kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,801
|
Post by kadee79 on Dec 4, 2019 12:28:21 GMT -5
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 5, 2019 0:08:17 GMT -5
The insurance companies are asking for trouble if they keep this up.
But, I have a new theory....
I think the insurance companies have done the math, and a dual system of public and private coverage is the profitable system they want. If all routine care, basic testing, prescriptions and care for poor, sick people was covered by the government, and all they needed to do was have my husband and I pay for coverage, just in case, for the big stuff for 30 or 40 years before we need any major care - they could clean up.
Honestly, I don't know why the Republicans are resisting a public option. Throw a bunch of people into a market they have never had available to them, the health providers, pharma, and the device markets will make a freaking fortune.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2019 14:40:01 GMT -5
The insurance companies are asking for trouble if they keep this up. But, I have a new theory.... I think the insurance companies have done the math, and a dual system of public and private coverage is the profitable system they want. If all routine care, basic testing, prescriptions and care for poor, sick people was covered by the government, and all they needed to do was have my husband and I pay for coverage, just in case, for the big stuff for 30 or 40 years before we need any major care - they could clean up. Honestly, I don't know why the Republicans are resisting a public option. Throw a bunch of people into a market they have never had available to them, the health providers, pharma, and the device markets will make a freaking fortune. When we focus on reducing the cost of healthcare (not reducing quality of care is a given) then I will be on board. Democrats did zip to address the cost. And neither have the republicans
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Dec 15, 2019 14:54:11 GMT -5
Then we need to talk end of life and premature infant intervention... are you ready to have those conversations?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2019 18:15:25 GMT -5
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Dec 15, 2019 18:46:55 GMT -5
Those things need to be addressed, and a BIG issue is that we don't KNOW exactly how much those things actually cost because what they are billed is not necessarily what they are paid... Its hard to even formulate arguments because so much of that data is hidden.
Medicare spending this year... $582 billion — about 14 percent of total federal government spending... 1/4 - 1/3 of all medicare spending goes to people in their last year of life (something like 80% of that in the last 6 months) ...
Meaning $145 billion a year goes to people who are dying anyway. 3.5 % of our entire federal government spending.
Medicare is 20% of our healthcare spending... meaning 5% of our national healthcare spending overall goes to people who are dying anyway.
And that is Just Medicare, where data is easiest... not all healthcare sources in final year.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 15, 2019 18:53:53 GMT -5
Canada doesn't have direct-to-consumer advertising, for one. It's illegal here. Big Pharma pays 11 times more for marketing than it does for research and development. How do they recoup the costs? They don't. You do, by paying so much more. Those TV ads and glossy ads in magazines don't pay for themselves.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2019 19:07:07 GMT -5
Those things need to be addressed, and a BIG issue is that we don't KNOW exactly how much those things actually cost because what they are billed is not necessarily what they are paid... Its hard to even formulate arguments because so much of that data is hidden. Medicare spending this year... $582 billion — about 14 percent of total federal government spending... 1/4 - 1/3 of all medicare spending goes to people in their last year of life (something like 80% of that in the last 6 months) ... Meaning $145 billion a year goes to people who are dying anyway. 3.5 % of our entire federal government spending. Medicare is 20% of our healthcare spending... meaning 5% of our national healthcare spending overall goes to people who are dying anyway. And that is Just Medicare, where data is easiest... not all healthcare sources in final year. That’s a tough one. My mom was in the hospital this summer with congestive heart failure. I was told flat out that there was a very good chance that she would not survive. I’m her POA and I did not want to save her life just to have her live in a nursing home. So I made the decision to make her a DNR. She pulled through and is doing well. Her heart function is only 29% and she has AFib, but with medication and a proper diet she could love for years. In my mom’s case, DNR was not the right decision because they were able to stabilize her and she is doing amazingly well. How do we know which patients are truly not going to recover? Because the doctors flat out told me it’s a miracle she pulled through. I clearly have no issue with looking at heroic measures at end-of-life because I did it for my own mom.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2019 19:07:37 GMT -5
Canada doesn't have direct-to-consumer advertising, for one. It's illegal here. Big Pharma pays 11 times more for marketing than it does for research and development. How do they recoup the costs? They don't. You do, by paying so much more. Those TV ads and glossy ads in magazines don't pay for themselves. And there is zero reason that the US should have direct marketing to the consumer.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 15, 2019 19:09:47 GMT -5
