Health care reform:

[soxfan22]

Well this is interesting. A little honesty from The New Yorker's John Cassidy. Cassidy is by no means a "right wing extremist", nor "teabagger", and I would bet my house that every dime of political contribution money he has given in the past has gone to Dems. His take on the House bill:

"The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

Link to his original article: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/j ... entry-more

Link to WSJ blurb: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... inion_main

[sailorgirl]

And when all those scary illegals go back where they came from just try to find someone to care for our kids and elderly, cut the grass, clean the pools and pick the produce. I'm just saying... Be careful for what u wish!

Who said anything about sending them back? I just don't want to pay for their health care.

I often wonder...My siste-in-law lives in West Palm Beach. When we are down there, we often take the drive to the other side of the intracoastal over to Palm Beach...As you drive through and gawk at the multi-million dollar homes (many belonging to Hollywood stars), you see mexicans doing the lawns, trimmimg the shrubs, etc...I wonder, do the rich Hollywood elite, many of whom have more money than God, pay for the health care of the illegal (sorry "undocumented") cutting the grass?

I think probably not.

Well you are paying for it now, because when they end up in an ER who do you think foots that bill!

And I am sure that the Hollywood types provide no benefits nor do they ask many questions about who is cleaning the pool or cutting the lawn... but hiposcrasy is not the sole domain of the Right!
(Tounge firmly planted in cheeck)

[sailorgirl]

OK, so now we have heard what's wrong with the bill... what would the suggestions be on how to deal with the rising costs of health care and the increasing numbers of those who are not "voluntarily" uninsured. As one who paid 100% out of pocket for premiums for years, I would be very interested in real world solutions. Lets hear some creative solutions and not just the "the trial lawyers are bad and we need tort reform" refrain.

[DELETED]

DELETED

[toes in the sand]

SJ
I suppose we can split hairs here-- but Pharma money essentially goes into developing drugs that piggy back on the basic research that has already been done in universities--IMO pharma does very little basic research- This is not to say that drug discovery is bad--it is just to say that the market driven system as it is DOES not support basic research into, say, rare conditions(or even common conditions that don't pay) or into things that may seem like a long shot (but might pay off) -- pharma is in it for profit-- that is the model--nothing wrong with it, but there needs to be an alternative.
the NIH puts about 31 billion annually into grants to scientists--this funds the basic medical research in university medical schools (and this along with the other social medicine programs--ie: medicaid and medicare-- provides much of the resources for medical education)
without that the US wouldn't be the innovator it is -- and with only pharma leading the charge we'd be missing the point entirely

How do I say this politely...

You are out of your tree.

Except for the "pharma is in it for profit" I will agree with sox's assesment. loria, you clearly are not familiar with the pharmaceutical business.

[toes in the sand]

OK, so now we have heard what's wrong with the bill... what would the suggestions be on how to deal with the rising costs of health care and the increasing numbers of those who are not "voluntarily" uninsured. As one who paid 100% out of pocket for premiums for years, I would be very interested in real world solutions. Lets hear some creative solutions and not just the "the trial lawyers are bad and we need tort reform" refrain.

Here is my idea for "big pharma" and how it can cut the cost to patients while continuing to fund research, keep up with the ever increasing cost of regulation and still make a profit for those of us who invest in it.

Significantly increase the patent life for pharmaceuticals and cut a deal with medicaid/medicare for negotiated prices on pharmaceuticals. It keeps the generic manufacturers out of the pockets of the folks who have invested millions to develop the drugs that otherwise would not have been thought of. It encourages investors to put their money with the people who worked so hard to bring a drug to market instead of the generic manufacturers.

[sailorgirl]

OK, so now we have heard what's wrong with the bill... what would the suggestions be on how to deal with the rising costs of health care and the increasing numbers of those who are not "voluntarily" uninsured. As one who paid 100% out of pocket for premiums for years, I would be very interested in real world solutions. Lets hear some creative solutions and not just the "the trial lawyers are bad and we need tort reform" refrain.

1. Allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines. This worked for auto insurance and will create competition which lowers cost.

2. Medical savings accounts pre-tax.

3. Tax credits for the poor who can't afford.

4. Cutting the waste from Medicare - you do not need a law to do this. They could make penalties stiffer for those who get caught.

5. TORT reform - worked to lower costs in Texas and California.

These are things which would be a start and cost the taxpayer almost nothing compared to the 2000 page House Bill. They should make droping someone if they get sick illegal and preexisting conditiions not a factor in getting insurance.

Some good suggestions there, but Im not sure how far these would go to dealing with the isue of the uninsured.

[XOXO]

SJfromNJ and Toes in the Sand: good suggestions.

I was just going to use the initials of Toes In The Sand--and thought better of it. (: Toes: I never ever buy generic prescription meds. I take claratin and refuse to buy the generic. Does it cost a lot less? Sure.

Well you are paying for it now, because when they end up in an ER who do you think foots that bill!

