Want Public Plan Health Care? Obama Played yo Ass.

xmcp123

xmcp123

New member
Sep 20, 2007
4,149
95
0
Not Louisiana
www.slightlyshadyseo.com
Let's lay this out. I've cited it with more liberal sources when I normally would, since I suspect that's where the people who would have a problem with this come from. You can back it up just as easily from center or right wing sources. Oh yeah. And I haven't made a political thread in quite some time. So fuck off.
-----------------------------

August 6th, 2009: Obama promises the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Association that he will block any congressional effort to save anything more than $80 billion from them over 10 years (source)

In exchange, he got a $150 million advertising campaign from the same pharmaceutical manufacturers. Note that this deal was reached specifically with the Whitehouse. Not congress.

This is assumed to be going to the public plan. After all, Obama was still touring the country supporting it.

----Now onto Max Baucus----
Max Baucus' health care bill is a piece of trash. It has mandatory(and large) fines for anyone without health care. It's just corporate welfare, essentially written by the health care industry itself. It saves almost no money at all. The left hates it AND the right hates it.
Baucus(a Democrat from Montana) took massive amounts of money from both the health & pharmaceutical industries.

Now so far it's been said Obama is more or less butting out of the actual formation of a bill. But what's that new News item?
"PhRMA Backs the Baucus Plan with $150 Million Ad Buy"
Does that number looks familiar?

Looks like yall were sold out back in early august. Enjoy being exploited.
Glad to see your effort could bring the health care industry into a government mandated era of super-prosperity. Good fucking job.
</rant>
 


we actually need pharma companies, despite their iron grip. they actually produce something with R&D.

Insurance companies are simply a middleman - which have no reason for existence.
 
barman said:
we actually need pharma companies, despite their iron grip. they actually produce something with R&D.

Insurance companies are simply a middleman - which have no reason for existence.
Click to expand...
Pharmaceuticals(w/o insurance companies) are cheaper in nearly every other country. Much cheaper.

It shouldn't ever be cheaper to get drugs from a drug dealer than it is to get them from a pharmacy.
Adderall from a dealer? $2/pill for 30. So $60-90 for the bottle
Adderall from a pharmacy? $400+/30
 
xmcp123 said:
Pharmaceuticals(w/o insurance companies) are cheaper in nearly every other country. Much cheaper.

It shouldn't ever be cheaper to get drugs from a drug dealer than it is to get them from a pharmacy.
Adderall from a dealer? $2/pill for 30. So $60-90 for the bottle
Adderall from a pharmacy? $400+/30
Click to expand...


It's cheaper elsewhere because most of those countries subsidize it. As far as R&D, its good, but we the US, get stuck with the bill.
 
Don't get me wrong, I hate big pharma too. But insurance companies provide no value and take a 1/3 of every dollar they touch.

Providing a public insurance plan as a competitor - let's say government insurance run at 5% overhead is going to be a much more popular than the waste from typical insurance companies. if this option was available, the private insurance companies would quickly change their tune from profiting off death.

health care reform is basically stumbling in the in the right direction - it's a big fucking problem to solve. it won't be perfect, but as the years go by it will get better. I hope.

i now remove myself from this political debate.
 
HowardRoark said:
It's cheaper elsewhere because most of those countries subsidize it. As far as R&D, its good, but we the US, get stuck with the bill.
Click to expand...

well in other countries, if the drug fuck u up, you are fucked.

but in US, you can sue the pharmaceutical companies
, you can sue the doctor who prescribe you the drug.
 
Having a fine for people who aren't insured seems alright to me if it means that more people who don't currently have health insurance will get it. I'm totally in favor of universal health care and a public plan. We need pharmaceutical companies doing the research to find new drugs, so yeah they have to make a profit, but still be highly regulated. As far as I know most of the research is done in the US. The insurance companies though can all disappear and go bankrupt as far as I'm concerned they provide no real service to anyone.
 