The insurance companies are asking for trouble if they keep this up. But, I have a new theory.... I think the insurance companies have done the math, and a dual system of public and private coverage is the profitable system they want. If all routine care, basic testing, prescriptions and care for poor, sick people was covered by the government, and all they needed to do was have my husband and I pay for coverage, just in case, for the big stuff for 30 or 40 years before we need any major care - they could clean up. Honestly, I don't know why the Republicans are resisting a public option. Throw a bunch of people into a market they have never had available to them, the health providers, pharma, and the device markets will make a freaking fortune. When we focus on reducing the cost of healthcare (not reducing quality of care is a given) then I will be on board. Democrats did zip to address the cost. And neither have the republicans Republicans haven't done anything either.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2019 19:10:54 GMT -5
When we focus on reducing the cost of healthcare (not reducing quality of care is a given) then I will be on board. Democrats did zip to address the cost. And neither have the republicans Republicans haven't done anything either. Did you not read the last sentence of mine that you quoted?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 15, 2019 19:13:04 GMT -5
Republicans haven't done anything either. Did you not read the last sentence of mine that you quoted? Apparently not. Sorry. It has been a long day. My everything hurts. 😞
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 15, 2019 19:53:24 GMT -5
Canada doesn't have direct-to-consumer advertising, for one. It's illegal here. Big Pharma pays 11 times more for marketing than it does for research and development. How do they recoup the costs? They don't. You do, by paying so much more. Those TV ads and glossy ads in magazines don't pay for themselves. And there is zero reason that the US should have direct marketing to the consumer. So, who is going to tell them they can't do it any more? Trump? Not a chance. According to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan, independent research group tracking money in US politics, individual companies within the pharmaceuticals and health products sector spent $194.3 million on lobbying as of October 24, 2018 over and above the amount disclosed by PhRMA. www.cnn.com/2019/01/23/health/phrma-lobbying-costs-bn/index.html
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Dec 15, 2019 20:00:51 GMT -5
One way to reduce costs is to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices -the Dems have introduced bills to do that. Opposed by your Republicans every time
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Dec 15, 2019 20:06:09 GMT -5
Those things need to be addressed, and a BIG issue is that we don't KNOW exactly how much those things actually cost because what they are billed is not necessarily what they are paid... Its hard to even formulate arguments because so much of that data is hidden. Medicare spending this year... $582 billion — about 14 percent of total federal government spending... 1/4 - 1/3 of all medicare spending goes to people in their last year of life (something like 80% of that in the last 6 months) ... Meaning $145 billion a year goes to people who are dying anyway. 3.5 % of our entire federal government spending. Medicare is 20% of our healthcare spending... meaning 5% of our national healthcare spending overall goes to people who are dying anyway. And that is Just Medicare, where data is easiest... not all healthcare sources in final year. That’s a tough one. My mom was in the hospital this summer with congestive heart failure. I was told flat out that there was a very good chance that she would not survive. I’m her POA and I did not want to save her life just to have her live in a nursing home. So I made the decision to make her a DNR. She pulled through and is doing well. Her heart function is only 29% and she has AFib, but with medication and a proper diet she could love for years. In my mom’s case, DNR was not the right decision because they were able to stabilize her and she is doing amazingly well. How do we know which patients are truly not going to recover? Because the doctors flat out told me it’s a miracle she pulled through. I clearly have no issue with looking at heroic measures at end-of-life because I did it for my own mom. It is difficult... which is why we never have the conversation. My grandmother had a heart surgery 5 years before she died... it cost more than she ever paid into the system... BUT it was routine, had good chance of success and they felt could give her at least 2 years... gave her 5. I'm actually ok with that. In the weeks before her death they did some quarter of a million surgery, experimental, 10% chance of buying her a few months... and it didn't work and she spent her last days in a hospital unable to communicate...Not ok. but they had her snowed and my aunt was 'do everything you can'... There are definite places where we can make difficult but reasonable decisions about end of life care.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 15, 2019 21:12:16 GMT -5
End of life care would be a really good place to start. The Dems tried and it was labeled "death panels" by the GOP.
My FIL's last year was tremendously expensive and painful. And when he said he was ready and wanted to stop dialysis, the process was tough. He was in his 80s, had been sick for 15+ years, but rapidly deteriorating, and it still took 10 days to convince the doctor that it was okay. Those days might have cost the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Multiply that by how many ever people die in the same way each year. There has got to be a better way.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,422
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 15, 2019 22:02:36 GMT -5
End of life care would be a really good place to start. The Dems tried and it was labeled "death panels" by the GOP. My FIL's last year was tremendously expensive and painful. And when he said he was ready and wanted to stop dialysis, the process was tough. He was in his 80s, had been sick for 15+ years, but rapidly deteriorating, and it still took 10 days to convince the doctor that it was okay. Those days might have cost the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Multiply that by how many ever people die in the same way each year. There has got to be a better way. When the time comes, I hope I have the strength and courage to take my ending into my own hands.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Dec 15, 2019 22:55:31 GMT -5
End of life care would be a really good place to start. The Dems tried and it was labeled "death panels" by the GOP. My FIL's last year was tremendously expensive and painful. And when he said he was ready and wanted to stop dialysis, the process was tough. He was in his 80s, had been sick for 15+ years, but rapidly deteriorating, and it still took 10 days to convince the doctor that it was okay. Those days might have cost the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Multiply that by how many ever people die in the same way each year. There has got to be a better way. When the time comes, I hope I have the strength and courage to take my ending into my own hands. I hope I have the mental acuity
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 16, 2019 8:53:04 GMT -5
One way to reduce costs is to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices -the Dems have introduced bills to do that. Opposed by your Republicans every time And this is why it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. YOUR democrats had both chambers of congress for two years, including a super majority in the senate for awhile, when Obama first took office. They had ample opportunity to fix this and didn't. They had ample opportunity to address the COST of health care, not just forcing everyone to have insurance. They did zip to address the cost of anything. all they did was spread the cost to people that already had health insurance. So please save me the "the democrats are trying to fix this but the mean republicans are in the way". For two years the republicans had zero say in anything as their votes weren't needed.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 16, 2019 12:45:59 GMT -5
Did you not read the last sentence of mine that you quoted? Apparently not. Sorry. It has been a long day. My everything hurts. 😞 Just do what I do and blame the martinis...and then nothing hurts!lol
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Dec 16, 2019 12:47:23 GMT -5
One way to reduce costs is to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices -the Dems have introduced bills to do that. Opposed by your Republicans every time And this is why it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. YOUR democrats had both chambers of congress for two years, including a super majority in the senate for awhile, when Obama first took office. They had ample opportunity to fix this and didn't. They had ample opportunity to address the COST of health care, not just forcing everyone to have insurance. They did zip to address the cost of anything. all they did was spread the cost to people that already had health insurance. So please save me the "the democrats are trying to fix this but the mean republicans are in the way". For two years the republicans had zero say in anything as their votes weren't needed. You can't force the outcome of the ACA on what the dems did. The repubs quickly challenged and dismantled several integral parts to the law that kept it from working as originally designed. The dems also specifically decided to base their plan after a repub one in hopes of getting across the aisle buy in instead of just forcing what they wanted full throttle (and in hindsight maybe not their best move). Also, the plan was never to make insurance cheaper for everyone - it was to get non-employer insurance cost in-line with the cost of employer (group) insurance and to add coverage for those with pre-existing condition by getting rid of cheap cover nothing plans that existed. I can't say it would have worked out all grand if it was able to be actually implemented as it was designed, but you also can't take a wheel and radiator out of a car and then complain that doesn't work how it was designed.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Dec 16, 2019 12:48:06 GMT -5
how about we stop blaming sides and come up with ideas that might actually work?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 16, 2019 12:51:01 GMT -5
how about we stop blaming sides and come up with ideas that might actually work? That is why I said NEITHER the dems or repubs did anything to lower costs. Because neither side did. But everyone is so quick to play the blame game that they can't see that "their side" did no better when they had the chance.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 16, 2019 12:55:58 GMT -5
And this is why it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. YOUR democrats had both chambers of congress for two years, including a super majority in the senate for awhile, when Obama first took office. They had ample opportunity to fix this and didn't. They had ample opportunity to address the COST of health care, not just forcing everyone to have insurance. They did zip to address the cost of anything. all they did was spread the cost to people that already had health insurance. So please save me the "the democrats are trying to fix this but the mean republicans are in the way". For two years the republicans had zero say in anything as their votes weren't needed. You can't force the outcome of the ACA on what the dems did. The repubs quickly challenged and dismantled several integral parts to the law that kept it from working as originally designed. The dems also specifically decided to base their plan after a repub one in hopes of getting across the aisle buy in instead of just forcing what they wanted full throttle (and in hindsight maybe not their best move). Also, the plan was never to make insurance cheaper for everyone - it was to get non-employer insurance cost in-line with the cost of employer (group) insurance and to add coverage for those with pre-existing condition by getting rid of cheap cover nothing plans that existed. I can't say it would have worked out all grand if it was able to be actually implemented as it was designed, but you also can't take a wheel and radiator out of a car and then complain that doesn't work how it was designed. I'm calling BS on trying to reach across the aisle. There was zero of that. Republican votes weren't needed to ram this thing through. And the fact that no one considered the COST of anything is why I was totally against it. We need to address the cost of healthcare in the country, not just shifting who pays what.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Dec 16, 2019 13:03:26 GMT -5
You can't force the outcome of the ACA on what the dems did. The repubs quickly challenged and dismantled several integral parts to the law that kept it from working as originally designed. The dems also specifically decided to base their plan after a repub one in hopes of getting across the aisle buy in instead of just forcing what they wanted full throttle (and in hindsight maybe not their best move). Also, the plan was never to make insurance cheaper for everyone - it was to get non-employer insurance cost in-line with the cost of employer (group) insurance and to add coverage for those with pre-existing condition by getting rid of cheap cover nothing plans that existed. I can't say it would have worked out all grand if it was able to be actually implemented as it was designed, but you also can't take a wheel and radiator out of a car and then complain that doesn't work how it was designed. I'm calling BS on trying to reach across the aisle. There was zero of that. Republican votes weren't needed to ram this thing through. And the fact that no one considered the COST of anything is why I was totally against it. We need to address the cost of healthcare in the country, not just shifting who pays what. welll, to be fair, McConnell did say at the time that the ACA was being voted on that his sole objective was to make Obama a one termer and wasn't going to do anything to work with him. Why would you even try to work with someone who told you that? Both parties need to grow the fuck up, wipe the slate clean, stop the bickering, and do their fucking jobs.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 16, 2019 13:09:02 GMT -5
I'm calling BS on trying to reach across the aisle. There was zero of that. Republican votes weren't needed to ram this thing through. And the fact that no one considered the COST of anything is why I was totally against it. We need to address the cost of healthcare in the country, not just shifting who pays what. welll, to be fair, McConnell did say at the time that the ACA was being voted on that his sole objective was to make Obama a one termer and wasn't going to do anything to work with him. Why would you even try to work with someone who told you that? Both parties need to grow the fuck up, wipe the slate clean, stop the bickering, and do their fucking jobs. And I'm ok with saying the republicans weren't going to work with them on it. I'm not ok with re-writing history and saying they did "xyz" to try to reach across the aisle. There was no reaching across the aisle on the ACA. I do not know that the two sides will ever be able to work together again. It is ridiculous.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Dec 16, 2019 13:11:15 GMT -5
You can't force the outcome of the ACA on what the dems did. The repubs quickly challenged and dismantled several integral parts to the law that kept it from working as originally designed. The dems also specifically decided to base their plan after a repub one in hopes of getting across the aisle buy in instead of just forcing what they wanted full throttle (and in hindsight maybe not their best move). Also, the plan was never to make insurance cheaper for everyone - it was to get non-employer insurance cost in-line with the cost of employer (group) insurance and to add coverage for those with pre-existing condition by getting rid of cheap cover nothing plans that existed. I can't say it would have worked out all grand if it was able to be actually implemented as it was designed, but you also can't take a wheel and radiator out of a car and then complain that doesn't work how it was designed. I'm calling BS on trying to reach across the aisle. There was zero of that. Republican votes weren't needed to ram this thing through. And the fact that no one considered the COST of anything is why I was totally against it. We need to address the cost of healthcare in the country, not just shifting who pays what. You can call BS all you want, but then what is your explanation for Democrats pushing through what was a Republican healthcare plan? It was a modified version of Mitt Romney plan. I find it hard to believe that the dems didn't have any plans that differed - especially when they have so many different plans now, years after the repubs neutered the aca.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Dec 16, 2019 13:18:48 GMT -5
how about we stop blaming sides and come up with ideas that might actually work? That is why I said NEITHER the dems or repubs did anything to lower costs. Because neither side did. But everyone is so quick to play the blame game that they can't see that "their side" did no better when they had the chance. The chamber on Thursday passed a drug price bill backed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi by a 230 to 192 vote. That's as far as the legislation is likely to go, since both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Trump administration have said they do not support the effort. But it allows House Democrats to say on the campaign trail next year that they fulfilled one of their main promises from the 2018 election. www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/politics/house-passes-federal-government-drug-price-negotiation-bill/index.html
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 16, 2019 15:13:18 GMT -5
That is why I said NEITHER the dems or repubs did anything to lower costs. Because neither side did. But everyone is so quick to play the blame game that they can't see that "their side" did no better when they had the chance. The chamber on Thursday passed a drug price bill backed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi by a 230 to 192 vote. That's as far as the legislation is likely to go, since both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Trump administration have said they do not support the effort. But it allows House Democrats to say on the campaign trail next year that they fulfilled one of their main promises from the 2018 election. www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/politics/house-passes-federal-government-drug-price-negotiation-bill/index.htmlThank you for the link. I'm going to do a little more reading when I have a chance. I might actually be in agreement with this bill...hell might have just frozen over The concerning part of the article is this: A more controversial finding is that the bill would lead to eight fewer drugs being introduced over the next decade and about 30 fewer medications over the subsequent decade.
On the other hand, I am tired of the US footing the bill for everything. If that means fewer breakthroughs, I'm ok with it. Edited because I have no idea why the "yeah that" sign is in my post....lol
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Dec 16, 2019 15:17:42 GMT -5
Both parties need to grow the f**k up, wipe the slate clean, stop the bickering, and do their f**king jobs.
AMEN ...... times the biggest number you can imagine
|
|