Repealing Obamacare alone would leave 32 million more uninsured - CBO

[craigt3365]

58 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

What is important to note is that big pharma spends more on marketing than on research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.638c6995cc4f

And probably more for legal costs as well.

[iReason]

Trump changes mind again, telling senators to get health bill 'on my desk'

Within a day of telling Republicans to simply ‘let Obamacare fail’, president says they should cancel their August break to address healthcare reform (sub-title)

 

"Less than 24 hours after Donald Trump advised Republicans to “let Obamacare fail”, he once again switched course and told senators to cancel their August recess and remain in Washington until they overhaul the healthcare law."

 

"On Wednesday, Trump demanded they try harder in a stark turnaround from Tuesday,

when the president advocated a plan that would let Barack Obama’s healthcare law “collapse” on its own."

 

"An emergency meeting was scheduled for Wednesday night with members of the administration and Republican senators who have outstanding concerns."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/19/donald-trump-healthcare-bill-revived-obamacare-senate

 

Wasn't he spouting the same gibberish just before the 4th of July?

 

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by iReason

[nemrut]

Republicans have had 7yrs to repeal ACA yet nothing to show for it despite all their hysteria about how bad Obamacare is.

 

Now their moron-in-chief claims 'theyre very close'...

[Jonnapat]

Once again I will ask why is it that the richest country in the world is pursuing a policy with relish that will exclude millions of it's citizens from healthcare.

Europe has many faults but this is not one of them.

[Jingthing]

Once again I will ask why is it that the richest country in the world is pursuing a policy with relish that will exclude millions of it's citizens from healthcare.
Europe has many faults but this is not one of them.

Greed and idiocy.

[gk10002000]

Many people have deep worries about getting coverage with pre existing conditions.  I can understand that.  But let's be mean for a while.  You buy a house with a big hole in the basement wall and you don't expect your insurance company to now come and offer you good flood insurance.  Or you buy a car that is smoking, has bald tires, and doesn't pass a safety inspection, you don't expect to get good vehicle insurance.  But when it gets more personal, and we have a pre existing condition, we expect to get good and cheap medical insurance?  One of the 4 noble truths from Buddhism "life is hard".  Compassion is one thing, but mandating people to spend money is another. 

 

  I don't believe there should be a law enforcing insurance companies or anybody to offer you insurance.  You are a bad risk, plain and simple.  Now I do believe there should be companies that are allowed to offer high priced plans to people with pre-existing conditions.  My main point is, why burden millions of other people with the costs required to insure those with problems?  You older folks surely will remember your parents of grand parents saying things like "there but for the grace of god...." 

[Jingthing]

Many people have deep worries about getting coverage with pre existing conditions.  I can understand that.  But let's be mean for a while.  You buy a house with a big hole in the basement wall and you don't expect your insurance company to now come and offer you good flood insurance.  Or you buy a car that is smoking, has bald tires, and doesn't pass a safety inspection, you don't expect to get good vehicle insurance.  But when it gets more personal, and we have a pre existing condition, we expect to get good and cheap medical insurance?  One of the 4 noble truths from Buddhism "life is hard".  Compassion is one thing, but mandating people to spend money is another. 
 
  I don't believe there should be a law enforcing insurance companies or anybody to offer you insurance.  You are a bad risk, plain and simple.  Now I do believe there should be companies that are allowed to offer high priced plans to people with pre-existing conditions.  My main point is, why burden millions of other people with the costs required to insure those with problems?  You older folks surely will remember your parents of grand parents saying things like "there but for the grace of god...." 

Typical republican Ayn Randian crapola. It's called being civilized. Should childless people refuse to pay to educate children? Of course insurance companies shouldn't be in the mix. To provide cover for all for much lower cost than current USA per capita there is no choice but some kind of universal. You know. Like civilized countries have been doing for a very long time.

[Basil B]

 

While taking away the health care from 32 million Americans...

 

Quote

US lawmakers seek permanent resident status for Charlie Gard 'so he can get medical treatment he needs

The on-going political row over the treatment of Charlie Gard took a new turn today as it emerged US lawmakers launched attempt at granting the terminally-ill 11-month-old permanent resident status to allow him to fly to America for treatment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/19/charlie-gard-granted-permanent-resident-status-us-can-get-medical/

[Jingthing]

 
While taking away the health care from 32 million Americans...
 

