're all better." It's a polygenic disorder with tons of pleotrophic conditions, of which, individuals have very little control. Stand there and yell at your body to absorb more magnesium, and see what that does for you.

Once you read up and google all those words, we can continue the discussion.
Of course I know that, its just type 2 diabetes is so very common, much much more common than type 1, that I figured you were talking about type 2 (which is 100% preventable with a healthy lifestyle).

They're actually very different diseases.

Of course, type 1 is very manageable as well, it has to be, if you don't manage it you die relatively quick.

So you're saying she is fit, never smoked, and has type 1 diabetes as opposed to being a fat ex-smoker with type 2?

Then of course I could bring up the point that in 56 years she has failed to educate herself into a better position in life, but that would be a whole other thread.

[crb]

I missed the post you were responding to and had to go back for the laugh.

14 years is a narrow margin to recoup the R&D expense? What planet are you (not Cay) from?

The patent for atrivent (Ipratropium Bromide) in treating asthma expired a few months ago. A one month supply of duo neb (nebulized treatment) ran in excess of 300 bucks. A single inhaler (combivent) ran anywhere from 185 - 210 bucks.

Guess how many uninsured asthmatics, ineligible for any state assistance, could afford it? I'm guessing none. I'm also guessing that at those prices .... R&D was recouped within the year.

Now that the patent is expired, other companies can move in (and have) to offer the same product at a more affordable price. I picked up the generics of either for under 200 bucks (both combined in a month's supply).

The notion that prices are as they are due to the necessity to recoup expenses is laughable.
You assume of course that the drug company has a 1.000 batting average with drugs.

Every new idea doesn't always pan out, drugs don't work, they get rejected by the FDA, but millions and millions may have already been spent developing them.

Profits on approved drugs aren't merely to cover the R&D of that specific drug, but the R&D of all the drugs that didn't work out.

The reality of scientific research is you can be wrong 99 times, and right once, and those 99 failures cost money.

Lyonis summed it up nicely



It sucks that some that need the drug during that initial period of the patent won't be able to get their hands on it. I think it would suck a lot worse if the drug was never created though.

The profit motive drives the advancement of civilization.

Ayn Rand FTW.

[Parkbandit]

But but ... aren't you fat and didn't you eat yourself into a diabetic comma at one time???!!!

Thankfully, you've never insulted anyone about their weight before....

Oh wait...

[Daniel]

I could see that in a depression scenario. I cant see that in today's multi-faceted marketplace where not all sectors are down at the same time.

In these cases, looking for jobs in different sectors would be better than not expanding the search beyond their current specialization.

Any job > no job.

This is true, but if that is the case do you really have the luxury of being picky for a job with health insurance, or waiting for one that does?

[Parkbandit]

This comment is of Dave caliber.

Tell me, have you investigated the job market in reference to provided health coverage and the type of coverage offered? Let alone the cost of actually buying one's own health coverage that is worth a damn?

How about the number of people in the nation that are without healthcare? Are each and every one of these people "too lazy to get a job with benefits"?

Here's one for you ... go fuck yourself you ignorant little bastard.

Actually.. my health insurance costs me the same self employed as it did working for Hilton Hotel Corporation. My coverage isn't as nice (I now have a deductable every year I have to meet) but I am insured.

It's ignorant to believe you have to rely on your employer to get health insurance.

[Parkbandit]

This is true, but if that is the case do you really have the luxury of being picky for a job with health insurance, or waiting for one that does?


I've never accepted any job without considering all benefits and salary. I took a cost of living pay cut moving from FL to CT .. because the health insurance and benefits package were far superior.

[Necromancer]

This is true, but misleading, the original patent expires, only the new, slightly altered, compound is patented. So you'll still be able to get generic prices on the original compound, if its good enough for you. If you absolutely always have to have the newest drug, you'll have to pay more for it. Just like you'll have to pay more to see a new release in the theaters than on cable.

The point is that they're basically getting patent extentions for the same drug. Using marketing ploys, they convince doctors and consumers who don't know any better (and the Pharm companies count on this fact) to switch over to this 'new' drug. And meanwhile, they're continuing to get market-protected prices on that drug, which is identical to the original drug.

These companies aren't out there blowing billions on 'brand new state-of-the-art' drugs. They're out there blowing millions on new 'delivery mechanisms' and gouging the public. In some instances, drug companies have actually patented *inactive* ingredients so they can add them to existing drugs to reapply for a new patent for the combination (marketed as a 'brand new' drug).

We allow that kind of business practice in general, but in general one doesn't get Federally sanctioned monopolies on the product. Anyone who says that our system is 'free market' is kidding themselves. It's ironic that we call universal health care 'socialized medicine' (biggest BS phrase imaginable- you should be ashamed for having used it earlier) as though the current system of Federally-enforced monopolies for drug companies is somehow 'free market'.

The only difference is that one is geared towards helping the public, and the other is geared towards helping corporate entities. And in case anyone missed the 60's, "trickle down" economics is a fantasy and not a reality.

[Necromancer]

>It's ignorant to believe you have to rely on your employer to get health insurance.

There is a reason why the vast majority of coverage comes from employers, and it's *ignorant* to assume otherwise. I'm not sure what your medical record looks like, but just with simple ADHD on my record, the only way I can afford HMO coverage is through an employer. And let's not even get into PPO coverage which wouldn't kick in on my ADHD (or anything else I've been treated for in the previous year) for 366 days.

[Kembal]

Actually.. my health insurance costs me the same self employed as it did working for Hilton Hotel Corporation. My coverage isn't as nice (I now have a deductable every year I have to meet) but I am insured.

It's ignorant to believe you have to rely on your employer to get health insurance.

Hmm. Do you have any preexisting conditions or major medical events in your record? Individual insurance plans can't be pooled to mitigate risk, so I have to guess you rate as a low-risk patient in order to pull that off.

[crb]

The point is that they're basically getting patent extentions for the same drug. Using marketing ploys, they convince doctors and consumers who don't know any better (and the Pharm companies count on this fact) to switch over to this 'new' drug. And meanwhile, they're continuing to get market-protected prices on that drug, which is identical to the original drug.

These companies aren't out there blowing billions on 'brand new state-of-the-art' drugs. They're out there blowing millions on new 'delivery mechanisms' and gouging the public. In some instances, drug companies have actually patented *inactive* ingredients so they can add them to existing drugs to reapply for a new patent for the combination (marketed as a 'brand new' drug).

We allow that kind of business practice in general, but in general one doesn't get Federally sanctioned monopolies on the product. Anyone who says that our system is 'free market' is kidding themselves. It's ironic that we call universal health care 'socialized medicine' (biggest BS phrase imaginable- you should be ashamed for having used it earlier) as though the current system of Federally-enforced monopolies for drug companies is somehow 'free market'.

The only difference is that one is geared towards helping the public, and the other is geared towards helping corporate entities. And in case anyone missed the 60's, "trickle down" economics is a fantasy and not a reality.
No, you're not getting patent extensions for the same drug, it is slightly different.

You may be right, that the drug company stops marketing the drug they no longer hold a patent for and instead market the new drug. But that would be a marketing complaint and a consumer education complaint. You can't fault the drug company on that, it isn't their job to market their drugs, not generic drugs.



We allow that kind of business practice in general, but in general one doesn't get Federally sanctioned monopolies on the product.

So you're coming down on the patent system in general?



The only difference is that one is geared towards helping the public, and the other is geared towards helping corporate entities. And in case anyone missed the 60's, "trickle down" economics is a fantasy and not a reality.

The term "trickle down" is a spin term, you should know that, furthermore, it seems to work. Everyone bitches about Bush's tax cuts helping the wealthiest, and yet since that time federal tax receipts have actually increased (lower taxes, higher tax revenue, who would have thunk it?) meanwhile employment (outside of Michigan) is at low levels, GDP is rising nicely, wages are growing, and the stock market is doing well (recent turmoil aside, the Nasdaq is on track for the highest yearly gain in 4 years).

Economics is a whole other thread though methinks.

[crb]

Hmm. Do you have any preexisting conditions or major medical events in your record? Individual insurance plans can't be pooled to mitigate risk, so I have to guess you rate as a low-risk patient in order to pull that off.
My individual health insurance, which I buy myself, is not medically underwritten. I pay $90 every 2 months for it. $1000 deductible, which is 100% deductible on my taxes because it is attached to an HSA.

[crb]

>It's ignorant to believe you have to rely on your employer to get health insurance.

There is a reason why the vast majority of coverage comes from employers, and it's *ignorant* to assume otherwise. I'm not sure what your medical record looks like, but just with simple ADHD on my record, the only way I can afford HMO coverage is through an employer. And let's not even get into PPO coverage which wouldn't kick in on my ADHD (or anything else I've been treated for in the previous year) for 366 days.
You don't need good coverage, you want good coverage.

You could also do without it, rather than asking tax payers to cover it for you.

20 years ago no one had ADHD medications, they coped somehow. Maybe you need to follow this program (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=3642723).

I find it highly suspect that so many people have been getting "diagnosed" with ADHD in recently years. Is every personality flaw going to become a disorder we get medicated for? Is this a way for unproductive people to blame someone else for problems in their life? "Its not my fault I'm not good at X, I have ADHD."

Not that I don't doubt some people truly need help, but why is it all of this is only just becoming evident now?

Then look at how our child raising practices have changed. You can't spank your kids anymore, some idiots even say "time out" is too harsh. No competitions in school, some people don't want grades in school. Nothing to hurt little Billy's self esteem. Meanwhile none of the kids are building any character or developing any self discipline. Then, that lack of discipline ends up in wild and combative kids and the parents turn to drugs to medicate them. "We're not bad parents, our kid has a disease."

I'm sorry, but 25% of all kids (like some are saying) do not have a "disease" which was unknown until relatively recent time. and maybe... just maybe... if people would try toughing it out, inacting discipline, sending the kid off to military school, or other such things instead of reaching for a bottle of pills maybe insurance premiums wouldn't be so high.

This goes for others things too. If you're diabetic (type 2) losing just 10% of your weight can make a huge difference, but people don't do it. Millions and millions of people go on statins every year instead of dieting, even people in their early 20s now are going on statins.

No one feels the urge to take responsibility for their own health, it is always someone else's fault, out of their control, and can you fill this perscription please?

[Necromancer]

No, you're not getting patent extensions for the same drug, it is slightly different.

You may be right, that the drug company stops marketing the drug they no longer hold a patent for and instead market the new drug. But that would be a marketing complaint and a consumer education complaint. You can't fault the drug company on that, it isn't their job to market their drugs, not generic drugs.



So you're coming down on the patent system in general?



