Leon Troutsky

"Repealing" Obamacare...campaign rhetoric meets political reality.

1,286 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, JDaveG said:

I don't think that's true at all.  People who believed the law was socialist or contained death panels were partisans who were never going to support it.

What killed off Obamacare was glitches in the rollout of the website, inefficiencies in choice of coverage, declining options (there are only two health insurance options in Georgia right now under the ACA) and rising costs.  Obamacare is unpopular because it is not working.  That's not hyperbole and rhetoric, that's fact.

Yes to all of this but one, I think the biggest failure was the inability to get the young people to sign up for expensive plans and coverage that they didn't need.  Most of them foregoing signing up for the policies and taking the penalty which was much cheaper for them.  The problem is though for the ACA to work in needed the pool of money from the young people, people who were not going to use the plans to help pay for the sick and elderly who were going to use the healthcare at a much higher rate.  

Lastly, the money was also pooled from the very high deductibles, deductibles that most casual healthy people did not meet on a yearly basis.  Their money was out of pocket because they never reached the deductible limit.  What a great scam that was for the insurance companies.  Now you can see where the money came from for people that either didn't pay anything for healthcare or they were subsidized.  Most people that got screwed under this policy were the middle class that found it an ever increasing burden to pay the rising cost of premiums and the high deductibles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, let's go back to the old ways.  Unless you guys want to remove the "freedom" of pricing or to deregulate drugs coming to our market so they don't need a lot of trials, then we might as well go back to bankrupting people if they don't have care.  Maybe hospitals could turn away people who can't afford the care.  That would save money!  

 

Have you guys seen the seen the side effects on these drugs on TV?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lostone said:

Honestly, let's go back to the old ways.  Unless you guys want to remove the "freedom" of pricing or to deregulate drugs coming to our market so they don't need a lot of trials, then we might as well go back to bankrupting people if they don't have care.  Maybe hospitals could turn away people who can't afford the care.  That would save money!  

 

Have you guys seen the seen the side effects on these drugs on TV?!

No one is saying going to the old ways is right, nor is the current law affordable or right either.  We should've worked out this problem in a bipartisan way instead of putting a few rino's on a committee just for show.  I hope this new plan has major input from both sides.  No one should go bankrupt from medical care nor should they lose a plan due to catastrophic illness or not be able to get a plan due to preexisting conditions.  Also, drugs need to be rendered from a competitive market even if that means importing them to lower costs. Competition in the open market is going to be part of the solution.  

capologist likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Competitive open market?  If I come up with a new life saving drug, I have that patent for a long time.  Where will there open market play here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, lostone said:

Competitive open market?  If I come up with a new life saving drug, I have that patent for a long time.  Where will there open market play here?

You've heard of generics, right?  They come about because the patents expire.  There is your open market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2017 at 4:51 PM, Leon Troutsky said:

Here's a question that maybe somebody can answer.

Republicans passed over 60 bills to repeal Obamacare.  Obviously Obama wouldn't sign those bills, but now they have a president who will sign it.  Why can't they just take any one of those 60 bills that passed both chambers of Congress and put that on the president's desk?  They already wrote those bills and all of them can get passed in Congress easily (they were passed over 60 times already), so why are they still muddling around with this repeal effort?  

I don't understand that.  

Nobody can explain this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

You've heard of generics, right?  They come about because the patents expire.  There is your open market.

Sounds great until you realize that pharmaceutical have a 20 year patent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Nobody can explain this?

My hope would be they are more concerned with getting it right than just getting it done but without direct access to Congress who knows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lostone said:

Sounds great until you realize that pharmaceutical have a 20 year patent.  

That's half the story.  It usually takes 8-10 years after the drug is invented to get the drug approved by the FDA for commercial use.  In general that means around a 10 year life before the drug can be copied with generics.  In the scheme of things that is not a very long time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

That's half the story.  It usually takes 8-10 years after the drug is invented to get the drug approved by the FDA for commercial use.  In general that means around a 10 year life before the drug can be copied with generics.  In the scheme of things that is not a very long time.  

And don't we want that kind of scrutiny?  Also it's not like the name brands aren't constantly changing to try and make a new drug that has another 20 year patent.  Then pharma is giving kick backs to doctors for prescribing their drugs.  

 

Drugs are one part, treatment and procedures are another, personal fitness and person eating habits.  Honestly based on BMI and some measure of fat content, along with blood pressure and other measures.  That would determine your cost.  Then ensure that the areas have good food options and an objective measure of food deserts (like further than 10 or so miles from a grocery store or something).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lostone said:

And don't we want that kind of scrutiny?  Also it's not like the name brands aren't constantly changing to try and make a new drug that has another 20 year patent.  Then pharma is giving kick backs to doctors for prescribing their drugs.  

 

Drugs are one part, treatment and procedures are another, personal fitness and person eating habits.  Honestly based on BMI and some measure of fat content, along with blood pressure and other measures.  That would determine your cost.  Then ensure that the areas have good food options and an objective measure of food deserts (like further than 10 or so miles from a grocery store or something).

Yes, we want some scrutiny.  Sometimes we have too much though.  We have life saving drugs that do not hit the market fast enough imo.  

Prices go where the market goes.  When the country went on a health food kick (whenever that was say 25 years ago) the prices of fruits, nuts,and  vegetables sky rocketed.  That's because there was a new mmarket for it.  Heck, when I was a kid they practically gave those type of foods away for nothing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Yes, we want some scrutiny.  Sometimes we have too much though.  We have life saving drugs that do not hit the market fast enough imo.  

Prices go where the market goes.  When the country went on a health food kick (whenever that was say 25 years ago) the prices of fruits, nuts,and  vegetables sky rocketed.  That's because there was a new mmarket for it.  Heck, when I was a kid they practically gave those type of foods away for nothing.  

Have you seen the side effects of these drugs on TV?  They take up a 2 minute timeslot and 90seconds of it is talking about the side effects.  Epipen, for instance, was about to lose its patent, so it raised the price and made it extremely expensive.  I personally feel that open market solutions arent always the answer.  It should be part gov part private.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Billy Ocean said:

 

what in the world?  What possible reason could they have outside of not going through the same scrutiny our drugs go through... I thought Europe's was better anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lostone said:

what in the world?  What possible reason could they have outside of not going through the same scrutiny our drugs go through... I thought Europe's was better anyway.  

Big Pharma lining those pockets...

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, lostone said:

This is sickening.  What is the excuse?!

Lobbyists paying the bucks to keep the business here for a bigger profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lostone said:

I wonder what the realtor one is getting them?

That's how the mortgage interest deduction got in the tax code originally (to encourage people to get mortgages).  What they are going for now, good question but usually, you can watch the money and tie it to legislation.  opensecrets.org is a very good tracking site for lobbying money.

JDaveG and Leon Troutsky like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, capologist said:

That's how the mortgage interest deduction got in the tax code originally (to encourage people to get mortgages).  What they are going for now, good question but usually, you can watch the money and tie it to legislation.  opensecrets.org is a very good tracking site for lobbying money.

Oh, I know about that site.  Just trying to figure out what the realtor lobby is trying to get out of all of that spending

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lostone said:

Oh, I know about that site.  Just trying to figure out what the realtor lobby is trying to get out of all of that spending

If I were to wager a guess, it would be to try to get lending standards loosened again so it's easier for them to sell houses whether the people are really qualified or not...

WhenFalconsWin and mdrake34 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now