US lawmakers seek permanent resident status for Charlie Gard 'so he can get medical treatment he needs
The on-going political row over the treatment of Charlie Gard took a new turn today as it emerged US lawmakers launched attempt at granting the terminally-ill 11-month-old permanent resident status to allow him to fly to America for treatment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/19/charlie-gard-granted-permanent-resident-status-us-can-get-medical/

If he can be helped then good but the right wing is supporting that as a propaganda play to diss single payer which they realize is gaining support.

[Grubster]

15 hours ago, Credo said:

What they don't tell you is that the same medications used in the US are exported to foreign countries where they play 1/10th of the amount, and the companies still make a profit.   But there is no indication there is any effort to bring down the cost of medication.   I wonder why?

 

Only Americans pay for the cost of research and development by US drug makers, which is 90% of the cost overall. All users should pay for that. Big Pharma is a big player in Washington though, no doubt. 

[Jingthing]

trump is amazing at negative branding. 

But he sucks at selling political policies.

 

 

Quote

 

Trump Seems Much Better at Branding Opponents Than Marketing Policies

Donald J. Trump, the master brander, has never found quite the right selling point for his party’s health care plan.

He has promised “great healthcare,” “truly great healthcare,” “a great plan” and health care that “will soon be great.” But for a politician who has shown remarkable skill distilling his arguments into compact slogans — “fake news,” “witch hunt,” “Crooked Hillary” — those health care pitches have fallen far short of the kind of sharp, memorable refrain that can influence how millions of Americans interpret news in Washington.

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/18/upshot/trump-seems-much-better-at-branding-opponents-than-at-marketing-policies.html

[Grubster]

The US medical system is the biggest scam in the entire world, no doubt in my mind. The American Medical Association, The Hospitals, The Insurance Companies, Big Pharma, The Bar Association, and worst of all Congress all robbing the people of Trillions of dollars. Unbelievable scam.

[ilostmypassword]

47 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Only Americans pay for the cost of research and development by US drug makers, which is 90% of the cost overall. All users should pay for that. Big Pharma is a big player in Washington though, no doubt. 

I guess you missed that post about Big Pharma spending more on marketing than on research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.a2724927aea2

[Basil B]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

If he can be helped then good but the right wing is supporting that as a propaganda play to diss single payer which they realize is gaining support.

Re Charlie Gard, as I understand it his parents have raised millions of dollars to send him to America for some experimental treatment that may just keep him alive a little longer, he has already suffered brain damage, can not hear, can not see, can not even make a noise, no proof that he is not suffering pain, as I see it if the American doctors snake oil sellers want to experiment on him they should be paying his transport to the US and treating him for free.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Basil B

[Jingthing]

I'm not a medical expert but think the decision should be based on ethics and medical possibilities, not political grandstanding. 

[gk10002000]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Typical republican Ayn Randian crapola. It's called being civilized. Should childless people refuse to pay to educate children? Of course insurance companies shouldn't be in the mix. To provide cover for all for much lower cost than current USA per capita there is no choice but some kind of universal. You know. Like civilized countries have been doing for a very long time.

Sorry but just because society could, doesn't mean it should.  A generation or two ago and further back people were quite civilized, but people didn't expect other people to bail them out, or to help them with their medical issues.  Sure it is a nice thing to do. Sure I wish everybody had medical.  But how do you do that?  Do you give the same good treatment to the smoker that constantly abuses his body? Or to the heavy drinker, or to the drug user?   And do you agree to spend 10 million dollars on one child born with heart defects that needs dozens of procedures and constant long term care, when the same 10 million could be used to treat an entire town or small city?  Not easy choices.   The bottom line is medical could be done if it weren't so Gosh Darn expensive.  that is the root issue.  Everything else pales to that and is just a detail. 

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

Sorry but just because society could, doesn't mean it should.  A generation or two ago and further back people were quite civilized, but people didn't expect other people to bail them out, or to help them with their medical issues.  Sure it is a nice thing to do. Sure I wish everybody had medical.  But how do you do that?  Do you give the same good treatment to the smoker that constantly abuses his body? Or to the heavy drinker, or to the drug user?   And do you agree to spend 10 million dollars on one child born with heart defects that needs dozens of procedures and constant long term care, when the same 10 million could be used to treat an entire town or small city?  Not easy choices.   The bottom line is medical could be done if it weren't so Gosh Darn expensive.  that is the root issue.  Everything else pales to that and is just a detail. 