The term "trickle down" is a spin term, you should know that, furthermore, it seems to work. Everyone bitches about Bush's tax cuts helping the wealthiest, and yet since that time federal tax receipts have actually increased (lower taxes, higher tax revenue, who would have thunk it?) meanwhile employment (outside of Michigan) is at low levels, GDP is rising nicely, wages are growing, and the stock market is doing well (recent turmoil aside, the Nasdaq is on track for the highest yearly gain in 4 years).

Economics is a whole other thread though methinks.

No, that's exactly the point. They're not getting a patent for a new drug, they're getting it for a new delivery system or new combination of that drug with an inactive drug and treating these things as though they're new drugs. The patent system in this was intended to help them recoup R&D costs, NOT to give them eternal market advantages. They're abusing that system and claiming it necessary for survival. It has become an excuse not to develop new drugs.

And I'm coming down on the way patents are employed by the FDA. Their purpose isn't for the sake of public health, their purpose is for the profits of large corporations. The FDA has long made it clear that they aren't working in our interests at all. Anyone who has doubts feel free to look up Aspertame (AND TO STOP CONSUMING IT).


And Bush's whole strategy on tax cuts is a ridiculous thing to bring up in this argument. Aside from being irrelevant, I will point out that Bush's economy has been in almost consistent recession since he got into office. The real reason why the market is springing up is, not surprisingly, the war. War is great for the economy, but it takes a few years for you to start feeling the effects on a macro level. And it goes to show that increasing profits (as though the rich aren't the ones getting richer and the poor aren't the ones getting poorer) at the expense of human lives is an ugly thing.

[crb]

No, that's exactly the point. They're not getting a patent for a new drug, they're getting it for a new delivery system or new combination of that drug with an inactive drug and treating these things as though they're new drugs. The patent system in this was intended to help them recoup R&D costs, NOT to give them eternal market advantages. They're abusing that system and claiming it necessary for survival. It has become an excuse not to develop new drugs.

And whom is holding a gun to your head forcing you to take this nominally different drug instead of the much cheaper alternative?



Anyone who has doubts feel free to look up Aspertame (AND TO STOP CONSUMING IT).

Internet chain letters FTW!



I will point out that Bush's economy has been in almost consistent recession since he got into office.

Do you know what a recession is? We've been having really good GDP growth, in 2003 or 2004 it was the best in 20 years. A recession is a decline in GDP. That hasn't happened since 2001, and you can't really blame that recession on anyone other than 20 crazy muslims.



The real reason why the market is springing up is, not surprisingly, the war. War is great for the economy, but it takes a few years for you to start feeling the effects on a macro level.

This is true.



And it goes to show that increasing profits (as though the rich aren't the ones getting richer and the poor aren't the ones getting poorer) at the expense of human lives is an ugly thing.

Kinda like certain countries (cough france cough russia) ignoring Saddam's slaughter of kurds in order to get favorable oil deals from him.

[thefarmer]

You two (crb/Necro) need to get a room and hash things out fo real yo.

[Necromancer]

Again I say: no one is more obsessed with gay sex than heterosexuals.

[Tsa`ah]

This is another one of your canned responses. You realize that everyone knows what is going to follow when they see your username, right? It's the same lame comebacks no matter the situation. Fact is I wasn't at all upset about someone responding to my generalization. It didn't get contentious with any of them. It wasn't until I saw the opportunity to get under your thin skin that I may have seemed to care.

Pulling out the "everyone" argument. I thought you were a tad brighter than that. If by "everyone" you mean 10-12 people ... then I guess you can use "everyone". Glad to see you've come back to claim your seat in the peanut gallery ... it didn't take that long.

And for the record champ ... you're under my skin as much as the next idiot. Self delusion isn't all that healthy, maybe you should look into that.


It's not an ignorant statement at all. If you have the capabilities to be a waiter you have the capabilities to get a low-end job that offers benefits at a department store, Wawa, etc.

Certainly you do, you're just ignorant enough to think jobs with benefits are universally available anyone within the US borders, any time, any place. That's far from the truth. You also assume that such a job will provide good coverage ... which is also far from the truth. More often than not, well those benefits aren't even worth the employees required contribution.


Again, learn how to read. I didn't say anyone in the country can get a job with benefits. I also didn't say anyone could get a job making enough to pay for their own coverage.

No, you used a waiter as an example and then implied they should work a second job (part time I'm assuming) for the benefits or to pay for their own coverage.

What a fucking cock nozzle. Sure, that could work for a single person who isn't a student .... that's about it ... and barely at that.

Sir, you wait tables 40 hours and more a week. Your earnings and tips cover your monthly expenses and allow you to save a little and actually relax. Sure, you'll never be able to retire, and heaven forbid if you have kids ... but you need health insurance. That little bit of free time you have for yourself ... forget it. Get a second job and work yourself into poor health and then take advantage of the healthcare you had to get a second job for.

Cock nozzle doesn't even describe you. Bargain basement premiums for single coverage, healthy, no pre-existing conditions start around 300 and really covers squat. There's no real coverage until you shell out about 1500 - 3000 bucks. These plans don't cover prescriptions, co-pay is a dirty word ... they cover squat until you shell out the high deductible. Which means if you're healthy and come down with the flu, break a limb ... any of the "minor" things that happen year to year ... or if you just want to go get a check up ... it's out of pocket and you're shelling out cash for something you can't use until you need major surgery, develop cancer (which could have been caught earlier and treated if the plan covered regular exams ... but they don't and you couldn't afford to visit the doc because the cash you would have used went to the insurance company ... so you would be covered for shit like this)

To buy into a PPO or HMO you're shelling out twice that, providing you can find a group to buy into ... and providing they'll accept you.

Now, if you're working as a waiter and have a family ... hey, kids don't really need parental figures in their lives. Little Suzie will understand that daddy or mommy has to pretty much work 2 full time jobs just so the family has health care ... heaven forbid anyone actually have to use it.


However, a person with the physical ability to wait tables (a stressful job, mentally and physically) surely has the ability to get a job that offers mediocre pay but has benefits. Depending on the restaurant the person may not even need the second job because it can be a lucrative job and they can get their own plan. Hopefully it sinks in this time. (Disclaimer: I realize you may know one waiter who works on a prosthetic leg with an oxygen tank in tow and receives dialysis twice a week, but this is another time where we're glossing over the minuscule exceptions to the rule).

Read the above ... maybe it will sink in this time for you.

Let's not even get into how job markets vary between regions. Your plan is singular and short sighted at the very best.


A lot of waiters don't report any tips. Most don't report even close to what they get. Saying it is 'untaxed' is just a quick way of referring to something that most people who will debate social health-care already knows, genius. It didn't need to be clarified by you.

You assume a great deal. In the age of credit cards ... a hell of a lot of tips get reported. I'm willing to bet that anyone waiting tables where the average plate starts at 20 bucks gets tipped more with cards than they do with cash ... and that is involuntary reporting my dim witted friend.


I think it's time for you to take another hiatus from this forum. Either that or get laid. Choose the one that we all know is easier for you to accomplish, please.

When have I taken a hiatus from this board outside of work?

And you're just the backtracking editing fiend today ... did you decide your previously unedited flame was a bit too Tamral? Where's the shot at me getting fired from my job a few years back? I love it when you chimps throw that brand of poo. Ya, I got fired for not taking a list of good people and firing them ... whoopity shit ... I have morals that aren't for sale. Unless your head is crammed so far into your ass that you can't see ... I've done plenty since.

Where's the comment that you were going to make more money than me when you graduate?

Bright eyed bushy tailed law students with notions of big bucks upon graduation .... gives me the giggles every time. Are you that fucking insecure that you want to compare paychecks? Give me a fucking break or go look into some penis enlargement program Franky. I don't give a fuck what your paycheck looks like now ... or ten years down the road. I work for myself now and the only thing you need to know about my income is that it keeps the roof above my head, my kids fed and educated, and the home warm. My taxes are paid and so are the rest of my bills, those that I have.

Never you worry though, even if I decided to sell off my business interests and truly be a stay at home bum ... I've earned my share and then some ... and the wife has no desire to stop doing what she does with her doctorate.


I could see that in a depression scenario. I cant see that in today's multi-faceted marketplace where not all sectors are down at the same time.

In these cases, looking for jobs in different sectors would be better than not expanding the search beyond their current specialization.

Any job > no job.

Again, this depends on the region and regions are not universally the same from one coast/border to the other.


Not millions, billions.

So... and what do those record profits fund, hmmm? 500 foot yacht for the CEO, boats for all employees? Hmm....

A drug company has 14 years to earn off their discoveries, 14 years. That means, if 14 years go by without a drug company coming up with a new drug, they cease to exist.

What planet are you from again?

Let's take the JAMA 2001 figure of 15.1 million adults with asthma in the US. Let's say hmm ... 20% of that figure are prescribed and use atrivent (a pretty damn conservative number).

So, 3,020,000 adult asthmatics (notice I only include adults here) sending 500 bucks a month to big pharm. 15,100,000,000.

Granted, that the price payed at the pharmacy counter either out of pocket or through coverage ... and honestly, 15 billion a month seems a bit out of this world ... though 15 million a month ... every month ... for 14 years. I'm sorry, your argument loses water with every passing day.

And to suggest that after 14 years they're humped ... wtf. So they just stop selling it? I'm sorry, but that's not even right. They still sell it, they just drop the price a bit and hope people don't request generic.


So they plug those profits directly into R&D, to ensure their very survival. You see, it is actually in a drug company's best interest to produce needed medications, why? The profit motive.

No one is arguing the opposite, we're arguing over inflated pricing.

To me it makes more sense to price drugs reasonably. This does several things. It keeps the lines moving, increases demand (because more people can afford the damn things) and employs more people to make sure the demand is met.


This is true, but misleading, the original patent expires, only the new, slightly altered, compound is patented. So you'll still be able to get generic prices on the original compound, if its good enough for you. If you absolutely always have to have the newest drug, you'll have to pay more for it. Just like you'll have to pay more to see a new release in the theaters than on cable.

This is untrue and misleading. Most drugs are not altered in the least. As the guy said, the delivery system is altered. This was attempted with albuterol while I was in HS. They altered the delivery to a solid pellet that was ground down by a wheel in the inhalation device. It was "environmentally friendly" ... but also increased your chances of infection anywhere along the path of delivery ... and gave you blood clots in your lungs on occassion.

The drugs are seldom altered. The patents are given for delivery, different treatment (often changing the wording to treat the same damn thing gives you a new patent), or pairing the existing drug with another existing drug to treat the same thing.

The new patent often comes with a new name. Doctors are busy enough and many don't have time to research on their own and frankly can't remember the chemical name of each and every medication. Pharm companies bombard doctors with reps and advertising of every new product. This is a specific tactic geared at getting the medical community to prescribe a newly patented medication.

