Healthcare reform

[southsider2k5]

There's no way in hell they know what it's going to cost. They will "misinterpret" the data and blame it on Bush, I'm sure.

 

Hell we already saw how far under budget Bush's drug plan ended up being, there is no way in hell a complete insurance plan is coming in under cost. In reality, it just hasn't happened historically. I have seen nothing to indicate that without gutting services, that it can be done.

[southsider2k5]

1. How the fact that 1/4 of the country's population is uninsured at some point every year doesn't play in to this, especially when the elderly are all covered with Medicare, baffles me. That's exactly the point!

 

2. Why bother with the rest of the post? You are outright saying that you don't believe their math and giving absolutely no reasons why I should believe that your math is better than theirs, you're just repeating the challenges over and over.

 

And hell, if you're giving me issues over the definition of the uninsured, how much of a problem can I give you for your artificial number of 20 million Illegals?

 

At one point you are using 80,000,000 as your basis. When I challenge the numbers based on that, you are telling me that we would only have to pay for 48,000,000. Do you really wonder why I don't buy the company line?

 

As for the illegals, I am not the one who has included them as a part of my figure to inflate the number as to impress the public with how bad things really are. If you are going to use the illegal aliens are a part of the uninsured, you should probably be able to explain how you are going to pay for them.

 

The rest of the post is very important because it includes some very clear and simple facts that are being ignored in this argument.

 

-How are we going to treat 48,000,000 or 80,000,000 more people in an infrastructure that is fixed?

 

-How are we going to keep employees who are going to be taking an estimated 20-30% paycut while being asked to do something between 1/6 and 1/4 more workload depending on what day the numbers are being quoted?

 

-Are employers really going to pay another cost for employees without dropping medical coverage as a benefit?

 

-What incentive will there be for employees to pay a cost to their employer in the form of insurance, when the government will do it for cheaper?

 

 

[Balta1701]

-How are we going to treat 48,000,000 or 80,000,000 more people in an infrastructure that is fixed?

 

-How are we going to keep employees who are going to be taking an estimated 20-30% paycut while being asked to do something between 1/6 and 1/4 more workload depending on what day the numbers are being quoted?

 

-Are employers really going to pay another cost for employees without dropping medical coverage as a benefit?

 

-What incentive will there be for employees to pay a cost to their employer in the form of insurance, when the government will do it for cheaper?

Where exactly are you getting those numbers? It sure sounds like you're assuming that the plan will be paid for by taxing employer-provided benefits/removing that tax benefit. That is not in the plan as presented today.

 

Put another Trillion dollars in to that infrastructure and see if it appears. "We don't like you people and you smell so we're going to make sure you can't see the doctor" is a horrible concept. It is rationing. It makes things more expensive for everyone.

[southsider2k5]

Where exactly are you getting those numbers? It sure sounds like you're assuming that the plan will be paid for by taxing employer-provided benefits/removing that tax benefit. That is not in the plan as presented today.

 

Put another Trillion dollars in to that infrastructure and see if it appears. "We don't like you people and you smell so we're going to make sure you can't see the doctor" is a horrible concept. It is rationing. It makes things more expensive for everyone.

 

And rationing is exactly what is going to happen when you are adding whatever number of people to a system that is already having shortages of doctors, nurses, and facilities.

[Balta1701]

And rationing is exactly what is going to happen when you are adding whatever number of people to a system that is already having shortages of doctors, nurses, and facilities.

You're just perfectly fine with rationing as long as you're not the one who has to deal with it.

[southsider2k5]

You're just perfectly fine with rationing as long as you're not the one who has to deal with it.

 

I like the assumption there.

[Balta1701]

I like the assumption there.

You seem to be more than happy to defend our current system, where we ration by income.

 

Edit: and don't tell me you're not defending the current system, because any time you argue "There's not enough doctors to cover everyone!" it's an argument in favor of rationing by some means.

[NorthSideSox72]

Dear BearSox-

 

CBO stands for Congressional Budget Office. Obama is no longer in Congress. This isn't his projection.

 

Sincerely,

NSS

 

[southsider2k5]

You seem to be more than happy to defend our current system, where we ration by income.

 

Edit: and don't tell me you're not defending the current system, because any time you argue "There's not enough doctors to cover everyone!" it's an argument in favor of rationing by some means.

 

Your assumption was that I have never been on the bad end of the system. That is not true. I have gone without insurance for periods of time before. Even with that said, I do not think that someone else should be paying for me.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

CBO score on the house version: cost is $1 trillion over 10 years, insures 97% of the population. Edit: that does not include any of the revenue measures.

 

Serious question: Is that 97% of the legal population, or 97% of the people residing in here?