What are you on about? The USA is the only richer nation without access to health care for all, and has the highest medical costs by far. To argue for universal is to argue for LESS cost.

[gk10002000]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

What are you on about? The USA is the only richer nation without access to health care for all, and has the highest medical costs by far. To argue for universal is to argue for LESS cost.

I don't argue for universal. Heck Obamacare tripled my premiums in three years and now would exceede 500/month for me a single person!   I wouldn't mind universal, and doctors and hospitals that charged reasonable fees and costs.  I would love some normalization.  But the big health care companies and drug companies don't want that.  They loved Obamacare and the fact that people were now required by law to buy plans.  If you get your butt back to the USA lets' see what you get for care. By the way, what do you do for medical while in Thailand?

Edited July 20, 2017 by gk10002000
update

[Grubster]

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I guess you missed that post about Big Pharma spending more on marketing than on research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.a2724927aea2

Yes I did and I have noticed all the adds for drugs back home the last twenty years. They must be counting the money they give doctors as marketing too, because they spend a lot on Doctors and Pharmacist's vacations and gifts. I worked at Abbott Labs in Chicago for a year and it is amazing what they spend every day on research and development. The fifty million dollar project I was working on got scraped after some lady died using the drug. The job was nearly complete and then they spent a couple million more to scrap it all out. That project was a tiny little speck in the scope of things at that complex. Happens a lot I guess. So I guess I should have added advertisers to my list on my other post.

[Gary A]

The cost of medical care in the US is astronomical. The first thing to do is to kill the lawyers. The second thing is to get a handle on costs. Why does an appendectomy here in Thailand cost about $1,200 dollars in a private hospital and the average cost in the US is about $23,000 dollars. Surely that should raise some red flags. I had health insurance in the US. I was paying a $20 copayment for two different blood pressure drugs. I could only get one month supply at a time, $40 a month. Here in Thailand I get 100 foil wrapped tablets for about $7.50. For the math deficient, that is nearly a three month supply.

 

Trump should have known that he would never be able to pass a universal health care bill. The liberals want every possible coverage for free and the conservatives want to save money.. There is no middle ground. The best way is to allow Obamacare to die a natural death of its own weight and force the government to come up with a plan to lower the insane costs  and come up with a fair bill that will NOT eliminate people with prior conditions or any children. Most of those people did not ask to be sick, although some do bring it on themselves.

[ilostmypassword]

13 minutes ago, Gary A said:

The cost of medical care in the US is astronomical. The first thing to do is to kill the lawyers. The second thing is to get a handle on costs. Why does an appendectomy here in Thailand cost about $1,200 dollars in a private hospital and the average cost in the US is about $23,000 dollars. Surely that should raise some red flags. I had health insurance in the US. I was paying a $20 copayment for two different blood pressure drugs. I could only get one month supply at a time, $40 a month. Here in Thailand I get 100 foil wrapped tablets for about $7.50. For the math deficient, that is nearly a three month supply.

 

Trump should have known that he would never be able to pass a universal health care bill. The liberals want every possible coverage for free and the conservatives want to save money.. There is no middle ground. The best way is to allow Obamacare to die a natural death of its own weight and force the government to come up with a plan to lower the insane costs  and come up with a fair bill that will NOT eliminate people with prior conditions or any children. Most of those people did not ask to be sick, although some do bring it on themselves.

"Trump should have known that he would never be able to pass a universal health care bill." Is there any evidence that he ever tried? Or even talked about it in a consistent way? And no, Obamacare is not dying a natural a natural death. In states that adopted Medicaid it's doing much better in the states that didn't - those latter being all Republican states.. Of course, with Trump leaving things uncertain for insurance companies, the rates have gone up a lot more than they should have. The insurance companies do have to protect themselves.

[YetAnother]

On 7/20/2017 at 6:35 AM, webfact said:

Thirty-two million Americans would lose their health insurance by 2026 if Obamacare is repealed without a replacement,

seems i recall a similar number would be out in the cold when obamacare was enacted; horrid legislation

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, YetAnother said:

seems i recall a similar number would be out in the cold when obamacare was enacted; horrid legislation

You need to get your facts straight.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Impact

Quote

The CDC reported that the percentage of people without health insurance fell from 16.0% in 2010 to 8.9% during the January–June 2016 period.^[197] The uninsured rate dropped in every congressional district in the U.S. between 2013 and 2015.^[198] The Congressional Budget Office reported in March 2016 that there were approximately 12 million people covered by the exchanges (10 million of whom received subsidies to help pay for insurance) and 11 million made eligible for Medicaid by the law, a subtotal of 23 million people.