When this happens, more often than not the pharmacy won't tell you that the medication is just the same old same old in a new package ... because then they lose money.


You assume of course that the drug company has a 1.000 batting average with drugs.

Not even.


Every new idea doesn't always pan out, drugs don't work, they get rejected by the FDA, but millions and millions may have already been spent developing them.

Or they just take them to market anyway. Go read up on how many drugs are on the market without FDA approval and how often doctors prescribe them assuming they have the FDA stamp.


Profits on approved drugs aren't merely to cover the R&D of that specific drug, but the R&D of all the drugs that didn't work out.

We're aware of this ... no one is over looking this fact. What you fail to comprehend (as I pointed out some lines up) is that each drug on the market, within patents, pulls in millions a month. And we're not talking 1 or 2 million.

R&D costs are, at best, overinflated in an attempt to justify the cost of existing marketable drugs. You just can't seem to comprehend this.


The reality of scientific research is you can be wrong 99 times, and right once, and those 99 failures cost money.

And that one time is the sole winning powerball ticket after a 3 months of roll over.


Actually.. my health insurance costs me the same self employed as it did working for Hilton Hotel Corporation. My coverage isn't as nice (I now have a deductable every year I have to meet) but I am insured.

It's ignorant to believe you have to rely on your employer to get health insurance.

Because everyone is you and everyone can do the same, has the same opportunity? Very ignorant of you.

It's equally ignorant of you to think that someone working just above the poverty line can afford to buy their own coverage.

Again, and hopefully this will sink in over time, things are not universal. What you can do and afford does not translate to the next person. While I applaud your efforts to keep yourself and your family insured, it means squat in the larger picture.


No, you're not getting patent extensions for the same drug, it is slightly different.

Yes ... you are. Please read above. The drug rarely changes.


...

No need to respond to you anymore ... I'm just amazed you can type at this point.

[Parkbandit]

Hmm. Do you have any preexisting conditions or major medical events in your record? Individual insurance plans can't be pooled to mitigate risk, so I have to guess you rate as a low-risk patient in order to pull that off.

How many people actually HAVE pre-existing conditions? I must be friends with the healthiest Americans alive.. I can think of maybe TWO of my friends who have any conditions like that. Should we base all debate points now on the minority of people it will affect?

You are correct though in suggesting I am a perfect physical specimen of a man. You may continue.

[Parkbandit]

Because everyone is you and everyone can do the same, has the same opportunity? Very ignorant of you.

It's equally ignorant of you to think that someone working just above the poverty line can afford to buy their own coverage.

Again, and hopefully this will sink in over time, things are not universal. What you can do and afford does not translate to the next person. While I applaud your efforts to keep yourself and your family insured, it means squat in the larger picture.


I skipped over most of your overcompensating wall of text to address this part. I'll keep it brief so the people who endured your post can get some real content.


You're a dumbass.

[Asha]

It's very comforting having a National Health Service, when you're skint with a family.

[Tsa`ah]

I skipped over most of your overcompensating wall of text to address this part. I'll keep it brief so the people who endured your post can get some real content.


You're a dumbass.

I'm going to intentionally quote these out of order since you have so much to offer in this particular area ...

Maybe if you could get over your adhd, it's become painfully obvious that this is what you suffer from, and read some content once in a while. If you had bothered you would have been able to derive a portion of the answer to your question in the quote below.

Outside of that ... I fucking swear someone must have beat you repeatedly in the head with a bat or some other blunt object every waking moment of your existence to be so fucking short sighted and narrow minded as you are.

You hold yourself up as the example, the end all and be all, of existence. How in the fuck do you get through your day without gaining some minute understand of the world that exists outside of your miniscule concept of reality?


How many people actually HAVE pre-existing conditions? I must be friends with the healthiest Americans alive.. I can think of maybe TWO of my friends who have any conditions like that. Should we base all debate points now on the minority of people it will affect?


The partial answer to that question would be at least 15.1 million adults in 2001.

Why not look into some medical reports and check the census by disease.

Maybe you'll understand, providing the numbers aren't all that large.

[Hulkein]

TEXT

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of health care. I don't know prices like you do because I haven't had to. I'm not going to get in any kind of argument with you regarding that aspect of it because I don't know it. I'll take your word for it. My position is that a universal 'free' system is a fundamentally bad way to go about treating an entire nation.

Where I'm from, the people who aren't lazy either go to college or get into a trade/profession where it's easy to get health coverage. I don't feel bad when I see my friends who can't get coverage because they decided to work odd-jobs to do nothing more than support whatever dependency it is this month as opposed to landing a job that could take care of them. I'm not from an economically booming area so I admit, I don't see how this isn't possible for anyone, anywhere. Cops get benefits. How hard is it to become a cop? Honestly? Go to school part time and get a better job if you don't like being a cop. There are dozens of professions that are the same way.

As for my edit, you're right, I did feel like Tamral. I'm not that kind of person and I felt like an asshole for saying something personal like that. You got canned for a respectable reason. I apologize for saying what I did. Your life seems pretty good. I don't understand why that doesn't translate into an appearance of someone happier online.

[crb]

My wife has asthma, my brother has asthma, my dad has asthma. Neither of them need the newest prescription medication. My wife has an inhaler for very rare use (mostly, spring time running), my dad has an inhaler for very rare use, my brother has one for more regular (Day to day use), nothing fancy though.

But I'm sure they're included in your 15.1 million statistic. It isn't like everyone with asthma is walking around with an oxygen tank strapped to their back.

I don't know where you people live, but where I live you can easily get non-medically underwritten insurance, which means they don't care about your health history. Depending on if you're transfering coverage or buying new coverage there is a waiting period before it'll cover preexisting conditions (0-180 days), but it will not affect your premium. Yes, you may have a high deductible so you will have to pay when you go to the doctor for routine stuff you don't need to go to a doctor for, but that deductible will be paired with an HSA which is fully deductible on your taxes, and you can even use your HSA to pay for things like OTC meds, dental work, eye glasses, etc, things your normal insurance doesn't cover, and it is still deductible.

I pay just under $600, a year, for mine.

Insurance, by definition, is supposed to cover unexpected expenses. If you're using it to cover regular, expected, maintenance expenses of course you'll pay a higher premium, but that doesn't mean you don't have the option to buy something cheaper, just that you choose not to.

[Daniel]

I've never accepted any job without considering all benefits and salary. I took a cost of living pay cut moving from FL to CT .. because the health insurance and benefits package were far superior.

And as you point out at every opportunity: you aren't living paycheck to paycheck.

[Daniel]

Where I'm from, .

Key point. I doubt your area is a representation of the entire nation, on many levels.

[Hulkein]

Key point. I doubt your area is a representation of the entire nation, on many levels.

You're right, it's probably worse with the exception of Detroit and the ghettos in any major city.

[Parkbandit]

I'm going to intentionally quote these out of order since you have so much to offer in this particular area ...

Maybe if you could get over your adhd, it's become painfully obvious that this is what you suffer from, and read some content once in a while. If you had bothered you would have been able to derive a portion of the answer to your question in the quote below.

Outside of that ... I fucking swear someone must have beat you repeatedly in the head with a bat or some other blunt object every waking moment of your existence to be so fucking short sighted and narrow minded as you are.

You hold yourself up as the example, the end all and be all, of existence. How in the fuck do you get through your day without gaining some minute understand of the world that exists outside of your miniscule concept of reality?



When you need an entire fucking page of words and google searches to 'prove' your point.. I imagine your point is on pretty shaky ground to begin with. No one reads that 10,000 page essay you produce daily.. because frankly it's full of Tsa'ah google bullshit (To be henceforth called TGB) It's not ADHD to not want to read it.. it's called some of us have better things to do.. given that we already know it's bullshit. Take a poll.. let's see how many people suffer from ADHD because they didn't read your fucking diatribe. You may actually bring forth good points.. but who wants to sift through all of it to find the morsel of intelligence?

Your point previous was that all wait staff were too poor to afford health insurance because no employer ever offers it to them. We're going to have to ring the BULLSHIT bell on that one... as demonstrated by my post of 2 waiter friends. Maybe you are right.. maybe I do lead a charmed life where everything just falls into place perfectly for myself and all of my friends, acquaintances, people I meet and apartments I go into on a daily basis. HUD housing where people with big H3 hummers outside of them.. 42" plasma TVs and HD tuners.. are these those poor, poor people who can't afford health insurance? Boo fucking hoo imo. There is plenty of opportunity in this country to make a living and get affordable healthcare... the question is, do people really want it? Would they rather drive a nicer car or get a nicer TV and take a chance on not carrying health insurance? Could it possibly be that people have their priorities fucked up and put health insurance towards the bottom of their priority ladder?

Certainly, life isn't as good as I make it sound for everyone.. but it's not as miserable as you make it sound either. Maybe because you are so miserable in your life, your project that in any political debate you engage in.. believing things are that miserable for everyone?

[Parkbandit]

And as you point out at every opportunity: you aren't living paycheck to paycheck.


If you aren't considering your entire benefit package (vacation, sick, insurance, PTO, etc...) when accepting a job, then you only have yourself to blame. I used to work as a houseman in a Holiday Inn shaking farts out of sheets. When I accepted that minimum pay job, I also considered the benefits along with my salary. I could have made $.25 more down the road at a Days Inn.. but at the Holiday Inn, I could get health insurance for working only 28 hours a week as opposed to 32 at Days Inn. I also got free lunch at Holiday Inn as well as a scaled sick and vacation plan.

[Daniel]

If you aren't considering your entire benefit package (vacation, sick, insurance, PTO, etc...) when accepting a job, then you only have yourself to blame. I used to work as a houseman in a Holiday Inn shaking farts out of sheets. When I accepted that minimum pay job, I also considered the benefits along with my salary. I could have made $.25 more down the road at a Days Inn.. but at the Holiday Inn, I could get health insurance for working only 28 hours a week as opposed to 32 at Days Inn. I also got free lunch at Holiday Inn as well as a scaled sick and vacation plan.


Okay, so you took the job at holiday inn. What about the person who now has to accept the job at the Days Inn?

It's not as simple as you claim. There is not an overabundance of employment in this country. In fact, there is some unemployment, as defined as people who are actively searching or between jobs.

I guess if something happens to them medically at that point they should be assed out?

It's not an issue of being lazy, or stupid. It's a matter of life taking unexpected turns and I'd doubt you want to be fucked over if that happened to you or anyone else.

[sst]

Pulling out the "everyone" argument. I thought you were a tad brighter than that. If by "everyone" you mean 10-12 people ... then I guess you can use "everyone". Glad to see you've come back to claim your seat in the peanut gallery ... it didn't take that long.