[Texsox]

Your assumption was that I have never been on the bad end of the system. That is not true. I have gone without insurance for periods of time before. Even with that said, I do not think that someone else should be paying for me.

 

Just looking at degrees here. Would you be in favor of the government paying for treatment or prevention of infectious diseases like TB, flu, small pox vaccines, etc.

[BearSox]

Dear BearSox-

 

CBO stands for Congressional Budget Office. Obama is no longer in Congress. This isn't his projection.

 

Sincerely,

NSS

 

What are you talking about?

 

All I stated was that Barry and friends (friends being the congress) were up to the their magic act. While everyone is watching the right hand (Sotomayor hearings), the left hand is really the important one you should be focusing on (Healthcare Bill).

[NorthSideSox72]

What are you talking about?

 

All I stated was that Barry and friends (friends being the congress) were up to the their magic act. While everyone is watching the right hand (Sotomayor hearings), the left hand is really the important one you should be focusing on (Healthcare Bill).

 

Actually, you said this:

 

The Obama administration and it's tricks. Once again, while everyone is looking one way (Sotomayor hearings), Barry and Friends are coming up with a bill for nationalized health care already, and no one in the MSM is reporting it.

 

The Obama Administration is not the CBO, has nothing to do with the CBO. You were responding to the post about CBO estimates. If you don't like the estimates, blame the CBO. Even better, provide an actual, material reason why you disagree with it, other than "tricks".

 

[BearSox]

Actually, you said this:

 

The Obama Administration is not the CBO, has nothing to do with the CBO. You were responding to the post about CBO estimates. If you don't like the estimates, blame the CBO. Even better, provide an actual, material reason why you disagree with it, other than "tricks".

I realize the Obama Adminsitration is different than the CBO, and I should have said Barry and friends there instead, that was a mistake on my part. However, I was replying to this post:

 

This healthcare reform effort has officially moved farther than the Clinton effort ever did. We have a bill in writing from the House today.

 

I don't see the CBO mentioned in that post or in the link...

[StrangeSox]

I realize the Obama Adminsitration is different than the CBO, and I should have said Barry and friends there instead, that was a mistake on my part. However, I was replying to this post:

 

 

 

I don't see the CBO mentioned in that post or in the link...

 

The CBO is not Obama's "friend".

[bmags]

Serious question: Is that 97% of the legal population, or 97% of the people residing in here?

 

it is 97% of the legal population.

[lostfan]

The CBO is not Obama's "friend".

They're really not, if anything they really can get in the way sometimes (like Pelosi).

[southsider2k5]

it is 97% of the legal population.

 

So it really won't be 48,000,000 people covered, which is why the projections are only for a trillion dollars. That makes a lot more sense.

 

The estimates are that about 9-10 million are counted in that number as illegals, so the number drops of dramatically, especially because the CBO used an estimate of only 45.7 million not insured. The interesting part is that the fines for non-compliance only apply to legal residents, so the illegals will continue to exploit the system while the 56% of the country that actually pays federal taxes will continue to fund their illegal activities, even though 80% of the country opposes it.

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDliZ...zY1ZmJiNzUxYWE=

 

Importing the Uninsured

Immigration could trip up the Democrats’ planned health-care takeover.

 

By James R. Edwards Jr.

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has insisted the Senate will deal with immigration and health reform separately. And Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) told the Dallas Morning News in May, “We’re not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers. That’s too politically explosive.”

 

But it’s hard to envision how health reform can avoid tripping the immigration booby trap. Approximately 15–22 percent of the 46 million residents of the United States without health coverage are illegal aliens. That’s about 9 or 10 million people. More generally, a third of the foreign-born are uninsured, Census data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies show. That means something like 12.6 million people, or more than a fourth of the total uninsured, are immigrants, both legal and illegal. Since 1989, immigration is responsible for 71 percent of the rise in those without health insurance. The fact is, the problem of the uninsured would be a more manageable one if the U.S. were not admitting millions of uninsured immigrants.

 

Two health-care plans working their way through Congress — the bill from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), and a draft outline put together by Baucus’s Finance Committee — could suffer because of this interaction between immigration and medicine.

 

For example, the HELP bill’s proponents hope to expand Medicaid so that everyone earning up to 50 percent above the federal poverty level can enroll (currently, Medicaid income requirements vary by state, with the poverty level being the usual limit). Since immigration law only requires relatives who sponsor someone for an immigrant visa to earn 25 percent above the poverty level, the end result would be that someone poor enough to qualify for Medicaid would be able to sponsor new immigrants to the U.S. What are the chances that these newcomers sponsored by Medicaid recipients would be able to afford health insurance when their sponsors can’t?