Republicans are targeting it purely for political reasons.  Horrid way to legislate.

[ilostmypassword]

38 minutes ago, YetAnother said:

seems i recall a similar number would be out in the cold when obamacare was enacted; horrid legislation

You're imaging things. A number that was touted had to do with employers dropping health plans because employees  would use the ACA instead. They predicted massive numbers of employees losing this benefit. It didn't happen.

Another falsehood advanced by ACA opponents was that employers wouldn't hire full time employees because of ACA rules. Again, it didn't happen.

Of course if your news sources are only found in the conservative bubble, you would have no way of knowing that these predictions proved to be false.

[Jingthing]

Republicans are targeting it purely for political reasons.  Horrid way to legislate.

Yep.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-get-distracted-the-gops-cruel-health-care-plan-isnt-dead-yet/2017/07/20/17d39bb2-6d7a-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html

[vaultdweller0013]

17 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

Many people have deep worries about getting coverage with pre existing conditions.  I can understand that.  But let's be mean for a while.  You buy a house with a big hole in the basement wall and you don't expect your insurance company to now come and offer you good flood insurance.  Or you buy a car that is smoking, has bald tires, and doesn't pass a safety inspection, you don't expect to get good vehicle insurance.  But when it gets more personal, and we have a pre existing condition, we expect to get good and cheap medical insurance?  One of the 4 noble truths from Buddhism "life is hard".  Compassion is one thing, but mandating people to spend money is another. 

 

  I don't believe there should be a law enforcing insurance companies or anybody to offer you insurance.  You are a bad risk, plain and simple.  Now I do believe there should be companies that are allowed to offer high priced plans to people with pre-existing conditions.  My main point is, why burden millions of other people with the costs required to insure those with problems?  You older folks surely will remember your parents of grand parents saying things like "there but for the grace of god...." 

As a 60 year-old, you should be careful for what you wish for. Being old is a "pre-existing" condition, and you would have a hard time find ANY insurance, and if you did find a plan, the instance you had ANY problem your rates would be jacked up or the plan cancelled outright.

 

[Jingthing]

Yes, the status quo before ACA was a nightmare. No protections for people with preexisting conditions whatsoever. ACA was a step forward but never presented as anything close to a perfect solution. The republicans and trump want to go backwards. I don't think people that voted for trump even voted for that. In his Mussolini style rallies he clearly promised better health care for all, and much cheaper too. 

[impulse]

On 7/20/2017 at 9:58 AM, craigt3365 said:

If it wasn't for the profits they make, we'd have no research into new drugs.  Look into what it costs to bring a new drug to market.  It's insane.

 

What business doesn't want to make a profit?  And to say they don't care about patients is BS.  People go into medicine to help others, not just make money.

 

If only they were developing new, better drugs and not figuring out a way to keep the patent protection by putting out a new, improved version that costs twice as much and doesn't work any better.  And paying off other companies to contractually obligate them NOT to sell a generic equivalent of a drug that's coming off patent.

 

Sure, people get in to medicine to help others.  But then they figure out that the system won't let them if it reduces profits.

  

And why do US patients have to pay $100 for a dose of something the same company happily sells into India for $5?  Maybe it's time for other countries to start subsidizing drug research for the entire world's benefit.

 

[Skywalker69]

 

These Americans Hated the Health Law. Until the Idea of Repeal Sank In.

 

 

DOYLESTOWN, Pa. — Five years ago, the Affordable Care Act had yet to begin its expansion of health insurance to millions of Americans, but Jeff Brahin was already stewing about it.

“It’s going to cost a fortune,” he said in an interview at the time.

This week, as Republican efforts to repeal the law known as Obamacare appeared all but dead, Mr. Brahin, a 58-year-old lawyer and self-described fiscal hawk, said his feelings had evolved.

“As much as I was against it,” he said, “at this point I’m against the repeal.”

“Now that you’ve insured an additional 20 million people, you can’t just take the insurance away from these people,” he added. “It’s just not the right thing to do.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/health/affordable-care-act-repeal-popularity-doylestown-pennsylvania.html?_r=0