And I am sure that the Hollywood types provide no benefits nor do they ask many questions about who is cleaning the pool or cutting the lawn... but hiposcrasy is not the sole domain of the Right!
(Tounge firmly planted in cheeck)

Do you feel the answer is expensive legislation that we can't afford? Really, is this the best we can do?


It starts with the two signs at the border: "Keep out" and "Help Wanted."

A better question is who do you think SHOULD foot the bill. The costs that illegal immigrants incur should be billed directly to the companies and individuals exploiting illegal immigrants and giving them a job.

Really, all this conversation and trying to figure out the best way to pay for health care is a mute point. Obama isn’t trying to give everyone health care he is trying to redistribute the income. Remember? Social justice.

[DaveS007]

OK, so now we have heard what's wrong with the bill... what would the suggestions be on how to deal with the rising costs of health care and the increasing numbers of those who are not "voluntarily" uninsured. As one who paid 100% out of pocket for premiums for years, I would be very interested in real world solutions. Lets hear some creative solutions and not just the "the trial lawyers are bad and we need tort reform" refrain.

1. Allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines. This worked for auto insurance and will create competition which lowers cost.

2. Medical savings accounts pre-tax.

3. Tax credits for the poor who can't afford.

4. Cutting the waste from Medicare - you do not need a law to do this. They could make penalties stiffer for those who get caught.

5. TORT reform - worked to lower costs in Texas and California.

These are things which would be a start and cost the taxpayer almost nothing compared to the 2000 page House Bill. They should make droping someone if they get sick illegal and preexisting conditiions not a factor in getting insurance.

Some good suggestions there, but Im not sure how far these would go to dealing with the isue of the uninsured.

OK, good point. Of the 46 million, 16 are illegals, 20 don't want insurance, and ten want it and can't get it. Do we really need to change the entire system into a government run system for 10 million out of 300 million? I'm sure we can figure out a way to pay for the remaining 10 million to have insurance along with SJNJ's points on fixing the current problems. There we did it !!

[jmq]

The article linked below entitled “Making Health Care Better” from the Sunday NYT magazine is about the successful application of metrics and other proven management techniques to the field of health care. It has some appealing concepts and methods that have and can improve outcomes and save money that could be used to defray the cost of extending health insurance to more people. Predictably, the key element of expanding the use of treatment protocols has also been demonized by the shouters.

It’s a long read, but quite interesting, especially if you know anything about quality and efficiency systems like Six Sigma, Lean, and Deming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magaz ... mlCPV450AA

[XOXO]

Quote 007 Of the 46 million, 16 are illegals, 20 don't want insurance, and ten want it and can't get it. Do we really need to change the entire system into a government run system for 10 million out of 300 million? I'm sure we can figure out a way to pay for the remaining 10 million to have insurance along with SJNJ's points on fixing the current problems. There we did it !!

Right on.

And the 16 illegal’s: give the companies/individuals hiring them high fines and be consistent about checking up on companies/individuals so the perceived chances of getting caught are high. Deter them from hiring illegal’s. It is crap anyway--greedy and illegal.

The 20 that don't want it: are we even paying for their ER trips? We should not be. Bill them. It is their choice to buy the BMW. Their risk their bill.

Pay for the 10 that want it and can't afford it.

Problem solved. Thankyouverymuch.

[sailorgirl]

[quote="XOXO

It starts with the two signs at the border: "Keep out" and "Help Wanted."

[/quote]

And the next sign that goes up in the supermarket will be Grapes $8.00 a pound! and after that the for sale sign on the farm which can't find buyers for $8.00 per pound grapes and the machine maufacturers who no longer have farms to sell the tractors to... etc... etc... We need to be realtistic and honest about the benefits we all reap from a lax immigration policy.

Also Im reminded of another sign which is on a certain statue which I can see from my window as I write this and it says.. "give me your poor, your tired, yourhuddled masses yearning to breathe free."

So folks, unless you are pure blooded native american, we all came from somewhere else. Immigrants come here because of the economic opportunites,its a powerful motiovation that frankly no wall is going to stop. It is what it is!

[XOXO]

And the next sign that goes up in the supermarket will be Grapes $8.00 a pound! and after that the for sale sign on the farm which can't find buyers for $8.00 per pound grapes and the machine manufacturers who no longer have farms to sell the tractors to... etc... etc... We need to be realistic and honest about the benefits we all reap from a lax immigration policy.

So, as you see it we will have $8 grapes and we would have to sell our farms if it weren't for illegal immigrants? Really? Give us more credit than that. And think about this: wouldn't the lower wages we pay for illegal immigrants labor be offset by what we pay in administration costs and health care costs?

Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level. Medicaid,treatment for the uninsured, food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches the federal prison and court systems and federal aid to schools.

Even if you assumptions are right, I would rather pay $8 for grapes than $15,000 for government run health care.

[linne]

[quote="soxfan22"]
My larger point was that when I think about the large pharmaceutical/biotech/medical device firms, I tend to think of the United States with companies like Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson (nurses worldwide universally admire J&J because of the resources the company has put into nurse education over the years), