Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[LadySkinsFan]

52 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

The GOP could go single payer and really throw the world into a tizzy.  

 

That's good, Kilmer! It made me laugh.

[Kilmer17]

Just now, LadySkinsFan said:

 

That's good, Kilmer! It made me laugh.

Here's the thing.  I think more than half of GOP voters would soundly support it immediately if it was a GOP proposal.  

Sell it as a fiscally conservative decision.  Voila!

[@DCGoldPants]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

Here's the thing.  I think more than half of GOP voters would soundly support it immediately if it was a GOP proposal.  

Sell it as a fiscally conservative decision.  Voila!

 

 

 

But what do the insurance providers who donate to the campaigns of these Senators and Reps want? 

Edited January 13, 2017 by @SkinsGoldPants

[twa]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

Here's the thing.  I think more than half of GOP voters would soundly support it immediately if it was a GOP proposal.  

Sell it as a fiscally conservative decision.  Voila!

 

But then over half the Dems would oppose it. 

[LadySkinsFan]

^^^^ They want to make more money! Bigger premiums, don't have to pay out 80% of their revenue on actual health care. That's just for starters.

[Gallen5862]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/congress-readies-to-begin-obamacare-repeal-process/2017/01/13/6bcd6eba-d9b3-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop&utm_term=.44075bfe2738

 

House votes to begin Obamacare repeal process

 

Congress took its first step toward rolling back President Obama’s health care reform law Friday, with the House voting along party lines to pass key preliminary legislation.

The measure, which was passed Thursday by the Senate, will allow Republicans to use special budget procedures to repeal major parts of the Affordable Care Act without cooperation from Democrats.

 

House Republicans from divergent wings of the party had raised concerns this week about taking the initial step without having a more detailed plan in place for ultimately replacing Obamacare with a GOP alternative.

 

But House leaders worked in recent days to address those concerns, even as President-elect Donald Trump made public statements setting out an ambitious timeline for action that many on Capitol Hill see as unrealistic. The final vote was 227 to 198 with nine Republicans voting no.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Gallen5862

[LadySkinsFan]

They needed 28 more to vote no. 

 

Wait until 2018 when all those stupid people who voted for them because Obamacare, and they finally get that they voted to repeal the ACA because they didn't realize it was the same thing.

 

We could see a huge repudiation of Republicans.

[BornaSkinsFan83]

 

I swear to god I'm almost willing to suffer as long as the Trump hoopleheads and Bernie butthurters are crying themselves to sleep tonight at the realization of what dumb**** assholes they are. Almost. 

[LadySkinsFan]

If millions of people weren't going to be affected and lose their health care, it would be worth it to break out the popcorn. 

 

It's ****ing not funny.

[s0crates]

3 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Here's the thing.  I think more than half of GOP voters would soundly support it immediately if it was a GOP proposal.  

Sell it as a fiscally conservative decision.  Voila!

 

It could work.

 

When Ted Cruz votes to lower the cost of prescription drugs and 13 Dems vote against it, is it any wonder over 40% of the country is independent?

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/13/bernie-sanders-pharma-bill-vote-reveals-new-battle-lines-commentary.html

Edited January 14, 2017 by s0crates

[Larry]

4 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Here's the thing.  I think more than half of GOP voters would soundly support it immediately if it was a GOP proposal.  

Sell it as a fiscally conservative decision.  Voila!

 

I said that from the beginning.  

 

IMO, the two big differences between Obamacare, and W's Medicare D, is that Obama actually attempted to pay for his plan (on paper, for the first few years), and which political party gets credit for them.  

 

4 hours ago, twa said:

 

But then over half the Dems would oppose it. 

 

1)  Did more than half of the Dems oppose W's Medicare D?  

 

2)  And, even if your made up claim were true, all you would be saying would be that "well, the Dems are almost half as partisan as the Rs are."  

Edited January 14, 2017 by Larry

[twa]

20 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

1)  Did more than half of the Dems oppose W's Medicare D?  

 

 

If they didn't they sure acted like it.

 

can't recall the vote, can you?

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/108-2003/h332

Edited January 14, 2017 by twa

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, s0crates said:

 

It could work.