I'm tired but as far as i can tell this thread wasn't meant to be a public healthcare debate. It's just a thread on how Obama has failed everyone because he tried to make everyone happy - even the insurance companies. And as what a lot of you would call a "liberal", I'd agree. He compromised too much and will now likely make things worse.

I guess I'm "liberal" because I want a system like France, England, or Canada. Systems that have been proven to work. But ya, I'm pretty pissed at Obama. It was pretty clear from early on though that he just wants to be the popular kid and thinks you can always make everyone happy.

As soon as he had the support of the AMA and insurance companies I knew this was going to be a bullshit form of healthcare.
 
The more people you put in between the consumers and their doctors/caretakers the more expensive, corrupt and ridiculous health care is going to be, its as simple as that. Its a close battle between insurance companies and the govt as to which is the bigger thief/whore but its pretty clear they do a good job of getting into bed with each other and screwing the average taxpayer.
 
WickedJoe said:
I'm tired but as far as i can tell this thread wasn't meant to be a public healthcare debate. It's just a thread on how Obama has failed everyone because he tried to make everyone happy - even the insurance companies. And as what a lot of you would call a "liberal", I'd agree. He compromised too much and will now likely make things worse.

I guess I'm "liberal" because I want a system like France, England, or Canada. Systems that have been proven to work. But ya, I'm pretty pissed at Obama. It was pretty clear from early on though that he just wants to be the popular kid and thinks you can always make everyone happy.

As soon as he had the support of the AMA and insurance companies I knew this was going to be a bullshit form of healthcare.
Click to expand...
That's one way to look at it.

My point(personally) was more that there was obviously a lot more worked out in this deal than was disclosed.

We guaranteed them a massive profit margin in exchange for an ad campaign that turns out to be in their best interests anyways. All the tough talk was 100% lip service, and he's known that for at least a month.

It's not about the people. It's about the money. What kind of reform is making a product mandatory?

Did the FTC punish us by making Acai a mandatory purchase?
 
Obama's cry of "change" is starting to look as hollow as Blair saying "things can only get better" back in 97.

Kinda makes all his crap about dealing with lobbyists look very hypocritical.
 
There will be a public health care plan. Since one would not have passed the Senate, and could only be created during reconciliation, it was necessary to support the Baucus plan until that point.

Obama's liberal base will completely erode if there isn't a public plan. There will be one in the final bill.

I'll take pharmaceutical companies over insurance companies all day long. One makes shit that saves lives, the other makes money when coverage is denied. Any drug a pharma company makes eventually loses its patent, becomes generic, and gets made extremely cheaply for everyone to buy for $4 at walmart.

I hate the idea that I'm going to be forced to buy health care. At the same time, I don't believe we can have laws which stop insurance companies from denying converage on the basis of pre existing conditions without first having everyone insured. Otherwise people would wait till they were sick to buy insurance. Its more important to me that nobody ever gets turned down for converage than that everyone has to buy it.
 
The current system and all proposed reform bills fail to consider the following 4 factors...

Supply, demand, scarcity of resources, and the price mechanism that brings together any given market's most efficient producers and consumers.

It is competition that reduces prices. Regulations, entitlements, price caps, coerced purchase (as in Baucus's bill), and similar levers retard competition.

Here is an elegant solution posed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe...

A Four-Step Healthcare Solution - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Institute

His solution is as valid now as it was when he wrote it (1993).

Regarding insurance companies, the manner in which they operate is problematic. But, considering them the root cause of the current health care debacle is entirely misguided. In many ways, they have been empowered to conduct their business by existing regulation.

Regulation retards competition. It insulates an industry's large players from having to compete with more efficient producers. It pushes prices upward. Is it any wonder that the largest players in any industry looking down the double barrels of encroaching regulation lobby for it? Is it any surprise that many of them propose it?

Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is misguided. Forcing people to purchase health insurance is misguided. Punishing companies who choose not to provide coverage for employees is misguided. Even a brief scan of Henry Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson" (link below) will confirm that.

Economics in One Lesson

The only ingredient that can lower prices while raising the level of service long-term is competition. Pure competition, unshackled by senseless - or worse, damaging - regulation. Any reform bill that ignores this ingredient will cause mayhem down the road.

Sadly, most of us will still be around to see it.
 
barman said:
Don't get me wrong, I hate big pharma too. But insurance companies provide no value and take a 1/3 of every dollar they touch.

Providing a public insurance plan as a competitor - let's say government insurance run at 5% overhead is going to be a much more popular than the waste from typical insurance companies. if this option was available, the private insurance companies would quickly change their tune from profiting off death.

health care reform is basically stumbling in the in the right direction - it's a big fucking problem to solve. it won't be perfect, but as the years go by it will get better. I hope.

i now remove myself from this political debate.
Click to expand...


So first you make REAL blog posts... now this?
Everything is upside down ;(
 
You must be new, welcome to politics.

When it's all said and done, you're getting fucked, be it bush, clinton, obama, regan, carter, etc.

Either live off the grid and be happy, or live on the grid and complain.



/thread
 
Trademark said:
Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is misguided.
Click to expand...

wrong. allowing insurance companies to deny coverage on the basis that a person was previously sick is misguided. allowing people to go bankrupt when they cant buy insurance and then denying them treatments because they can't afford them without insurance is misguided.

its our country, we decide what our priorities are, regardless of what you think is economically optimal.

In your world, hospitals could turn away patients who because of whatever condition they have, are less profitable than others, and since there are a scarcity of hospital beds, the boob job makes more money than the gunshot wound.
 
conv3rsion said:
wrong. allowing insurance companies to deny coverage on the basis that a person was previously sick is misguided. allowing people to go bankrupt when they cant buy insurance and then denying them treatments because they can't afford them without insurance is misguided.

its our country, we decide what our priorities are, regardless of what you think is economically optimal.

In your world, hospitals could turn away patients who because of whatever condition they have, are less profitable than others, and since there are a scarcity of hospital beds, the boob job makes more money than the gunshot wound.
Click to expand...

Your guilt trip doesn't work on me.

If you feel that the role of the U.S Governemt is to solve people's personal problems then fine - many of us don't.

If you think the U.S Governemt spends your money better than you and private businesses do then fine - many of us don't.

Of course, there should be care for everyone including higher risk patients (the vast majority are high risk due to choice) but that's the incredible thing about a free market.... it always meets demand - if you allow it to.
 
conv3rsion said:
wrong. allowing insurance companies to deny coverage on the basis that a person was previously sick is misguided. allowing people to go bankrupt when they cant buy insurance and then denying them treatments because they can't afford them without insurance is misguided.

its our country, we decide what our priorities are, regardless of what you think is economically optimal.

In your world, hospitals could turn away patients who because of whatever condition they have, are less profitable than others, and since there are a scarcity of hospital beds, the boob job makes more money than the gunshot wound.
Click to expand...

Let me frame my perspective. It may save us both time.

Combined with consensual contracts and property rights, I consider economics to supercede all other pursuits, including moral imperatives. I place every issue under that limited lens. To that end...

Do you believe regulation hampers competition? If no, there is no further reason to discuss this.

Do you believe hampering competition raises prices? If no, the discussion should likewise end.

Do you believe that doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and the central state have a moral imperative to care for every person that suffers a medical issue? If yes, there is no reason to go further.

Please understand, I mean no slight to you, conv3rsion. My intention is simply to frame my perspective. If you and I disagree regarding the importance of economics (and by that, I refer to supply, demand, scarcity of resources, and the price mechanism), and its place above any moral imperative, we can end the discussion. At least, we'll understand our respective positions.

Regarding priorities, even a child has "priorities" that are unsustainable given his or her limited resources. In the end, deciding how to allocate those resources is a matter of economics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom