Poll

8 votes (33.33%)
11 votes (45.83%)
1 vote (4.16%)
1 vote (4.16%)
1 vote (4.16%)
2 votes (8.33%)

24 members have voted

Paradigm
Paradigm
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2226
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
January 15th, 2017 at 5:26:58 PM permalink
Evidently the voters of the nation are a bit more split on this issue than one author's opinion at the Tribune would suggest.
ontariodealer
ontariodealer
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 999
Joined: Aug 5, 2013
January 15th, 2017 at 6:06:35 PM permalink
I live in canada and we have a simple system.....its free but if you get a serious illness you go to buffalo and pay for it or you will die waiting.
get second you pig
billryan
billryan
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 16282
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
January 15th, 2017 at 6:20:29 PM permalink
So they were for it, until they were against it. That rings a bell.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 15th, 2017 at 6:32:55 PM permalink
Quote:

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump aims to replace Obamacare with a plan that would envisage "insurance for everyone," he said in an interview with the Washington Post published on Sunday night.



Well there you go. TrumpCare.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-obamacare-idUSKBN15005C
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
January 15th, 2017 at 7:37:55 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Quote:

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump aims to replace Obamacare with a plan that would envisage "insurance for everyone," he said in an interview with the Washington Post published on Sunday night.



Well there you go. TrumpCare.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-obamacare-idUSKBN15005C



This reminds me of those polls they conducted


"Do you support Obamacare? " "hell no!"

Do you support insurance for pre-existing conditions? - yes

Do you support kids staying on their parents' insurance? - yes

About 7 more questions like that, all yes.

But you don't support Obamacare? No!

But that IS Obamacare. - oh.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
gamerfreak
gamerfreak
  • Threads: 57
  • Posts: 3540
Joined: Dec 28, 2014
January 15th, 2017 at 7:40:35 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

This reminds me of those polls they conducted


"Do you support Obamacare? " "hell no!"

Do you support insurance for pre-existing conditions? - yes

Do you support kids staying on their parents' insurance? - yes

About 7 more questions like that, all yes.

But you don't support Obamacare? No!

But that IS Obamacare. - oh.



Lol is this is like a Facebook rant I saw, where the guy was saying how much he hated Obamacare and that he was happy he could get his insurance through the ACA instead.
djatc
djatc
  • Threads: 83
  • Posts: 4477
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
Thanked by
RS
January 15th, 2017 at 7:44:16 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

This reminds me of those polls they conducted


"Do you support Obamacare? " "hell no!"

Do you support insurance for pre-existing conditions? - yes

Do you support kids staying on their parents' insurance? - yes

About 7 more questions like that, all yes.

But you don't support Obamacare? No!

But that IS Obamacare. - oh.



Would you like to be drained of your hard earned dollars to subsidize people's bad decisions?

Would you like crappy coverage?

Would you like to have your hard earned dollars devalued due to incompetents in govt?
"Man Babes" #AxelFabulous
terapined
terapined
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 6094
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
January 15th, 2017 at 7:56:01 PM permalink
Quote: djatc

Would you like to be drained of your hard earned dollars to subsidize people's bad decisions?

Would you like crappy coverage?

Would you like to have your hard earned dollars devalued due to incompetents in govt?



maybe it comes down to this
Those on the left feel the poor are overall good people and deserve compassion and health care
Those on the right view the poor as overall bad lazy people and get nothing and if they die, too bad.
Does this sum it up ? :-)
djatc
djatc
  • Threads: 83
  • Posts: 4477
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
January 15th, 2017 at 7:59:54 PM permalink
Quote: terapined

maybe it comes down to this
Those on the left feel the poor are overall good people and deserve compassion and health care
Those on the right view the poor as overall bad lazy people and get nothing and if they die, too bad.
Does this sum it up ? :-)



Not even close. And I'm not on the left or right, just sick (pun intended) of having to subsidize people's bad behaviours for some who get sick.
"Man Babes" #AxelFabulous
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
January 15th, 2017 at 8:35:22 PM permalink
Quote: djatc

Not even close. And I'm not on the left or right, just sick (pun intended) of having to subsidize people's bad behaviours for some who get sick.