 

When Ted Cruz votes to lower the cost of prescription drugs and 13 Dems vote against it, is it any wonder over 40% of the country is independent?

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/13/bernie-sanders-pharma-bill-vote-reveals-new-battle-lines-commentary.html

 

Read more.  Post less.

[PeterMP]

53 minutes ago, twa said:

 

If they didn't they sure acted like it.

 

can't recall the vote, can you?

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/108-2003/h332

 

Democrats didn't like it because they wanted more of a single payer system where the US government would be able to negotiate prices with the Pharma industry (which the VA had the ability to do at that time.  They wanted to give Medicare the same power).  They wanted to go further and thought it was too much of a give away to the Pharma industry.  It gave them a bunch of new government funded customers with limited price controls.

 

The Republican that wrote it shortly afterwards left Congress and took a job lobbying for the Pharma industry.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Tauzin

 

It is one of those things where it might not have been unethical, but it certainly smelled bad.

Edited January 14, 2017 by PeterMP

[twa]

Yeah, sure. 

 

[s0crates]

35 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Read more.  Post less.

 

The vote was two days ago, and the article I posted was published today. Why shouldn't I post it?

 

I noticed you sided with Big Pharma on this one, but I'm unpersuaded by your argument that this amendment failed because it was a threat to public safety. I'm glad to see a little bipartisan opposition to Big Pharma building.

Edited January 14, 2017 by s0crates

[PeterMP]

17 minutes ago, s0crates said:

 

The vote was two days ago, and the article I posted was published today. Why shouldn't I post it?

 

I noticed you sided with Big Pharma on this one, but I'm unpersuaded by your argument that this amendment failed because it was a threat to public safety. I'm glad to see a little bipartisan opposition to Big Pharma building.

 

Because it doesn't add anything to the conversation that was already had.  You are essentially repeating things that are on the previous page of this thread.  That's the whole idea behind the read more post less.

 

(And I didn't side with big Pharma.  The idea in general is stupid and safety and quality is a concern (as the link I included demonstrates).  There are better ways to get essentially the same results with respect to prices without the negative consequences (and I suggested one way to do it.).  That's not siding with big Pharma.  That's reality.  Put up a bill or an amendment that says you can't charge more for drugs in the US than in Canada, let's see how it does, and let's see what different people think the consequences are going to be.)

Edited January 14, 2017 by PeterMP

[Larry]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

can't recall the vote, can you?

 

Obviously not. I thought it was closer to 50-50, on both parties. 

[tshile]

So... they are going to repeal it without having something ready to show the public.

 

All we need now is them to admit they didn't read it.

[s0crates]

13 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Because it doesn't add anything to the conversation that was already had.  You are essentially repeating things that are on the previous page of this thread.  That's the whole idea behind the read more post less.

 

(And I didn't side with big Pharma.  The idea in general is stupid and safety and quality is a concern.  There are better ways to get essentially the same results with respect to prices without the negative consequences (one of which I suggested).  That's not siding with big Pharma.  That's reality.)

 

I posted an article that hasn't been posted. Is there a rule against posting a new article that makes a similar argument to one other posters have made in the same thread? 

 

Anyway I'm all for other ways of making prescription drug prices lower, but the one that was on the table was better than nothing, and I believe it was defeated because of Democrats who are putting the interest of their big Pharma donors above the interest of their constituents, you can believe their excuses.

[PeterMP]

Just now, s0crates said:

 

I posted an article that hasn't been posted. Is there a rule against posting a new article that makes a similar argument to one other posters have made in the same thread? 

 

Anyway I'm all for other ways of making prescription drug prices lower, but the one that was on the table was better than nothing, and I believe it was defeated because of Democrats who are putting the interest of their big Pharma donors above the interest of their constituents, you can believe their excuses.

 

As far as I know, there is not strict board rule, but in general it has historically been considered bad etiquette to simply repeat what somebody else has said.

 

We don't need pages of people saying the same thing over and over again.

[s0crates]

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

As far as I know, there is not strict board rule, but in general it has historically been considered bad etiquette to simply repeat what somebody else has said.

 

We don't need pages of people saying the same thing over and over again.

 

So it's bad etiquette to express the same opinion as somebody else?

[The Sisko]

 

14 hours ago, Mooka said:

I believe they already tried that, there was a bill, and a prescription drug cost task force that had this type of language taking the average price of drugs from developed countries. (i'll try and find it and why it didn't pass)

 

The problem, is when the pharmaceutical lobby is so strong that, "Just pass a law" becomes impossible. Much like gun control, they do everything in their power to block anything and everything that even remotely hints to them losing revenue. 

Sorry but Pete's posts have been spot on. There is good cause to be concerned about safety. Foreign drug makers aren't inspected as often as here and since it's not the US, our inspections are subject to and often limited by their laws. Also, what most people don't realize is that part of the reason drug prices are so high here is that the drug companies use higher prices here to make their profits since there are price controls in other countries.

 

I'm no apologist for them but it's way more complex an issue than a simpleton like Bernie makes it sound. Yes, they overcharge and do a lot of shady crap with their patents, among other things. Even so, nobody is going to make drugs or anything else if they can't make money. That's why there are shortages of certain drugs right now. What we need is a way to preserve their profit motive without getting royally screwed in the process. Sadly you're absolutely right about the lobbying thing. But then that's true of every industry and special interest with enough money to buy influence.

11 hours ago, Weganator said:

@PeterMP the fact that those non compete deals don't violate anti trust at all is baffling. Almost literally creates a drug cartel for life saving medicine.

 

I just rarely see scenarios where artificially removing competition (IE not a better product or service being the cause of competitors leaving) as beneficial to consumers. It's antithetical to the free market concept.

I'm not an attorney but as a layperson it certainly seems that anti-trust law is dead. Yeah, there are plenty of cases but inevitably, deals that concentrate huge percentages of market share seem to almost always be allowed. I swear were returning to the era of the robber barons.

 

7 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

They needed 28 more to vote no. 

 

Wait until 2018 when all those stupid people who voted for them because Obamacare, and they finally get that they voted to repeal the ACA because they didn't realize it was the same thing.

 

We could see a huge repudiation of Republicans.

Let's hope, but if you're dumb enough to vote for someone who says they're going to do something and then get all surprised and outraged when they then do what they said, my money's on the Grand Oligarch's Party being able to distract them again like jangling keys in front of a baby. A really, really stupid baby. The good news is that we'll get to see them suffer so there will be some enjoyment in it anyway. So Dee Dee, better get ready to sell your house if ya wanna make it through the year...

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/congress-approves-first-step-of-obamacare-repeal-replacement-unclear-854648387931?cid=eml_onsite

Edited January 14, 2017 by The Sisko

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, The Sisko said:

Also, what most people don't realize is that part of the reason drug prices are so high here is that the drug companies use higher prices here to make their profits since there are price controls in other countries.

 

I'm no apologist for them but it's way more complex an issue than a simpleton like Bernie makes it sound. Yes, they overcharge and do a lot of shady crap with their patents, among other things. Even so, nobody is going to make drugs or anything else if they can't make money. That's why there are shortages of certain drugs right now. What we need is a way to preserve their profit motive without getting royally screwed in the process.

 

1.  I'm not sure that prices are high here because of price controls in other countries.  Prices are high here because there is high demand and low supply (the law of supply and demand (for many products inelastic demand)).  Costs, in general, don't dictate prices (for anything).

 

2.  With that said, I'm sympathetic to the view that our increased spending largely drives health care innovation and instituting price controls that are used in other countries would slow down healthcare innovation.

 

3.  I'm even sympathetic with the view that our large healthcare spending driving innovation benefits us in that the healthcare industry focuses on products that are desired in the US market and emphasizes bringing products into the US market faster than other markets (i.e. when considering what products to develop companies focus on products they think the US market is going to buy and companies worry about getting things approved by the US FDA more than they do regulators in other countries).

 

With that said, I'm not sure the value is worth it.  How much healthcare technology do we have and how much can we actually afford?  I believe if you look at the last 20 years most of the increase of in life expectancies is not due to new health care technology, but to decreases in smoking.  Our biggest health care advance is because we learned something is bad for ourselves and we largely quit doing it.