 

And under the Finance Committee’s plan, tax credits for buying insurance would be available to individuals who earn up to three times the poverty level. (That’s $32,490 for individuals and $66,150 for families of four.) Like other refundable tax credits — meaning that if your tax credit is worth more than you pay in taxes, the government sends you a check for the difference — this health-coverage tax credit would amount to a welfare-type subsidy funded by those Americans who pay taxes.

 

No health legislation on the table requires federal, state, or local agencies — or private institutions receiving federal funds — to check the immigration status of health-program applicants, so some of the money distributed via Medicaid and tax credits inevitably would go to illegal aliens.

 

Also, the HELP bill makes citizens and lawful aliens eligible for a new Right Choices program — an advocacy program providing Democrats jobs spending taxpayer money. And another part of the Finance Committee plan would exempt illegal immigrants from a mandate to buy insurance. Uninsured Americans would have to pay a fine, but uninsured illegal aliens would be off the hook — thus, they would have no reason to buy their own coverage or to stop receiving taxpayer-funded health services at clinics, emergency rooms, etc.

 

If the children’s health reauthorization early this Congress is any indication, liberals intend to redistribute income even to aliens. The Pelosi Congress dropped requirements that SCHIP applicants document their legal status, dumbed down standards so stolen Social Security numbers can be accepted, and allowed illegal aliens onto SCHIP for up to 90 days.

 

A recent Rasmussen poll found 80 percent of American voters oppose covering illegal immigrants in any health-reform bill, while just 11 percent support it. And 70 percent oppose universal health care if illegal aliens are included.

 

The American people may soon realize how much health reform will benefit immigrants and cost the native-born. When that happens, the volatile politics of immigration could derail universal health care.

[Cknolls]

So it really won't be 48,000,000 people covered, which is why the projections are only for a trillion dollars. That makes a lot more sense.

 

The estimates are that about 9-10 million are counted in that number as illegals, so the number drops of dramatically, especially because the CBO used an estimate of only 45.7 million not insured. The interesting part is that the fines for non-compliance only apply to legal residents, so the illegals will continue to exploit the system while the 56% of the country that actually pays federal taxes will continue to fund their illegal activities, even though 80% of the country opposes it.

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDliZ...zY1ZmJiNzUxYWE=

 

 

You know you can't source that right-wing trash here.

[southsider2k5]

If this isn't talking out of both sides of your mouth I don't know what is... Democrats in Congress are looking to extend the exclusivitity period for name brand drugs from 7 to 12 years... Boy that oughta cuts drug costs

 

http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2009/0...tent-limit.html

 

In the midst of the Senate health care reform bill debates, a Congressional provision stands to make or break local biotech companies.

 

Currently, the FDA regulates how long patents are valid for chemical-based drugs. After the patents expire, cheaper generics can enter the market. But biologics — drugs made out of biological material, such as proteins — do not follow any set regulations. Biotech companies argue there is no way to make a perfect copy of a biologic drug, and until now, there has been no pathway to generics.

 

This week, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions voted to approve a 12-year data exclusivity clause, giving biotechnology companies 12 years of drug patent protection and preventing generic drug makers for 12 years from copying the drugs and selling cheaper versions. Despite President Obama’s backing of a seven-year exclusivity limit, the HELP committee, led by U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., passed the measure 16 to 7.

 

Kennedy represents seniors and organized labor seeking cheaper generic drugs, as well as the powerful biotech industry that drives much of the Massachusetts economy. Two years ago, Kennedy pushed for 12 years of patent protection after biologic drugs are approved by the FDA. However, last week, as his committee debated the provision, Kennedy offered a different amendment from his original proposal that some biotech companies could see as unfavorable in its protection.

 

In another twist to the Congressional debates, North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, along with two other senators, offered an amendment with the original 12 years of patent protection — an amendment that Kennedy ultimately voted for. North Carolina, like Massachusetts, houses a strong biotechnology industry.

 

Robert Coughlin, president and CEO of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, wrote a Mass High Tech editorial piece last week addressing the topic: "Because medical innovation is both risky and expensive, Congress must allow the developers of biologic medicines to protect for at least 12 years the proprietary data used to create the original medicine...Our industry’s success is dependent on continued innovation and a strong record of patient safety. But this simply won’t be possible if Congress creates a pathway for biosimilars — including exciting new therapies emanating from embryonic stem cell research — that erodes patient-safety protections or fails to secure adequate incentives for innovation."

 

The 12-year patent protection limit awaits approval by the full Senate and House.

 

And why will this pass?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14money.html

 

Drug Industry, Having Long Smiled on G.O.P., Now Splits Donations Equally

 

 

WASHINGTON — After favoring Republicans by a ratio of more than two to one for most of the last decade, pharmaceutical companies and others in the health care industry are now splitting their contributions evenly between the two major parties, campaign finance reports show.