How is that any different than being sick of subsidizing people who get sick simply because they got old? Want to do away with Medicare?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
January 15th, 2017 at 8:45:52 PM permalink
Quote: terapined

maybe it comes down to this
Those on the left feel the poor are overall good people and deserve compassion and health care
Those on the right view the poor as overall bad lazy people and get nothing and if they die, too bad.
Does this sum it up ? :-)

If you change "the poor" to "everyone" then yeah, that's basically what my high school civics teacher told us about political philosophy: liberals have an optimistic view of human nature and are willing to give most people the benefit of the doubt, conservatives have a pessimistic view and aren't. The problem with knee-jerk conservatism in that regard is that sometimes it's okay to tolerate a few cheaters if you do better overall. That's certainly true for casinos, and casino operators tend to be some of the most conservative folks around. They know that the cost to prevent all cheating would be prohibitive, so they go with a plan that discourages it but costs a ton less. Why can't we do that with healthcare? We don't need to prevent all cheating, we just need to lower the costs and accept the leaks.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
January 15th, 2017 at 8:49:23 PM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

If you want to get a viable consensus on single payer government health coverage, you will need to include a check and balance on personal responsibility in order to save money. Nothing like putting in a universal "everyone pays the 100% of their first $3600 in annual health insurance costs" to avoid abuse of a "free" health care system.
...
The problem that many conservatives have with a Single Payer Health Insurance Plan is that individuals that intentionally lead healthy lives tend to subsidize those individuals that don't. Throw out the health issues like cancer, mental health and other catastrophic health issues that can hit anyone regardless of their lifestyle...I am talking about the Type 2 Diabetes cases where individuals are overweight and continued to eat like crap and never exercised...same with cardiovascular diseases for the obese and sedentary. There are exceptions with these diseases and others, my point is this country was built on individuals working hard and being personally responsible for their actions...health care is no different.

There is a reason life insurance costs more for smokers than non-smokers...why should health insurance be different. People should be allowed to make their own choices in life, but those choices come with bearing associated costs.

If someone on the left or the right comes up with a plan that allows everyone to get insurance at a cost that aligns with their commitment to use services only when needed and holds them personally accountable for maintaining a healthy lifestyle (or pay more for the choice not to), then they may have a winner.

Here is a thought, Universal Health Care with mandatory annual physicals...everyone starts at the some standard base premium this year and your cost contribution to the plan next year is based on how close you come to hitting healthy lifestyle milestones next January 1st. If the grid says you need to lose 15lbs this year and get your BP/Cholesterol down 30 points or it is going to cost you an extra $75/month in 2018, do ya think you might be more motivated to do that? Keep in mind you will pay 100% of the first $3,600 in annual costs of services you use in the system regardless of your lifestyle health score. A universal health plan with incentives for personal responsibility to live healthier and a cost hurdle to using services...many could get behind a plan like that.

But just a blind, everyone gets access to health care without incurring any costs, everyone pays the same premiums (or tax) to fund healthcare costs that continue to spiral out of control due to a failure to connect the user of services to the payment of services and no incentive for personally responsibility...if you put that system in place you are destined to have a two tiered system with crappy common care for everyone except the wealthy that can afford optional private care. Just ask Once Dear about that UK system...I lived in London for 5 years and know about my experience there. And guess which system employs the best doctors who can make the most money...one clue, it ain't the Medicare/National Health Care hospitals and medical facilities. But I am sure Soopoo and our other resident MD members can speak to that.

I think a lot of what you're suggesting is very workable. I don't think too many are actually proposing "free health care for everyone, regardless of what the services are" -- I'm certainly not. If someone wants liposuction or wants to have an ill-advised piercing removed, that's not free. What I'm proposing is that everyone has guaranteed coverage that is associated with their person, not their job. I'm all for the idea of a basic deductible for non-standard things, but I do believe that well-checkups and preventive medicine should be free (that is, covered 100% -- I'm not suggesting that doctors don't get paid for that). By putting a single administration in place and a concise set of policy terms, you can actually influence the public's consumption of healthcare in exactly the way you propose -- people are financially encouraged to live healthier lives and not make poor choices. With the existing system, there is far too much of a disconnect between the individual's pocketbook, the plan coverage, and public policy goals. Do you feel an incentive from your insurer to live a healthier life? Do you know anyone who does? You can't make the doll dance if you have dozens of different puppeteers pulling on different strings.

In other words, federal insurance policy could provide incentives in exactly the same way as federal tax policy. When the US wanted to encourage home ownership, they gave everyone a mortgage interest deduction. The US can encourage better public health by providing tax incentives for quantifiable good-health acts (getting a checkup yearly, not smoking, etc.) We can also drastically cut costs by reducing overlapping bureaucracy -- I know that sounds funny when referring to the federal government, but right now there are dozens of overlapping private benefits departments. But none of that is possible when there are multiple insurance underwriters peeling off profits at every step of the overly-complicated process.

Yes, single payer would hose the for-profit insurance industry, but that's a cost I'm willing to incur for the sake of more efficient and greater public health.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
monet0412
monet0412
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 627
Joined: Feb 18, 2016
Thanked by
RogerKint
January 15th, 2017 at 8:59:04 PM permalink
Honestly, I could care less what plan or whatever is agreed upon. The major problem I have is a government who forces the people to buy something and if they don't comply they decide to implement fines to that individual and each year scale upwards. Now if that person doesn't pay... the government threatens to confiscate tax return money or even worse yet, seize bank account funds. What will the government force its citizens to comply with next and how far will they go with the penalty? Maybe next they decide if you don't comply they put you in a concentration camp and send you to the ovens!

Like I said, I don't know history very well but I recall something like this happening in the last century.

Everyone on this site seems to be against authorities confiscating cash bankrolls but seem to have no problem with the same powers that be forcing people to have/buy a health plan. They also seem to have no problem with one doctor charging 10x the price for the same procedure as another doctor. I thought doctors and such were supposed to be concerned about saving lives but it is clear they just want to live in mansions and live like the elite.
monet0412
monet0412
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 627
Joined: Feb 18, 2016
Thanked by
RogerKint
January 15th, 2017 at 9:28:45 PM permalink
No reason to go too far into it but it is interesting that this same government forces its citizens to eat gmo food, poison drinks, dollar burgers, processed cheese but not raw milk or cheese. So let me get this straight. Basically the government forces its citizens to get ill and profit off of it with secret deals with big business food companies. Next they play the other side with all the pharmaceutical companies and health care providers and force its citizens to pay for that service. If they don't pay they fine them. These guys are good!

In the meantime let's tax these poor bastards at the same time. Last I seen we have over 300 taxes that most people don't even realize are implemented in your day to day activity.

Funny how you all think the problem or solution is some fair health care system! The truth is that the whole thing is too far gone. I'm not just talking about health care. It's over and you all just don't want to accept it.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
January 15th, 2017 at 9:50:33 PM permalink
Quote: monet0412

No reason to go too far into it but it is interesting that this same government forces its citizens to eat gmo food, poison drinks, dollar burgers

Who's forcing you to eat dollar burgers? I don't eat dollar burgers for the same reason I don't eat KFC -- I feel terrible afterwards. If I want a burger, I'll either grill it myself or go to In-n-Out (when I'm in Vegas) or Five Guys (locally). And guess how many burgers I eat in a month on average? How many burgers do you eat in a month?