And for the record champ ... you're under my skin as much as the next idiot. Self delusion isn't all that healthy, maybe you should look into that.



Certainly you do, you're just ignorant enough to think jobs with benefits are universally available anyone within the US borders, any time, any place. That's far from the truth. You also assume that such a job will provide good coverage ... which is also far from the truth. More often than not, well those benefits aren't even worth the employees required contribution.



No, you used a waiter as an example and then implied they should work a second job (part time I'm assuming) for the benefits or to pay for their own coverage.

What a fucking cock nozzle. Sure, that could work for a single person who isn't a student .... that's about it ... and barely at that.

Sir, you wait tables 40 hours and more a week. Your earnings and tips cover your monthly expenses and allow you to save a little and actually relax. Sure, you'll never be able to retire, and heaven forbid if you have kids ... but you need health insurance. That little bit of free time you have for yourself ... forget it. Get a second job and work yourself into poor health and then take advantage of the healthcare you had to get a second job for.

Cock nozzle doesn't even describe you. Bargain basement premiums for single coverage, healthy, no pre-existing conditions start around 300 and really covers squat. There's no real coverage until you shell out about 1500 - 3000 bucks. These plans don't cover prescriptions, co-pay is a dirty word ... they cover squat until you shell out the high deductible. Which means if you're healthy and come down with the flu, break a limb ... any of the "minor" things that happen year to year ... or if you just want to go get a check up ... it's out of pocket and you're shelling out cash for something you can't use until you need major surgery, develop cancer (which could have been caught earlier and treated if the plan covered regular exams ... but they don't and you couldn't afford to visit the doc because the cash you would have used went to the insurance company ... so you would be covered for shit like this)

To buy into a PPO or HMO you're shelling out twice that, providing you can find a group to buy into ... and providing they'll accept you.

Now, if you're working as a waiter and have a family ... hey, kids don't really need parental figures in their lives. Little Suzie will understand that daddy or mommy has to pretty much work 2 full time jobs just so the family has health care ... heaven forbid anyone actually have to use it.



Read the above ... maybe it will sink in this time for you.

Let's not even get into how job markets vary between regions. Your plan is singular and short sighted at the very best.



You assume a great deal. In the age of credit cards ... a hell of a lot of tips get reported. I'm willing to bet that anyone waiting tables where the average plate starts at 20 bucks gets tipped more with cards than they do with cash ... and that is involuntary reporting my dim witted friend.



When have I taken a hiatus from this board outside of work?

And you're just the backtracking editing fiend today ... did you decide your previously unedited flame was a bit too Tamral? Where's the shot at me getting fired from my job a few years back? I love it when you chimps throw that brand of poo. Ya, I got fired for not taking a list of good people and firing them ... whoopity shit ... I have morals that aren't for sale. Unless your head is crammed so far into your ass that you can't see ... I've done plenty since.

Where's the comment that you were going to make more money than me when you graduate?

Bright eyed bushy tailed law students with notions of big bucks upon graduation .... gives me the giggles every time. Are you that fucking insecure that you want to compare paychecks? Give me a fucking break or go look into some penis enlargement program Franky. I don't give a fuck what your paycheck looks like now ... or ten years down the road. I work for myself now and the only thing you need to know about my income is that it keeps the roof above my head, my kids fed and educated, and the home warm. My taxes are paid and so are the rest of my bills, those that I have.

Never you worry though, even if I decided to sell off my business interests and truly be a stay at home bum ... I've earned my share and then some ... and the wife has no desire to stop doing what she does with her doctorate.



Again, this depends on the region and regions are not universally the same from one coast/border to the other.



What planet are you from again?

Let's take the JAMA 2001 figure of 15.1 million adults with asthma in the US. Let's say hmm ... 20% of that figure are prescribed and use atrivent (a pretty damn conservative number).

So, 3,020,000 adult asthmatics (notice I only include adults here) sending 500 bucks a month to big pharm. 15,100,000,000.

Granted, that the price payed at the pharmacy counter either out of pocket or through coverage ... and honestly, 15 billion a month seems a bit out of this world ... though 15 million a month ... every month ... for 14 years. I'm sorry, your argument loses water with every passing day.

And to suggest that after 14 years they're humped ... wtf. So they just stop selling it? I'm sorry, but that's not even right. They still sell it, they just drop the price a bit and hope people don't request generic.



No one is arguing the opposite, we're arguing over inflated pricing.

To me it makes more sense to price drugs reasonably. This does several things. It keeps the lines moving, increases demand (because more people can afford the damn things) and employs more people to make sure the demand is met.



This is untrue and misleading. Most drugs are not altered in the least. As the guy said, the delivery system is altered. This was attempted with albuterol while I was in HS. They altered the delivery to a solid pellet that was ground down by a wheel in the inhalation device. It was "environmentally friendly" ... but also increased your chances of infection anywhere along the path of delivery ... and gave you blood clots in your lungs on occassion.

The drugs are seldom altered. The patents are given for delivery, different treatment (often changing the wording to treat the same damn thing gives you a new patent), or pairing the existing drug with another existing drug to treat the same thing.

The new patent often comes with a new name. Doctors are busy enough and many don't have time to research on their own and frankly can't remember the chemical name of each and every medication. Pharm companies bombard doctors with reps and advertising of every new product. This is a specific tactic geared at getting the medical community to prescribe a newly patented medication.

When this happens, more often than not the pharmacy won't tell you that the medication is just the same old same old in a new package ... because then they lose money.



Not even.



Or they just take them to market anyway. Go read up on how many drugs are on the market without FDA approval and how often doctors prescribe them assuming they have the FDA stamp.



We're aware of this ... no one is over looking this fact. What you fail to comprehend (as I pointed out some lines up) is that each drug on the market, within patents, pulls in millions a month. And we're not talking 1 or 2 million.

R&D costs are, at best, overinflated in an attempt to justify the cost of existing marketable drugs. You just can't seem to comprehend this.



And that one time is the sole winning powerball ticket after a 3 months of roll over.



Because everyone is you and everyone can do the same, has the same opportunity? Very ignorant of you.

It's equally ignorant of you to think that someone working just above the poverty line can afford to buy their own coverage.

Again, and hopefully this will sink in over time, things are not universal. What you can do and afford does not translate to the next person. While I applaud your efforts to keep yourself and your family insured, it means squat in the larger picture.



Yes ... you are. Please read above. The drug rarely changes.



No need to respond to you anymore ... I'm just amazed you can type at this point.

all i have to say is holy crap you spent all that time on that wall of text.. You Sir need to get a life.

[Hulkein]

It's not an issue of being lazy, or stupid. It's a matter of life taking unexpected turns and I'd doubt you want to be fucked over if that happened to you or anyone else.

For the vast majority it is a matter of being lazy. There are people who legitimately get fucked over and it is sad but does that warrant a federal universal health care program? A program that will reduce the quality of care for the majority of hard working people? A program that will further enable the feeling of entitlement that keeps growing as our nanny-state grows? I don't think so.

[Daniel]

Where are you getting this vast majority statistic?

[Parkbandit]

Okay, so you took the job at holiday inn. What about the person who now has to accept the job at the Days Inn?

It's not as simple as you claim. There is not an overabundance of employment in this country. In fact, there is some unemployment, as defined as people who are actively searching or between jobs.

I guess if something happens to them medically at that point they should be assed out?

It's not an issue of being lazy, or stupid. It's a matter of life taking unexpected turns and I'd doubt you want to be fucked over if that happened to you or anyone else.

The person who took the Days Inn job still had benefits if he/she could work more than 31 hours a week. If he/she couldn't, then he/she needed to decide if health insurance was a high priority for them.

He got fucked though on the free lunch.. because the burgers at the Holiday Inn were selected as the Best Burger in town. Hand formed patties cooked over apple wood grill. Best burger I've had to date.. ever.

edited to add: And you would have a point if the unemployment rate wasn't only 4.7% ANYONE (Yes, even black people) could get a job in this country if they are willing to actually work. When I managed hotels, I was always looking for quality employees who actually gave a shit and weren't lazy.

[crb]

Careful... you're going to get the libspin of "Unemployment statistics don't take into account people who have given up." Or "Sure, people have jobs, but the quality of job has gotten power and wages have decreased."

I'll also point out that full employment is technically meant to be 4% unemployment by most government economists/accountants/other non-partisan academics.

[Hulkein]

Where are you getting this vast majority statistic?

Kind of hard to quantify how many people choose not to get a job that offers benefits over something else, no? I'd have no problem taking back my statement if you somehow had statistics proving it the other way, but I don't see how that's possible. Until then I'm going off what I see, and I see advertisements for jobs offering health benefits everywhere. Minimal requirement jobs.

[Kembal]

Careful... you're going to get the libspin of "Unemployment statistics don't take into account people who have given up." Or "Sure, people have jobs, but the quality of job has gotten power and wages have decreased."

I'll also point out that full employment is technically meant to be 4% unemployment by most government economists/accountants/other non-partisan academics.

That's not liberal spin. That's fact....unemployment statistics, as reported by the government, do not take into account people who have stopped looking for a job. And if wages have not kept pace with inflation, that means real wages have decreased. Again, that's fact. I think you need to look up what the word "spin" means.

If we had perfect elasticity of labor, including easy mobility, easy to get education and training, etc., then one could point to the overall unemployment rate and say "the jobs are out there, people are being lazy." The fact is that labor is not easily mobile (cost of moving, family situations, etc.) and not everyone has the levels of education and/or training to easily switch job sectors, nor is it easy/affordable for them to get the education/training they need. I think most everyone is overlooking that in this discussion.

[crb]

and not everyone has the levels of education and/or training to easily switch job sectors, nor is it easy/affordable for them to get the education/training they need. I think most everyone is overlooking that in this discussion.


Ignorance isn't an excuse. If you've not educated yourself you have only yourself to blame. Nowadays there are a myriad of options for self education that are cheap-to-free for low income people and can also be done from your home or from a free public library.

Bad choices should have consequences, and if you made the bad choice to not make education a priority you should have to reap what you sow.

One government entitlement program I'm 100% behind is need based grants for higher education. If you have the desire to educate yourself, you should be able to regardless of cost. The programs are out there, state, federal, and local. Grants, scholarships, and 0% interest loans. Most schools now offer online courses as well, including some full degree programs, which can be taken at any public library if you don't have a computer, but you could use a student loan/grant to pay for a computer for your home as well. Or get a used computer as a donation. Also, in my state, any student enrolled in a public college/university qualifies for free internet access. It is slow dialup, but free.

[Ilvane]

It makes me kind of sick that we live in such a individualistic society. It's all about "ME" and never about "US" as a society.

I find it depressing that we are more concerned with taking a few more cents out of our paychecks to make sure everyone has health care(yes, it's not going to be 20 bucks, people) than we are about taking care of everyone equally.

Wouldn't it be nice?

I guess I like the thought of a society that is a bit more collectivist(You know, it takes a village?)

Angela

[Hulkein]

It makes me kind of sick that we live in such a individualistic society. It's all about "ME" and never about "US" as a society.

That's not necessarily how people who disagree with universal health care think.

On a personal level I would love everyone to have free health care. I think it's bad policy, though.

You can't continually offer handouts to a population and expect any type of sustained success for the country. If someone with no education or steady job decides to have 4 kids then that's his own fault for ruining his mobility. There are jobs out there that offer health benefits. His kids should have free health care because they're in a bad situation with absolutely no fault of their own. The federal government shouldn't bail him though.

Yes, there are some people who hit hard times through no fault of their own. You still shouldn't shape national health care policy on those few people at the expense of everyone else.

From what I've read here there seems to be plenty of health care reform that could be enacted to help more people without making it socialistic.

[Ilvane]

So what happened before health insurance? Didn't people just go to the doctor and pay? Was the cost lower? Was the cost proportionate to what someone could pay?

I honestly don't know all the answers to that, so I'm asking.:)

I just think it's a better idea to have everyone having ability to be seen if they are sick. I also like the idea of everyone being able to have a visit with a doctor once a year and not have to pay 300 dollars for it. A person shouldn't have to decide between having a house or paying doctor bills. It's just not right.

There has to be a line.

Angela

[Parkbandit]

Wouldn't it be nice?

I guess I like the thought of a society that is a bit more collectivist(You know, it takes a village?)

Angela


I guess when we do form this fantasy village, your job of idiot will be secure.

[Parkbandit]

So what happened before health insurance? Didn't people just go to the doctor and pay? Was the cost lower? Was the cost proportionate to what someone could pay?

I honestly don't know all the answers to that, so I'm asking.:)

I just think it's a better idea to have everyone having ability to be seen if they are sick. I also like the idea of everyone being able to have a visit with a doctor once a year and not have to pay 300 dollars for it. A person shouldn't have to decide between having a house or paying doctor bills. It's just not right.

There has to be a line.

Angela


Your intentions are great.. but have almost no footing in reality. Think about it for a moment.. you are saying to the one entity in this country KNOWN for wasteful spending and mismanagement.. to manage healthcare for EVERYONE! Do you honestly believe that our government is capable of running such an endevour?

It's like Global Warming.. God.. what a great world we would live in if we could control 2% of all greenhouse gases and magically change the climate of an entire planet. It's a great intention.. but the reality is.. it'll never, ever work.

[CrystalTears]

The problem is that I hate insurance companies almost as much, if not more, than the government.

[Ilvane]

Well, I agree. Insurance companies are the reason for the cost of health care going up so high, in the first place.

Angela

[Warriorbird]

:chuckles:

We live in a country where we reduce the quality of life and power of the individual to further large corporations and GNP. In certain countries with vastly reduced GNP the individual makes a good deal more, is taxed a good deal more (but suffers less of their total income for it), and has better benefits.

It's a tradeoff... the more we act against the individual as a society to fuel GNP the more we risk damaging the raw force of consumerism that powers us.

Republicans love to go on and on about taking down barriers to trade...but as soon as a corporation has anything happen to it... they're incredibly protectionist.

A corporation is an incredibly powerful and amoral thing. Whining about "how tough they have it" is a joke.

Pharmaceutical companies complain when they're profiteering off people so much that it's cheaper to buy the exact same companies from Canada.

Insurance companies complain when they get caught doing what they do...which is acting to please stockholders and shafting their actual customers.

Just because you may have an easy and cheap time getting insurance doesn't mean everyone does. I doubt most of the folks who are going on and on about it in the thread have ever lived lives other than those of extreme privilege.

[CrystalTears]

Heh, working in a Holiday Inn or Walmart is living with extreme privileges. That's funny.

[Ilvane]

Well, according to some..health care is a privilege not a right.

I guess if they offer it, it might be? LOL

Angela

[Hulkein]

Just because you may have an easy and cheap time getting insurance doesn't mean everyone does. I doubt most of the folks who are going on and on about it in the thread have ever lived lives other than those of extreme privilege.

I didn't grow up with privilege, let alone extreme privilege. I did watch two hard working parents go from a row home in West Philly to a pretty nice house in the suburbs, though. I guess I'm jaded in that I don't see what is stopping most people from doing the same thing. Maybe not to this extent but enough to get out of a row home.

[Daniel]

Kind of hard to quantify how many people choose not to get a job that offers benefits over something else, no? I'd have no problem taking back my statement if you somehow had statistics proving it the other way, but I don't see how that's possible. Until then I'm going off what I see, and I see advertisements for jobs offering health benefits everywhere. Minimal requirement jobs.

Why would someone *choose* a job without health benefits over a job with health benefits?

[Gan]

Why would someone *choose* a job without health benefits over a job with health benefits?
Depends on if their spouse already has health benefits [available for the family] associated with his/her job.

;)

[Ilvane]

The problem is with those minimal requirement jobs is, you either get insurance for a pretty expensive price, or the plans have lots of deductibles, like old time indemnity plans.

[Hulkein]

Why would someone *choose* a job without health benefits over a job with health benefits?

A lot of people just look at the paycheck and don't factor that in. You'd have to ask them. Or they're too good to work at a department store or scoop shit. There are many reasons.

[Daniel]

Could one of these reasons possibly be that it simply is not possible?

[Hulkein]

Yeah, that happens to.


There are people who legitimately get fucked over and it is sad but does that warrant a federal universal health care program? A program that will reduce the quality of care for the majority of hard working people? A program that will further enable the feeling of entitlement that keeps growing as our nanny-state grows? I don't think so.


Yes, there are some people who hit hard times through no fault of their own. You still shouldn't shape national health care policy on those few people at the expense of everyone else.

[Necromancer]

25% of this god damn country has no health insurance. That's not the "few"
*18,000* people in the US die as a direct result of not having insurance every year. That number doesn't at all figure in the people who are suffering in their jobs and home lives as a result.

There are more people dying from lack of health insurance than there are dying from the Iraq war, and you think that doesn't warrant policy intervention? The US is a disgrace among overdeveloped nations in the world for not assuming its citizens are entitled to good health. Only in this country would people actually argue otherwise and would actually be taken seriously.

[Sean of the Thread]

The words of Reverend Ronnie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

[Parkbandit]

Well, according to some..health care is a privilege not a right.

I guess if they offer it, it might be? LOL

Angela


According to some? Who thinks health care is a right?

If health care IS a right.. what about the real essentials in today's life.. food? Clothing? Transportation? Shelter? Utilities? I think it's far more important that everyone have access to food, wouldn't you agree? Same with all the other above examples? Should we then believe you would like to have universal everything handed to everyone on a socialist silver platter?

People who believe health care is a RIGHT are downRight stupid.

[Necromancer]

>People who believe health care is a RIGHT are downRight stupid.

That would be the vast majority of the world, by the way. And not just the developed world. Getting a global perspective on the issue might help you refine your opinions a bit.

FYI we're not burning witches anymore either

Jesse

[ElanthianSiren]

More frightening than the 1/4 statistic is the amount of people estimated to be UNDERINSURED who don't know it. I realize some people feel that's their fault for not researching their plan, and to some extent, I agree. I also feel, however, that most plans (including PPOs, HMOs, etc) are deficient, especially if you have anything wrong with you at all.

As for universal care, I don't believe we'll see it. The most likely approach is a modest expansion of medicare like HR676; the current medicare system uses 3% of its budget for admin costs, versus somewhere around 30 for insurers. If companies still make profits on drugs in Canada, then it seems reasonable that someone in the US should be talking to someone in Canada about their arrangements. I'm not just talking about drug prices either. For instance, certain medications, especially insulins, are OTC in canada. Why then, are american consumers still being passed the cost of doctor visits, prescriptions etc for those kinds of lifetime need drugs?

[Sean of the Thread]

More frightening than the 1/4 statistic is the amount of people estimated to be UNDERINSURED who don't know it. I realize some people feel that's their fault for not researching their plan, and to some extent, I agree. I also feel, however, that most plans (including PPOs, HMOs, etc) are deficient, especially if you have anything wrong with you at all.

As for universal care, I don't believe we'll see it. The most likely approach is a modest expansion of medicare like HR676; the current medicare system uses 3% of its budget for admin costs, versus somewhere around 30 for insurers. If companies still make profits on drugs in Canada, then it seems reasonable that someone in the US should be talking to someone in Canada about their arrangements. I'm not just talking about drug prices either. For instance, certain medications, especially insulins, are OTC in canada. Why then, are american consumers still being passed the cost of doctor visits, prescriptions etc for those kinds of lifetime need drugs?


HOLY SHIT FFS.

[Stanley Burrell]

More frightening than the 1/4 statistic is the amount of people estimated to be UNDERINSURED who don't know it. I realize some people feel that's their fault for not researching their plan, and to some extent, I agree. I also feel, however, that most plans (including PPOs, HMOs, etc) are deficient, especially if you have anything wrong with you at all.

As for universal care, I don't believe we'll see it. The most likely approach is a modest expansion of medicare like HR676; the current medicare system uses 3% of its budget for admin costs, versus somewhere around 30 for insurers. If companies still make profits on drugs in Canada, then it seems reasonable that someone in the US should be talking to someone in Canada about their arrangements. I'm not just talking about drug prices either. For instance, certain medications, especially insulins, are OTC in canada. Why then, are american consumers still being passed the cost of doctor visits, prescriptions etc for those kinds of lifetime need drugs?

I'd say that it's the very fact that endemic diseases such as diabetes are marketable using the most basic form of supply and demand. People in most of these industries don't want to fund islets of Langerhans cell tissue culture. They want a family friendly well-dressed pinprick in marketing format.

Add something like the increase in privatization for the last seven and half years and you have procrastination under the dollar bill at its finest.

[ElanthianSiren]

HOLY SHIT FFS.

I know, I know.

You need to stop betting on me not arguing with situations that I know well. It's bad biz.

[Gan]

Could one of these reasons possibly be that it simply is not possible?

You're kidding right?

[Lyonis]

I find it depressing that we are more concerned with taking a few more cents out of our paychecks to make sure everyone has health care(yes, it's not going to be 20 bucks, people) than we are about taking care of everyone equally.



This is what bothers me the most about most people I hear talking about socialized healthcare. You rant on for days about how unaffordable it is, how there's millions of people suffering because they can't afford it, but for just a few easy payments of 19.95 you can save the world!

It goes both ways. If there is a healthcare crisis in this country then it is going to take massive amounts of money to fix it. That means it is going to be massive amounts of money coming from all of our paychecks. If you're a socialist and taxing the living fuck out of people constantly is appealing, more power to you. Just call it what it is.

[Daniel]

You're kidding right?

Of course not. I don't go around blaming people when life decides to be life and takes a left turn. (read: I'm not a republican)

Will respond more to hulkein when sober.

[Lyonis]

That's not liberal spin. That's fact....unemployment statistics, as reported by the government, do not take into account people who have stopped looking for a job.

I'm glad they don't because those people are lazy. If, to top it off, you have a family to support you're also a pussy. I know this is really controversial but I just don't believe in making policy affecting the entire country around lazy pussies

There's some serious troll looking people at my work with fucked up teeth, protruding foreheads, straight across the border, all about being no hablas ingles, and they have jobs that started at $12 an hour with benefits. They're also unionized. If these people can somehow compete in our cut throat society, perhaps others just need to step their game up.



If we had perfect elasticity of labor, including easy mobility, easy to get education and training, etc., then one could point to the overall unemployment rate and say "the jobs are out there, people are being lazy." The fact is that labor is not easily mobile (cost of moving, family situations, etc.) and not everyone has the levels of education and/or training to easily switch job sectors, nor is it easy/affordable for them to get the education/training they need. I think most everyone is overlooking that in this discussion.

Living in Los Angeles it's hard for me to believe that Mexicans are having trouble getting here. Just as hard for me to believe they have trouble finding work. If immigrants can make it, you can too.

[ElanthianSiren]

It goes both ways. If there is a healthcare crisis in this country then it is going to take massive amounts of money to fix it. That means it is going to be massive amounts of money coming from all of our paychecks. If you're a socialist and taxing the living fuck out of people constantly is appealing, more power to you. Just call it what it is.

Not exactly; a good amount of the health care COST in a capitalistic society is administrative bloat and mid management. Reroute the 20% that goes to this cost, and you could pay for some of it, which was my point earlier. One system, at least, would eliminate 50 different forms for 50 different companies, which is something my doctor's receptionists bitch about constantly. What I don't have are exact figures on how much that 20% is or what a universal US system would cost. Someone with those figures (or generalizations of them) is free to post them.

That said, I don't believe government capable of a partisan bickering-cease fire or adult-leaning behavior for long enough to create a comprehensive healthcare package; thus, the belief that anything that does come of such an endeavor, will be half-assed (again IMO).

[Warriorbird]

I'm far more concerned about the 20 grand every family of 4 in the country has spent on the second Iraq War.

With that said...there'd have to be ways of altering the tax burden relative to this.

[Parkbandit]

>People who believe health care is a RIGHT are downRight stupid.

That would be the vast majority of the world, by the way. And not just the developed world. Getting a global perspective on the issue might help you refine your opinions a bit.

FYI we're not burning witches anymore either

Jesse


Actually, it's the global perspective that GIVES me my opinion. Check out the tax burden each of these 'enlightened' governments puts on their citizens... and take a look at the 'care' they provide.

2 words: No thanks

[Warriorbird]

I'm concerned about our non military and military spending on the Iraq War and paying for Social Security that won't exist. We can't direct our tax dollars...though that might make for interesting government.

[Necromancer]

You don't get it, do you? It's just a shift. you're making *less* because your employer has to pay for your insurance. What's more, part of that money is going to pay for the $185 million the top 5 HMO execs made last year. You're paying profit in there. Yes, tax burdens are higher for our peer countries, but they're making more than we are on average, and their employers aren't busy paying out their asses to subsidize yachts and medication.

Oh, and their work force is healthier, and they're not dying due to lack of health care.

[Tsa`ah]

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of health care. I don't know prices like you do because I haven't had to. I'm not going to get in any kind of argument with you regarding that aspect of it because I don't know it. I'll take your word for it. My position is that a universal 'free' system is a fundamentally bad way to go about treating an entire nation.

That's where the argument against such a healthcare system goes south. It's not free. It's not free in any other country with socialized healthcare. It's paid for by taxes ... which I know you're aware of.

This isn't a system that covers "lazy fucks". Such a system is designed to ensure everyone has basic healthcare, which in the end is a better system since the providers of said healthcare aren't claiming the big losses that come from a patient kicking the bucket after tens of thousands in treatment for that pesky cancer that could would have been caught years earlier through routine exams.

This is a system that would cover everyone, including those that are working in that gap between poverty and lower middle class ... that don't have and can't afford the healthcare ... yet earn too much to qualify for state sponsored healthcare.


Where I'm from, the people who aren't lazy either go to college or get into a trade/profession where it's easy to get health coverage.

Again, that is a singular example. If you have a family, it's not that simple of a thing to go back to college, and it's not always as simple as "getting a job with coverage".

For the education portion of your argument, if you're working and your earnings disqualify you from state coverage, likely you're disqualified from education assistance as well. Your example works great in the young and single aspect of our society, but that's where it ends ... and I'm sorry, but that demographic likely makes up a very small percentage of the total figure for the uninsured in this country.


As for my edit, you're right, I did feel like Tamral. I'm not that kind of person and I felt like an asshole for saying something personal like that. You got canned for a respectable reason. I apologize for saying what I did. Your life seems pretty good. I don't understand why that doesn't translate into an appearance of someone happier online.

If you're big enough to admit it ... doesn't leave me much room not to be. Ya, I flew off the handle with the first post and turned the jackass knob to max. It wasn't needed and there's no excuse for it ... not even the hellish past three weeks.


My wife has asthma, my brother has asthma, my dad has asthma. Neither of them need the newest prescription medication. My wife has an inhaler for very rare use (mostly, spring time running), my dad has an inhaler for very rare use, my brother has one for more regular (Day to day use), nothing fancy though.

But I'm sure they're included in your 15.1 million statistic. It isn't like everyone with asthma is walking around with an oxygen tank strapped to their back.

Maybe you're too young to remember the local morning kids shows, like Bozo or Cowboy Bob's. Every show there was a song, often the same song, and they would display the words on screen and tell you sing along ... just follow the bouncing ball. This was done for the benefit of those new to the show, or those special kids could never remember the words .... even after hearing and seeing them five times a week over the course of a year or two.

Which type of kid you were is a question you'll have to answer ... my mind is already made up.

Now I don't have a magical bouncing ball for you to follow ... so read slowly.

15.1 million is the total number of adults reported to have asthma in 2001 by JAMA. And yes, those mentioned in your post would be included in that number ... in 2001. That figure is likely to be larger for 2007.

3,020,000 is the conservative guestimation made on my part (20% or 1 in 5 ... whichever expression floats your boat) of people that require daily use of (that's 3-4 doses/treatments) a day of an atrivent/albuterol combination. That conservative figure (which falls short of the total percentage of asthmatics that frequent the ER multiple times each year) is what we would call borderline severe to chronic. These people don't walk around with O2 tanks either.

Now, if you go back to the 15.1 million ... yes, this is just a cross section of people that can be denied health coverage, or if they happen to get health coverage ... it won't cover anything that even sounds like asthma.


I don't know where you people live, but where I live you can easily get non-medically underwritten insurance, which means they don't care about your health history. Depending on if you're transfering coverage or buying new coverage there is a waiting period before it'll cover preexisting conditions (0-180 days), but it will not affect your premium. Yes, you may have a high deductible so you will have to pay when you go to the doctor for routine stuff you don't need to go to a doctor for, but that deductible will be paired with an HSA which is fully deductible on your taxes, and you can even use your HSA to pay for things like OTC meds, dental work, eye glasses, etc, things your normal insurance doesn't cover, and it is still deductible.



I pay just under $600, a year, for mine.

Insurance, by definition, is supposed to cover unexpected expenses. If you're using it to cover regular, expected, maintenance expenses of course you'll pay a higher premium, but that doesn't mean you don't have the option to buy something cheaper, just that you choose not to.

Pardon me while I bang my head against the wall in an effort to be civil ...





Ok .... you're not comprehending. You're throwing out definitions of insurance, getting policies underwritten, and participating in an HSA. All of which are great ... if you can afford them.

Underwriting a policy is a possibility for me, I can afford it. In the grand scheme of things, for me, it's a waste of money since the deductible will be larger than what I spend in a year on my asthma to begin with. The HSA is great for me ... and I contribute to one (or at least the wife does with her paycheck) because of the tax savings. I'm not at the poverty line ... honestly I'm not even considered middle class.

By design, everything you mentioned is for people that earn well into middle class. A HSA does nothing for someone who can't afford health insurance. Again, like most people, you're using singular examples and singular solutions that don't universally translate to the whole.


When you need an entire fucking page of words and google searches to 'prove' your point.. I imagine your point is on pretty shaky ground to begin with.

I don't feel the need to make a new post for each response ... I'll stick to consolidating responses to multiple people and multiple posts within one singular post ... I really don't care about my post count.

As far as google is concerned, that's a weak flame. If I know the specific statistic I'm looking for and where it is to be found, I'll google the source name and statistic description rather than using the search function within the source. It's called being efficient .... which you should appreciate in your line of work.


No one reads that 10,000 page essay you produce daily.. because frankly it's full of Tsa'ah google bullshit (To be henceforth called TGB) It's not ADHD to not want to read it.. it's called some of us have better things to do.. given that we already know it's bullshit. Take a poll.. let's see how many people suffer from ADHD because they didn't read your fucking diatribe. You may actually bring forth good points.. but who wants to sift through all of it to find the morsel of intelligence?

Classic PB, over dramatize reality and be sure to use all inclusive terms in an effort to create the illusion of support. You've got 10-12 cheerleaders man, and I rarely create massive walls of text. If what I produce is above your reading level ... that's not my problem.


Your point previous was that all wait staff were too poor to afford health insurance because no employer ever offers it to them. We're going to have to ring the BULLSHIT bell on that one... as demonstrated by my post of 2 waiter friends. Maybe you are right.. maybe I do lead a charmed life where everything just falls into place perfectly for myself and all of my friends, acquaintances, people I meet and apartments I go into on a daily basis. HUD housing where people with big H3 hummers outside of them.. 42" plasma TVs and HD tuners.. are these those poor, poor people who can't afford health insurance? Boo fucking hoo imo. There is plenty of opportunity in this country to make a living and get affordable healthcare... the question is, do people really want it? Would they rather drive a nicer car or get a nicer TV and take a chance on not carrying health insurance? Could it possibly be that people have their priorities fucked up and put health insurance towards the bottom of their priority ladder?