 

Lobbyists and executives in the industry say the swing reflects the fact that Democrats control both houses of Congress, are expected to increase their majorities and may win the White House, giving them a dominant voice on health policy.

 

“There’s a new world order,” Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said when asked why Democrats were getting more of the industry’s money.

 

The figures illustrate the maxim that money follows power, all the more so since public programs account for a growing share of spending on prescription drugs: 34 percent in 2006, up from 23 percent in 2000. So the companies’ fortunes depend more than ever on government decisions, and leading Democrats have offered proposals that would further expand the role of the public sector in financing and delivering health care.

 

The industry has shown strong Republican leanings in the past. While Democrats in Congress have severely criticized drug makers and health insurance companies, Republicans have worked closely with them on many issues, fending off countless proposals for stricter regulation.

 

But a new trend in campaign contributions emerges from data reported by Pfizer, Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, other companies and their trade associations.

 

In the 2008 election cycle, pharmaceutical companies — their employees and political action committees — have donated $20 million to federal candidates and the parties, with 49 percent going to Democrats and 51 percent to Republicans, according to the data, compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent group that tracks campaign finance. Not since 1990 has the split been so nearly even.

 

By contrast, Democrats got just 31 percent of the industry’s donations in 2000 and 2006, 26 percent in 2002 and 34 percent in 2004.

 

Contributions by the American Medical Association show a similar pattern. Democrats have received 52 percent of the $882,000 in contributions reported by its political action committee in the current election cycle. In prior elections, the doctors’ group favored Republicans, giving them 61 percent of its donations in 2002, 80 percent in 2004 and 70 percent in 2006.

 

Fred P. DuVal, treasurer of the Democratic Governors Association, said: “Parity between the parties is now the operating principle for many corporate political action committees in the health care industry. That’s a sea change.” Mr. DuVal is a government relations consultant whose clients include Pfizer and Aetna.

 

The leading campaign contributors in the pharmaceutical industry in 2007-8, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, have been Pfizer, Amgen and Johnson & Johnson. All three heavily favored Republicans in the last four election cycles, but the proportion of money going to Democrats now approaches or exceeds 50 percent at each company.

 

“People in the pharmaceutical industry have not suddenly changed their spots,” said Representative Pete Stark, the California Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health. “They understand who will be writing legislation in the next few years. They want to be at the table.”

 

The trend is well illustrated by the shift at Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker. The company’s employees and its political action committee made 85 percent of their contributions to Republicans in 2000. Republicans got 81 percent in 2002, 69 percent in 2004 and 67 percent in 2006. But Democrats have received 51 percent of the $1.2 million in contributions reported in the current election cycle. On its Web site, Pfizer now boasts that its political action committee supports equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans.

 

At Johnson & Johnson, Republicans received 70 percent of the contributions in 2000, 61 percent in 2002, 63 percent in 2004 and 61 percent in 2006. But in the current campaign, Democrats have received 59 percent of the $964,000 in donations reported by Johnson & Johnson employees and the company’s political action committee.

 

One other factor that may have chilled enthusiasm for giving to Republicans is that the party’s presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, has not taken a typically Republican stance toward the industry.

 

Mr. McCain has supported legislation to let the government negotiate directly with drug companies to obtain lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries, a position that is anathema to the industry.

 

He wants to allow imports of prescription drugs from Canada and some other countries. He has defied makers of brand-name drugs by pushing legislation to speed the approval of lower-cost generic drugs. And he championed legislation to codify patients’ rights, a bill strenuously opposed by insurers and President Bush.

 

In a recent television advertisement, the McCain campaign boasts that “he took on the drug industry.”

 

At a Republican presidential debate in January, after Mr. McCain criticized drug companies, one of his rivals, Mitt Romney, told him, “Don’t turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys.”

 

Mr. McCain shot back, “Well, they are.”

[lostfan]

There is a poster in here a dozen or so pages back that worked for a drug company (kap was was participating too) explaining how the current limit on patents hurts and that it should be extended.

[bmags]

well, I mean when they pump so much money into a drug that might not get past stage IV, it makes sense to give them time to recoup. Effects the consumer, though.

[lostfan]

Southsider after reading most of your posts on this subject I'm having a hard time figuring out your point or what should be done. Actually I'm getting the feeling u don't think there's a problem with the current system at all.

[southsider2k5]

Southsider after reading most of your posts on this subject I'm having a hard time figuring out your point or what should be done. Actually I'm getting the feeling u don't think there's a problem with the current system at all.

 

The last post was irony. Everyone talks about taking on the big bad drug companies, and yet here they are giving in at the first chance they get.

[Balta1701]

The American Medical Association has issued an official statement in support of the House bill.