 

Connecting my idea earlier in this thread about USDA inspections and the thread I started the other day about the EPA evaluating new chemicals and industry's switch from using BPA to using a chemical that might actually be worse for us (BPS), I'm not at all sure that if we took the funds we currently use for healthcare and devoted them to a better understanding of what is in our water, food, air, and every day environment (including chemicals that we introduce like BPA and BPS) and had better regulation of the related industries, we would not get more bang for our buck.

 

(From there, I will concede three things:

 

1.  At some level, that isn't the healthcare industries fault and I'm "punishing" them for something they really don't have much to do with.  It isn't Pzier's fault that the big plastic companies don't do good research on the effects of their products on human health, and I'm punishing them for the big plastic companies failures.

 

2.  I'm using a personal (and some would likely argue arbitrary) idea of value and worth.  I've essentially put no value on helping men keep their hair or helping women that have issues getting pregnant, but the healthcare industry put a lot of money into those areas and some would argue doing so was vindicated by consumer spending (i.e. the healthcare industry made their money back on those products and then some).  I'm arguing in this case, the free market is wrong about what has value.

 

**EDIT**In two cases among my siblings, couples used infertility treatments to get pregnant. I am making an argument that many people have a strong emotional attachment too and are going to respond very negatively to, including in my own family**/EDIT**

 

3.  It won't happen.  Any savings we get from healthcare reform will be diverted to other things and not to better studies and regulations of other industries.  I've connected 2 things that even progressive politicians, like Bernie Sanders, don't connect and am making an argument that you'll never see from the likes of Bernie Sanders, and I have no real hope of the progressive movement getting more intelligent or thoughtful.)

 

(In another direction, I'd also make a more philosophical and subjective argument that I know many people would disagree with.  I believe part of our problem has been there has been an increase in fear of death and avoidance of death at all costs (and even irrational costs).  I'd question whether living until you are 70 if you live the last 2 years with Alzheimer's is really better than dropping dead at 65 with a heart attack a stroke or even dying relatively quickly, but not instantly from cancer at 65.  The secularization of society has led to an unreasonable fear of death (from my POV) that has resulted in unreasonable increases in health care spending (from POV).)

Edited January 14, 2017 by PeterMP

[The Sisko]

I called it price controls elsewhere that affect our drug costs but it's really more a function of the efficiency and negotiating power that other single payer systems have that we don't. In this country there are a patchwork of payers the largest of which, Medicare cannot by law negotiate its pricing. That means the pinko commie socialist systems that so many deride here pay far less because as a single payer they negotiate their price down as far as they can. The drug companies don't sweat it because they know they have the US market to screw and in fact, most of their profit comes from us.

 

I agree there are probably a lot of unknown environmental factors that might affect people's health and drive costs up. However I think you're hearing hoofbeats and thinking of a zebra first. The most obvious, rational and effective way to reduce costs is simple, rationing. Again, the pinko commie single payer systems have the advantage. There are simply certain procedures they don't cover and in most cases don't cover expensive, futile care.

 

The problem is, we hate the idea due to paranoia, fear of death panels, ethical concerns or for whatever reason but IMO it's the only real solution to ever rising costs. As long as it's done ethically, transparently and with input from all parts of society, there's just nothing wrong with it. Strangely, we ration care for our pets all the time and the result is that they suffer way less at the end of their lives than we do but we perpetuate a system in which people are subjected to needless procedures that are often painful and unpleasant, simply because there's mostly nobody to say "stop, enough" or "there's no benefit to this procedure so, no".

 

Finally, as an atheist I'd beg to differ with your assertion about the move toward secularism causing an increase in people's fear of dying. I know and converse with a lot of atheists on the regular, and though it's anecdotal, the vast majority of atheists and agnostics I know are way more accepting and less fearful of death than religious people. I think once you take away all the cosmic fantastical eternal life, reincarnation stuff and see it as simply part of the cycle of life that has existed for eons, it becomes less of an issue. In fact, the difference in perceptions  and reactions to death between believers and non-believers is often the subject of jokes among us. So, no. Just no to that one. 

Edited January 14, 2017 by The Sisko