Ok, again we have another example of an inability to comprehend. Your two waiter friends are not universal examples ... nor was the point of my post to show that all waiters are too poor to afford health coverage.

Also, using examples of system abuse by those who likely have state sponsored healthcare wouldn't exactly be my definition of the working poor who can't afford healthcare, yet don't qualify for state coverage.

But, as we all know ... PB and everyone he knows are the universal definition of life in the good ol US.


Certainly, life isn't as good as I make it sound for everyone.. but it's not as miserable as you make it sound either. Maybe because you are so miserable in your life, your project that in any political debate you engage in.. believing things are that miserable for everyone?

Heh ... again you fail at comprehension. We're not talking about those on welfare, nor are we talking about Joe slightly above average with a 2 car garage, three bedroom home with white picket fence, mortgage payment, and 2.5 kids ... we're talking about the people in between. The people that fall into that very large crack. The people that make too much for any sort of financial assistance, yet are barely able to keep their heads above water.

We give those people one singular incentive ... don't work.


all i have to say is holy crap you spent all that time on that wall of text.. You Sir need to get a life.

I'm not sure what kind of life you can have at 4am unless that's your work schedule ... as far as time goes ... it took me about 15 minutes ... which included reading.

I guess the next time I wake up with back spasms and restricted breathing I'll make 20-30 meaningless 4-10 word posts so it doesn't cause any cranial discomfort for you.

Sorry if your thoughts take longer to translate into text, but we're not all cut out to take rifle butts to the head.


Ignorance isn't an excuse. If you've not educated yourself you have only yourself to blame. Nowadays there are a myriad of options for self education that are cheap-to-free for low income people and can also be done from your home or from a free public library.

"Low income people" is actually a tiered system. And again .. you're using singular examples in an attempt to convey a universal truth. It doesn't work like that.

You can earn "too" much to qualify for any educational assistance. Let's not even get into a family scenario where we make this as close to impossible as impossible can get.


Bad choices should have consequences, and if you made the bad choice to not make education a priority you should have to reap what you sow.

Oye ...


Oye ...


Oye ...

First, let's not get me on the "devaluation of voluntary education" rant ... I don't have the energy.

Second, life is not a cakewalk, a walk in the park, or even a roller coaster. It varies from person to person.

To say what you just did to a person who grew up as the parental figure to their own siblings ... words can't describe the type of scum you would be.

To say that to a person who has to put life on hold to take care of a sick parent in order to keep the family home the family home ... again, scum.

There are a myriad of pitfalls in the linear existence of individual people day in and day out. Sometimes life throws some wicked curve balls that still land in the strike zone, yet are completely out of the realm of actually hitting.

Again, your thought process is singular and very narrow.


One government entitlement program I'm 100% behind is need based grants for higher education. If you have the desire to educate yourself, you should be able to regardless of cost. The programs are out there, state, federal, and local. Grants, scholarships, and 0% interest loans. Most schools now offer online courses as well, including some full degree programs, which can be taken at any public library if you don't have a computer, but you could use a student loan/grant to pay for a computer for your home as well. Or get a used computer as a donation. Also, in my state, any student enrolled in a public college/university qualifies for free internet access. It is slow dialup, but free.

And again you harp on this, yet ignore that wide crack that people fall into every day ... the economic crack that disqualifies them.


That's not necessarily how people who disagree with universal health care think.

On a personal level I would love everyone to have free health care. I think it's bad policy, though.

You can't continually offer handouts to a population and expect any type of sustained success for the country. If someone with no education or steady job decides to have 4 kids then that's his own fault for ruining his mobility. There are jobs out there that offer health benefits. His kids should have free health care because they're in a bad situation with absolutely no fault of their own. The federal government shouldn't bail him though.

Yes, there are some people who hit hard times through no fault of their own. You still shouldn't shape national health care policy on those few people at the expense of everyone else.

From what I've read here there seems to be plenty of health care reform that could be enacted to help more people without making it socialistic.

Or we could roll the whole thing back to the pre-Nixon era when you could actually visit your doctor and afford to pay the bill. You could get sick and land yourself in the hospital and still be able to afford the bill. You could develop or be born with an illness that required regular care and still be able to afford the bill. Your doctor could prescribe regular medication and you could go to the pharmacy and afford to have it filled.

I'm sorry, but healthcare insurance providers ARE the problem. It's what broke the system making affordable healthcare a contradicting term.


This is what bothers me the most about most people I hear talking about socialized healthcare. You rant on for days about how unaffordable it is, how there's millions of people suffering because they can't afford it, but for just a few easy payments of 19.95 you can save the world!

It goes both ways. If there is a healthcare crisis in this country then it is going to take massive amounts of money to fix it. That means it is going to be massive amounts of money coming from all of our paychecks. If you're a socialist and taxing the living fuck out of people constantly is appealing, more power to you. Just call it what it is.

Except we pay taxes on par with countries that have a socialized healthcare plan in place.


Actually, it's the global perspective that GIVES me my opinion. Check out the tax burden each of these 'enlightened' governments puts on their citizens... and take a look at the 'care' they provide.

2 words: No thanks

Check out the above. There is very little disparity between the tax percentage we pay and the tax percentage "they" pay.

There's also nothing to stop people who want to keep their level of care intact from keeping their coverage and utilizing private healthcare.

[Parkbandit]

I'm concerned about our non military and military spending on the Iraq War and paying for Social Security that won't exist. We can't direct our tax dollars...though that might make for interesting government.


Yes WB.. we know. It's the only thing you ever post in any government spending discussion.

You should put it in your signature, so you don't have to waste our time posting it everytime.

[Parkbandit]

Overcompensating Wall of Text

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/20021223_05_mistake.gif

[875000]

You don't get it, do you? It's just a shift. you're making *less* because your employer has to pay for your insurance. What's more, part of that money is going to pay for the $185 million the top 5 HMO execs made last year. You're paying profit in there. Yes, tax burdens are higher for our peer countries, but they're making more than we are on average, and their employers aren't busy paying out their asses to subsidize yachts and medication.

You appear to be assuming that both enterprises are experiencing the same level of efficiency, or that government run health care's level of inefficiency is offset by a corporate entity's profit margins in a comparison.

I don't believe either of those are really good assumptions.


Oh, and their work force is healthier, and they're not dying due to lack of health care.

In the cases of some countries. In others, they have a higher tax burden, their work force is not healthier, and people are dying due to a lack of quality health care, access to said health care, and/or nonexposure to the latest medical technologies.

I am more inclined to believe that sociological differences (i.e., life style, income levels, urbanization) have more of an impact on those things that you cite.

[crb]

It makes me kind of sick that we live in such a individualistic society. It's all about "ME" and never about "US" as a society.

I find it depressing that we are more concerned with taking a few more cents out of our paychecks to make sure everyone has health care(yes, it's not going to be 20 bucks, people) than we are about taking care of everyone equally.

Wouldn't it be nice?

I guess I like the thought of a society that is a bit more collectivist(You know, it takes a village?)

Angela
The best way to help society is to help yourself, not be a burden on others, be productive and help the economy through your productivity.



There are more people dying from lack of health insurance than there are dying from the Iraq war, and you think that doesn't warrant policy intervention? The US is a disgrace among overdeveloped nations in the world for not assuming its citizens are entitled to good health. Only in this country would people actually argue otherwise and would actually be taken seriously.


As opposed to those people who die in Canada, Britain, etc because of rationing? Waiting lists, and lower standards of care.

No one addresses the cost issue, you cannot just change who pays for healthcare without first addresses why costs have skyrocketed. The government does not have infinitely deep pockets, and so when costs exceed funds you end up having services cut and rationing.

Consider medicaid. Most doctor offices and many hospitals will not take medicaid because the government has cut payouts so much, they lose money on medicaid patients. Most of the places that DO accept it, outside of charity supported clinics in really poor areas, only do so because they are compelled to by law.

So we're going to expand that kind of program for everyone? That isn't going to result in lower quality of care?

Also, people love to point out how many other countries have (failing) universal healthcare systems, but all those other countries also have things like responsible tort reform which enables them to keep costs down. When are you going to go all hot and bothered about trying to get that done here? Hmm never?

[crb]

Tsa'anah


Wow, look at all you wrote.

I'm just going to pick out a few things:



Ok .... you're not comprehending. You're throwing out definitions of insurance, getting policies underwritten, and participating in an HSA. All of which are great ... if you can afford them.

Underwriting a policy is a possibility for me, I can afford it. In the grand scheme of things, for me, it's a waste of money since the deductible will be larger than what I spend in a year on my asthma to begin with. The HSA is great for me ... and I contribute to one (or at least the wife does with her paycheck) because of the tax savings. I'm not at the poverty line ... honestly I'm not even considered middle class.

By design, everything you mentioned is for people that earn well into middle class. A HSA does nothing for someone who can't afford health insurance. Again, like most people, you're using singular examples and singular solutions that don't universally translate to the whole.

Switch to a cheaper drug you ignorant douche.

and uhh.... maybe you didn't get the point where I said I paid about $600 a year. That is not expensive. People just do not prioritize healthcare. Cable TV, yes, fancy clothes, yes, healthcare? Notsomuch. Sure, there are some who truly cannot afford it, but mostly because they made bad decisions in life, and the number that truly cannot afford it is much smaller than the number that goes without.



First, let's not get me on the "devaluation of voluntary education" rant ... I don't have the energy.

Second, life is not a cakewalk, a walk in the park, or even a roller coaster. It varies from person to person.

To say what you just did to a person who grew up as the parental figure to their own siblings ... words can't describe the type of scum you would be.

To say that to a person who has to put life on hold to take care of a sick parent in order to keep the family home the family home ... again, scum.

There are a myriad of pitfalls in the linear existence of individual people day in and day out. Sometimes life throws some wicked curve balls that still land in the strike zone, yet are completely out of the realm of actually hitting.

Boo hoo. Plenty of people have shitty lives and through hard work and discipline they persevere and prosper.



Except we pay taxes on par with countries that have a socialized healthcare plan in place.

This is close to true, our corporate tax rate is among the highest, but many other countries still do have higher personal taxes.

Of course, our healthcare system is better than theirs. If you look at life expectency, which is what the WHO bases their bullshit statistics off of, we're lower on the list. Because americans are fat and lazy. However if you look at actual healthcare statistics, such as survival rates, ease of getting surgery, etc, we're tops. http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWE3ZTI3Y2I3ZWIyOWU3NDkzZDk1MDgwNzcwNmNhZTU

Do you know that because of limited resources after a certain age in like Britain you cannot get healthcare services because the Gov. feels you've lead a long enough life and the resources are better spent on the younger? Airstrip One FTW!

Why would anyone want that?

[Parkbandit]

Check out the above.


I have neither the time, nor inclination to read yet another one of your useless walls of text posts.

The way you post is almost Tamral in nature... well, except he had a point most of the time.

[ElanthianSiren]

Of course, our healthcare system is better than theirs. If you look at life expectency, which is what the WHO bases their bullshit statistics off of, we're lower on the list. Because americans are fat and lazy. However if you look at actual healthcare statistics, such as survival rates, ease of getting surgery, etc, we're tops. http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWE3ZTI3Y2I3ZWIyOWU3NDkzZDk1MDgwNzcwNmNhZTU

Do you know that because of limited resources after a certain age in like Britain you cannot get healthcare services because the Gov. feels you've lead a long enough life and the resources are better spent on the younger? Airstrip One FTW!

Why would anyone want that?

Actually, there was a huge cohort study, which found one of the reasons that British people live longer and are far healthier than Americans is their access to routine testing. When things like cancer/NIDDM are caught earlier, they're much less expensive to treat and the survivability is far higher. There were other factors included, like a higher level of activity, which supports your initial statement, but it isn't that simple. We can't make arguments based solely on accute care, as quite a bit of the care received under systems is for chronic illness (like cancer and an entire host of polygenic disorders). This was initially why I pointed at the Oregon Plan.

I've never heard any of our British posters say anything but good about their level of care. Ditto regarding the old men I trade options with from Britain and France. Now, that last example could be due to a few things, like high assetts, but I doubt Ash is rocking the 50 foot yahct (yet).

First, the study from the Cato institute doesn't back up its claims. Neither did I about medicare (3% waste vs insurer waste almost 10x that), but I'm posting on a web BBS, so here I will http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0815/is_10_28/ai_108994048. I expect more from informative articles, especially if they're using statistics (rhar!!). Ditto on article two. Where did statistics like breast cancer kills 46% of afflicted women in New Zealand come from? Neither article provided much substance. I can sit here and tell you that in America 50% of men die of blood obstructions due to viagra; are you going to believe me? I don't believe a single payer system is possible in America, but I also don't believe it's as bleak as it's being painted there.

In closing, "I believe Carthage must be destroyed!" When anyone says Cato, that's what I hear.

oh, I like this link too, but I'm still reading it:
http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/FAQ_QuickStats.htm

[Sean of the Thread]

I want a 50 foot yacht.

[ElanthianSiren]

For now, you'll have to just be happy with your 50 foot........
...........
.....

Nevermind.

[Tsa`ah]

Wow, look at all you wrote.

I had a good deal of bullshit to wade through.


Switch to a cheaper drug you ignorant douche.

and uhh.... maybe you didn't get the point where I said I paid about $600 a year. That is not expensive. People just do not prioritize healthcare. Cable TV, yes, fancy clothes, yes, healthcare? Notsomuch. Sure, there are some who truly cannot afford it, but mostly because they made bad decisions in life, and the number that truly cannot afford it is much smaller than the number that goes without.

Switch ... to ... a .... cheaper ... drug ... hmmm. That's a novel thought ... BRILLIANT!

I wasn't aware these uninsured people with prescriptions they can't afford were doctors! It's so simple ... yet flawed sadly for you.

Sticking with the case of asthmatics in that 20%, while atrivent combined with albuterol is now available in a generic form, a vast majority of the maintenance meds (those designed too keep symptoms under some form of control, thus lessening the possibility of major attacks that result in ER visits and hospitalization) are not yet out from under that 14 year umbrella. The cheap preventatives ... well no one prescribes those because well ... they never really worked. You're free to belly up for a big ol spoon full of elixicon if you want to ... I'll pass.

Here's what you don't understand, and apparently never will. When one of these people actually manage to get into a doctor and the doc gives them a prescription (because doctors have this problem of not realizing people aren't able to afford the things they're scribbling on a rx pad.) the first thing they're going to ask of the doctor is for something cheap, something generic. Many times this leaves doctor to do some research and often it results in the doctor coming back and saying "I have a few options, but none of them offer a generic ... and you need this".

To take a stab at your underwritten insurance (because if someone can't afford health insurance, they're surely going to be able to afford underwritten insurance).

I'm going to guess that your underwritten coverage is for a pre-existing condition? Duh. But what's the condition? How many times has it landed you in the ER or admitted?

Again I have to tell you that you're using a singular example as a universal truth.

In my case, if I cared about the coverage, being underwritten would cost me 3-4 grand in premiums a year. I have a pre-existing condition that I have been hospitalized for more than a few times in the past 2 years. I have even more ER visits. This has an impact on how much such an underwriting will cost. It would also send the deductibles through the roof ... thus rendering the policy and underwriting completely worthless. Now, if that's worthless to me, a person who can afford to pay for my complete healthcare without insurance, underwritten or not, imagine how worthless it would be to a person who can't afford health coverage to begin with.


Boo hoo. Plenty of people have shitty lives and through hard work and discipline they persevere and prosper.

Down the road, yes. As always, you missed the gist ... the time between can be fatal. There's no reason why people getting the shit end of the stick from the start should not have basic healthcare up until the point where they can take the stick from the other end.


This is close to true, our corporate tax rate is among the highest, but many other countries still do have higher personal taxes.

Umm ... no. Our personal taxation really only varies by a few percentage points from the UK, Canada, and France.

Canada ranges from 15% - 29%
France - 16%, then a national gas tax of 6%
Ms X commented on her taxes some time ago ... and it was on par with US income tax rates. Feel free to look that one up yourself.

As far as corporate taxation goes ... I suggest you really look into that again because looking at some of the percentages and alternative forms of taxing businesses ... I think you just pulled that one out of your small intestine.


Of course, our healthcare system is better than theirs. If you look at life expectency, which is what the WHO bases their bullshit statistics off of, we're lower on the list. Because americans are fat and lazy. However if you look at actual healthcare statistics, such as survival rates, ease of getting surgery, etc, we're tops. http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWE3ZTI3Y2I3ZWIyOWU3NDkzZDk1MDgwNzcwNmNhZTU

We'd call this pulling a Michael Moore if I was a radical conservative. Most of the article is bereft of actual statistics (cato.org). It doesn't touch on people who are disqualified by insurance providers. It uses a singular examples (surprise there) and doesn't acknowledge the poverty gap that disqualifies people from state and federal programs.

It also lists services performed per capita as if it's a good thing. I'm going to let you in on a little secret here ... The other countries listed don't have as many people on dialysis for type II diabetes (because that's largely what the number is for), don't perform coronary bypasses as often, and don't have huge lists of patients waiting for angioplasty ... BECAUSE THEY'RE FUCKING HEALTHIER. It's not common to see a 310 lb 20 somthing waddling down the street in those countries. Let's not even get into the fact that THEY CAN GET PREVENTITIVE TREATMENT ANYTIME ... thus reducing the fucking need.

The article also likes to suggest that when you get on a waiting list, your position is secure.

It's not. It's not even insinuated ... and we're not even talking about the "buy an organ" state of Florida.


Do you know that because of limited resources after a certain age in like Britain you cannot get healthcare services because the Gov. feels you've lead a long enough life and the resources are better spent on the younger? Airstrip One FTW!

This is bullshit ... perhaps you need to re-read your source.

[crb]

God damn you're a world class idiot.



To take a stab at your underwritten insurance (because if someone can't afford health insurance, they're surely going to be able to afford underwritten insurance).

I'm going to guess that your underwritten coverage is for a pre-existing condition? Duh. But what's the condition? How many times has it landed you in the ER or admitted?

I said I had non-medically underwritten insurance and it only cost me $600 a year. Non-medically underwritten means that medical history is meaningless to them. You cannot be denied for health reasons if you want this insurance. The company's (BCBS btw) commercials even say "We accept anyone, regardless of health."

Had I had cheap insurance because I am in excellent health (which I am, but that is beside the point, I take care of myself), it wouldn't have been relevant to this discussion because not everyone is as healthy as I am. Which is why I specifically mentioned it was non-medically underwritten insurance, to point out that anyone, at least in my state, could get it. It is $600 a year/$50 a month (actually, a little less) and if you can't afford that I better see you not smoking, not drinking, not wearing name brand clothes, not using a cell phone, not watching cable TV, and taking a bus to work.





As far as corporate taxation goes ... I suggest you really look into that again because looking at some of the percentages and alternative forms of taxing businesses ... I think you just pulled that one out of your small intestine.

The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate of the 30 countries in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (basically all the richest countries). Japan is the only one higher.

Furthermore, if the rate wasn't high, would this liberal douche (http://www.nysscpa.org/home/2007/1007/4week/article18.htm) (he's the one who wants to reinstitute the draft among other attention-whore measures, such as saying the US would be in Nigeria if Nigeria had any oil) draft a bill to cut it?



This is bullshit ... perhaps you need to re-read your source.

That wasn't a read source. That was from a (expat) British doctor in a personal conversation.

ps... before this expensive medication you want taxpayers to buy for you existed, what did you do? Die? Is that your ghost posting?


pps



Here's what you don't understand, and apparently never will. When one of these people actually manage to get into a doctor and the doc gives them a prescription (because doctors have this problem of not realizing people aren't able to afford the things they're scribbling on a rx pad.) the first thing they're going to ask of the doctor is for something cheap, something generic. Many times this leaves doctor to do some research and often it results in the doctor coming back and saying "I have a few options, but none of them offer a generic ... and you need this".

If only there was some sort of global network of information where a patient could inform themselves about their disease and their medications, side effects, viable alternatives, and then go to their doctor an informed individual with a list of questions and concerns and ask their doctor specifically about different medications that they may need to take.

If only....

[Clove]

Actually, there was a huge cohort study, which found one of the reasons that British people live longer and are far healthier than Americans is their access to routine testing. When things like cancer/NIDDM are caught earlier, they're much less expensive to treat and the survivability is far higher...

"If you're thirsty a drink will cure it, if you're not, a drink will prevent it. Prevention is better than a cure."

Absolutely preventative medicine is tremendously lacking in the US and it contributes to the expense of medical care here. I don't believe a fully socialized healthcare system is needed; what's needed is healthcare that's affordable to the average citizen.

Under the present situation insurance companies are fighting for maximum profits in the same pool- and it's having a horrible effect on both the cost of insurance and quality of coverage. I'm not very creative, but the only solution I see in a scenario like this is a state regulated private monopoly. Unfortunately this is a situation where competition doesn't work, but a monopoly could.

On a personal note, our corporation switched to an HSA when our board mandated a reduction in insurance expenses. Management was desperately looking for a solution to reduce insurance costs without impacting current coverage and an HSA was the solution. It has its pitfalls, but overall it's been a good solution. It's especially good if you're young and or healthy and can spend a few years building up your account for future medical expenditures.