Public nutrition policy is kind of an involved topic, not something amenable to a quick/dirty solution. A lot of moving parts and past decisions went into the fact that it's easier and cheaper to get high-calorie, low-nutrition processed fast food into your belly than a healthy meal. That's backwards. Think about the number of people who have burgers and sodas for lunch every day, and then look at global obesity rates. 35% of the US population has a BMI over 30 (obese). Check your BMI here:

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/diagnosis

There is some evidence that a gut bacteria is partly responsible for increased caloric uptake, and there is also evidence that an avian virus can cause obesity. https://www.wired.com/2016/12/mysterious-virus-cause-obesity/
In any event, it's hard to enact good public policy to address a nationwide health epidemic when a significant percentage of the people "suffering" from the disease don't want to stop suffering. How do you get people to stop eating crap? I always come back from Vegas about 7 pounds heavier, and I'm actually trying to eat properly when I'm there...
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
monet0412
monet0412
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 627
Joined: Feb 18, 2016
January 15th, 2017 at 10:18:36 PM permalink
You missed the point if you have to ask me: "who forces me to eat dollar burgers?" Just because you and I don't eat dollar burgers has nothing to do with what I was saying. You think that a healthy diet will fix the trouble. You fail to understand how contaminated the planet is. The soil, air and water are too far gone to change anything. It's already proven that RO water is far too aggressive in the human body. Not to mention the plastic levels in any Americans day to day diet. You and the people who think like you are just trying to create temporary solutions. It's ok... you sound like you have a strong handle on the situation and I'm sure your plan or ideas are best served for the whole.

You think changing the public diet to vegetables will help? It won't. First off they are just as contaminated as you 97 cents a pound chicken. Your only thinking of your situation and others like you. Your not thinking about the millions who can't afford anything but dollar burgers and you want them to have to pay for health care and if they don't pay let's just fine them 😄
Paradigm
Paradigm
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2226
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
January 15th, 2017 at 10:19:20 PM permalink
ME, you missed the point on connecting every user of healthcare services to their pocketbook. Nothing is 100% free to the user...that is the cause of excessive demand and rising costs under any system. It is basic economics. If you use the healthcare system you come out of pocket for the first $3600 (or some significant amount) regardless of whether it is for a baby well check, your annual physical or a sinus infection...and this cost would be on top of the funding mechanism/premium/tax that a user pays to be in the system...incentives would be required in determining an individuals premium cost to make individuals accountable for their voluntary health related lifestyle decisions. Nothing is free in this world, not even healthcare...any system that provides free services to end users is destined to fail to provide quality care at reasonable costs.
monet0412
monet0412
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 627
Joined: Feb 18, 2016
January 15th, 2017 at 10:28:59 PM permalink
I guess I just don't get it. I know that the world has produced enough food to feed over 15 billion people each year but we would rather bleach it in a dumpster or just incinerate it instead of getting it to people who are hungry. You people act as if this world isn't set up for certain people and countries to fail or starve. That's the way it is and it's never gonna change. WTF do I know. I'll just keep robbing from the rich and the poor and exploit anything and anyone until that day I cease to breath.
djatc
djatc
  • Threads: 83
  • Posts: 4477
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
January 15th, 2017 at 10:54:32 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

How is that any different than being sick of subsidizing people who get sick simply because they got old? Want to do away with Medicare?



You're supposed to get sick as you get old. I heard people die when they get old too.
"Man Babes" #AxelFabulous
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
January 15th, 2017 at 10:58:59 PM permalink
IMO, you should be able to pay for insurance and the type you want. Not be forced to do it. Take government out of the picture. If you wanna pay X/month or whatever into a Medicare-type fund so when you're old as deuce you're chillin'. Or if you don't want to do that and would rather foot the bills yourself, then do that.


I remember in college, first thing my economics teacher said was, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." (Okay, maybe not the first thing.....but the first thing I remember well.)


I don't know all the answers, but I know having a system where you are guaranteed something by doing nothing (or very little), is no good at all.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
January 15th, 2017 at 11:06:24 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Who do you think supports a 3x increase in premiums? That's just asinine, nobody is out there cheering for costs to go up.
Here's another showing that even after accounting for increased demand (that is, more people going to the doctor), the US could save $40B by switching to a national healthcare program:
http://decisiondata.org/news/how-much-single-payer-uhc-would-cost-usa/
Look at the cost share of healthcare in the US vs. everywhere else. Our public/government spending is mostly in line with other wealthy nations, but our private spending -- what comes out of your pocket -- is completely out of whack:

Is there really public opinion against saving money and having better access to healthcare? Why?

The lamentable aspect of this charade is that much of Affordable Care insurance was predicated on lower health care costs. Yet no one in power in Washington raised even a pinky to foster that. That is a major reason why premiums go up and the key umsubsidzed enrollment goes down.

The overwhelming majority of the 22 million Obamacare enrollees, according to Table 4 of this CBO report, are
*People who either receive large tax credits or now qualify for Medicare because of the expanded eligibility under Obamacare.
*Only two million of the total Obamacare exchange enrollees are paying the full product cost – not getting tax credits or Medicare.
*People with pre-existing conditions.
*People who lost their plans because of Obamacare and signed up for Obamacare. For these customers, Obamacare is a last resort. All other options had been removed. They had no choice but to buy an Obamacare replacement plan – often at higher costs and worse benefits.

One provision requires insurers to spend 80 percent of premiums on medical costs. It was supposed to help control insurance costs. The only way insurers can increase profits is by paying more for medical bills. A doubling of underlying medical bills permits a doubling of premiums and, therefore, a doubling of the 20% amount that can go toward insurer profits.

Obamacare does nothing to lower physician, hospital, lab and pharmacy costs while providing insurance with much higher deductibles and premiums than pre-Obamacare policies.

One way to help all the problems dragging down the Affordable Care Act in addition to those proposed in the 54 Republican efforts to repair it would be if all recipients of health care could search any medical procedure online and see pricing for all providers within X miles. Disclosing provider’s prices will create the free market forces and true price transparency necessary to force competition among providers.
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
January 16th, 2017 at 6:20:11 AM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

One way to help all the problems dragging down the Affordable Care Act in addition to those proposed in the 54 Republican efforts to repair it would be if all recipients of health care could search any medical procedure online and see pricing for all providers within X miles. Disclosing provider’s prices will create the free market forces and true price transparency necessary to force competition among providers.



Indeed. Well, I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but I agree. It seems like with medical stuff, for the most part, people go to their doctor that they always use....without shopping around. Not that some people don't, but, it seems like many do not. Hell, many people will drive seemingly across town to save 10c/gallon on gas (coincidentally, probably spending more on gas getting there than they save on the 10c/gallon).



Pardon my ignorance -- but I heard (and did a quick google search to semi-confirm?) that it costs a few billion dollars to get a drug approved by the FDA. I'm not sure if this is actual research costs...or just the cost to get it approved (ie: whatever the company pays to FDA to get it approved). Are these immense costs actually necessary (or is it a "greed" thing where they can charge that much because no other way to get it on the market)?

Seems like a way to lower health insurance and health care costs overall would be to lower the cost of getting a drug on the market. If that's feasible or in the works, I do not know. Just found it a bit interesting.
billryan
billryan
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 16282
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
January 16th, 2017 at 9:22:07 AM permalink
If you are unaware of Thalimide, you might change your mind about the cost of drug testing after you Google it.
This one hits home for me, as a Dr in Japan recommended it to my mother if she experienced morning sickness while she was pregnant. He supposedly told her not to worry that it wasn't approved in the U.S... politics or money or something
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
Face
Administrator
Face
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
January 16th, 2017 at 9:35:26 AM permalink
Before addressing ME, just wanted to give a big +1 to Paradigm. Having just gone through an attempt to take control of my health care, I remain completely staggered. There is no info, at least not easily obtained, that has idiot-level info to allow for any shopping whatsoever. I may find a snippet that says I have "$1,500" in benefits available per year, but nothing that I could find that stated how that $1,500 is divvied up between different procedures and processes. So even after a sincere attempt to be an educated consumer, I found that I didn't have a sort of "flat" $1,500 with which to use, but instead got ~$330 reimbursed for a $900 procedure, then $20 reimbursed for an $840 one, all depending on the specific procedure mentioned. So for that $1,740 in goods and services, I had a surprise bill of $1,300+ due immediately, instead of the sub-$300 one I expected.

Perhaps this is the way it's always been and y'all already have it figured out. But when I, who is neither lawyer nor doctor, has tooth pain, I don't really have the time or ability to obtain the info I need. I may be savvy enough to know I need a cap, but ain't no way in hell I'd know that if that's what I need, I need to look for coverage for an "onlay of the occlusal surface". And even if I did know that, would I then aim my coverage towards orthodontics, periodontics, or endodontics?

Especially you entrepreneurs, do you just toss darts and hope? Did you take six months and a copy of Grey's Anatomy to familiarize yourself with terms and procedures? How in the hell did you shop for insurance? For the layman, I see no way to make anywhere near an educated decision. It's like sending my kid to the shop for oil. I'll get oil, surely. But when I finish a rebuild and he shows up with a gallon of 90W, you find the "assistance" you receive ain't worth the cost of admission.

Quote: MathExtremist

Like what? Give me an example.



Meh, a hasty, thoughtless comment. I suppose even if I were to solar panel and pig s#$% my way into self sustaining electricity, the argument would stand that I still need to engage in support of Big Electric due to all the products I receive that would not exist but for it. So forget I said it; I typed without thinking.

Quote: ME

No, you're not being forced to play the game, you're grudgingly accepting it because you don't like the alternative. One of the freedoms granted to Americans is the freedom to give up their freedoms. You can leave. Every day you don't leave, however, is another day where you wake up and implicitly accept the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen. You don't get to have one without the other, and you especially don't get to say "I demand my Constitutional rights" without acknowledging that that same Constitution directly called for a Congress to implement Laws for society that govern your conduct within that society. If you don't like those Laws, you can either agitate to change them or you can leave, but you don't get to break them. That's what I mean by acknowledging social debt. The ultimate example of a freeloader is someone who demands rights from a society but who does not acknowledge the responsibilities they owe to that society.

That's what disturbs me so much about this narrow-minded idea that people who are ruggedly individually successful got that way all by themselves, without any help from anyone else current or past. Nobody living in this country today built their existence from whole cloth. Every single one of us owes a debt to the society we live in, even if it's not immediately transparent why that's true. It's sometimes hard to see 3rd or 4th order effects, but they're there nonetheless. Give me an example of someone who doesn't owe a debt to society, and I'll show you someone who doesn't live in one.



I can understand that, but what similarly disturbs me about your critique is that you suggest I do something which is impossible. I could move, sure. But where exists a society more attuned with my personal stance on living? Where could one go where things are more anarchist, or in line with a self subsistent lifestyle? I ain't Ranulph Fiennes, I can't survive on the caps. I'd likely not be allowed, by either the tribes or the surrounding 1st world .gov, to enter some aboriginal lost society. Should I decide to put my money where my mouth is and cast off with a bunch of like minded individuals with no allegiance to any .gov, what is my option? If I'd prefer a sort of a la carte system as you proposed, which I'm quite interested in, where do I go?

That's why I (perhaps incorrectly) compared it to indentured servitude. You say I implicitly agree. I'd ask what choice do I have?

I see none, so I'm doing what you suggested. Educate and agitate. FWIW, I think this is helpful, the way we comport ourselves. Yelling that you implicitly agree by existing and countering with LMTFA is just two billies buttin' heads. When you describe a stance, you more often find common ground with the disagreement being simply the execution.

Perhaps, one day, the a$$holes in charge will figure that out.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
January 16th, 2017 at 9:37:16 AM permalink
Drug companies and Catholics get a lot of mileage out of that Thalidomide scare. Its a great experimental drug now. Europe makes it easier to introduce drugs. Large scale side effect follow up exists elsewhere. Here we keep drugs off the market but have no real after market follow up.

High costs are a barrier to entry into the market and that protects existing members.
billryan
billryan
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 16282
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
January 16th, 2017 at 11:31:30 AM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

Drug companies and Catholics get a lot of mileage out of that Thalidomide scare. Its a great experimental drug now. Europe makes it easier to introduce drugs. Large scale side effect follow up exists elsewhere. Here we keep drugs off the market but have no real after market follow up.

High costs are a barrier to entry into the market and that protects existing members.



The Thalidomide scare? That's what you call 10,000 dead or deformed babies?
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
RogerKint
RogerKint
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 1916
Joined: Dec 5, 2011
January 16th, 2017 at 11:59:19 AM permalink
Quote: monet0412

No reason to go too far into it but it is interesting that this same government forces its citizens to eat gmo food, poison drinks, dollar burgers, processed cheese but not raw milk or cheese. So let me get this straight. Basically the government forces its citizens to get ill and profit off of it with secret deals with big business food companies. Next they play the other side with all the pharmaceutical companies and health care providers and force its citizens to pay for that service. If they don't pay they fine them. These guys are good!

In the meantime let's tax these poor bastards at the same time. Last I seen we have over 300 taxes that most people don't even realize are implemented in your day to day activity.

Funny how you all think the problem or solution is some fair health care system! The truth is that the whole thing is too far gone. I'm not just talking about health care. It's over and you all just don't want to accept it.



Craigslist is a good source to get raw milk and all sorts of farm fresh deliciousness. In California, raw milk is sold only in special stores at $15+ per gallon because of all the government hoops they have to jump through. When I went to the same store in Las Vegas, and asked for raw milk, I was told by the manager that it is illegal in Nevada.
100% risk of ruin
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
January 16th, 2017 at 12:28:39 PM permalink
The thing about drugs costing billions to bring to US market is probably true, not a Big Pharma exaggeration. I am no fan of Big P, but they do have a point. There are 4 main issues, if I understand the process correctly.

1.Identifying something that a drug will help. A drug has to have some percentage of effectiveness for some particular application for it to be viable. The R&D costs of just matching substances to illnesses are formidable and can take years. Either isolating active ingredients from complex molecules or biological sources, or discovering combinations of ingredients that act together, then a series of tests on animal subjects afflicted with a variety of issues, generally working up the complexity ladder.

An ancient example would be salicylic acid. Beginning thousands of years ago (they think), tribes in the Americas used to chew the bark of a particular tree to help headaches, fever, body aches. Relatively modern processes isolated and identified the active component, and marketed it as aspirin, starting about 100 years ago. Common now, always available to anyone living, but still had to be identified back then. And understanding how aspirin works, countering overdose, side effects, and contraindications (some people can't take it) is still evolving. Only in the last 20-30 years have cardiologists prescribed a small daily dose for heart patients and those at cardiovascular risk. A new prophylactic application resulting in billions more in sales per year.

2.Having a clear patent (finding a genuinely unique chemistry). Drug companies make their money out of the maybe 1 in 1000 process that comes out of R&D as a new molecule that does something. They went down all 1000 of those roads, losing money on the cost of finding 999 things that were ineffective, had lethal side effects, were not patentable, could not be replicated independently, a dozen other failure points. The one success has to pay for those as well as itself. The drug has to be patentable so that the company can recoup their losses over many years, not just a few months of lead time on marketing a product until other companies make a generic or branded equivalent.

3. Identifying possible side effects, including combinations with other drugs, their potency, frequency, and company exposure to liability. This takes years of testing, reporting, evaluation of long term effects, progressively more complex studies (maybe mice/rats to mammals to primates to humans), and evaluation of risk, both to the patients who will take them, and to the doctors who will prescribe them.

There are a lot of drugs that will kill you; for example, cumadin is rat poison. It's also a lifesaving drug for cancer patients and other illnesses that cause excessive clotting. But an overdose, or use by someone who doesn't have a clotting problem, can lead to uncontrolled hemorrhage and death (which is what it does to the rats, or family pets that ingest it, or even the toddler who finds where you put it out).

A lot of cancer - killing treatments have that kind of risk, where you have to acknowledge that the treatment has x% of a chance it will kill you instead of just killing the cancer. It's an enormous risk for a drug company to even put those things on the market (not just oncology); look at how often you see late-night commercials for class-action clients against a drug company for some side-effect or trying to prove the risk patients signed up to accept exceeded the known factors.

4. Complying with all testing/study/documentation requirements for FDA approval. Everything above, and a lot more, goes into proving to the FDA your drug is safe and effective. This is a good and necessary thing for the public. But it's expensive. And there's a fair chance that at least some of the hoops required/added over the years were meant as political or competitive blocks, not genuinely necessary requirements for safe and effective drugs to be approved. So I'm guessing there could be significant reform which would translate into lower costs, but I wouldn't know where to start in drugs.

(Saw overzealous requirements in aviation products when I worked on them in DC for a couple years; every requirement has a compliance component to .xxxxx tolerance, with every digit costing more. Every factor has a cost, and those are added up to evaluate risk, price, failure rates, a hundred other considerations. All this in advance of actually doing it, so mostly estimates. I'm sure there are many similarities in the FDA process to the FAA's process.)
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
steeldco
steeldco
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 4914
Joined: Nov 30, 2011
Thanked by
Boz
January 16th, 2017 at 1:49:59 PM permalink
beachbumbabs,, the last documented average cost of getting a drug approved that I saw was $2.5 billion and I am sure that it is higher now. I own stock in a company that is 3D printing human organs. Assuming they succeed then I believe drug research costs may actually decrease. Until then however.......nothing but increases.

For those who constantly whine about paying for someone else's illnesses, stop using drugs to cure your own ills because doing so supports Big Pharma and allows them to cure heart disease, cancer, obesity issues, etc. Stop using drugs so that you don't pay for the illnesses that you don't have. You don't like to share the cost of health risk via insurance then don't share the cost of drug research by using drugs. K?
DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken. DO NOT blindly accept what has been written. Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
steeldco
steeldco
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 4914
Joined: Nov 30, 2011
January 16th, 2017 at 1:54:54 PM permalink
Quote: steeldco

For those who constantly whine about paying for someone else's illnesses, stop using drugs to cure your own ills because doing so supports Big Pharma and allows them to cure heart disease, cancer, obesity issues, etc. Stop using drugs so that you don't pay for the illnesses that you don't have. You don't like to share the cost of health risk via insurance then don't share the cost of drug research by using drugs. K?



...and while I'm at it, if you're seriously ill, do not go to the hospital even if it means your death. Doing so would only support the people who go to the hospital and can't pay their bill. Hell.....stop any and all medical treatments so that we don't support those who can't afford it.
DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken. DO NOT blindly accept what has been written. Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
DRich
DRich
  • Threads: 86
  • Posts: 11597
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
January 16th, 2017 at 7:14:42 PM permalink
Quote: steeldco

...and while I'm at it, if you're seriously ill, do not go to the hospital even if it means your death. Doing so would only support the people who go to the hospital and can't pay their bill. Hell.....stop any and all medical treatments so that we don't support those who can't afford it.



Wouldn't the true anarchist just go to the hospital get treated, not pay, and do it all again?
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
djatc
djatc
  • Threads: 83
  • Posts: 4477
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
January 18th, 2017 at 4:30:17 AM permalink
Quote: DRich

Wouldn't the true anarchist just go to the hospital get treated, not pay, and do it all again?



Next time I'll have to conveniently forget my name and leave my ID at home.
"Man Babes" #AxelFabulous
  • Jump to: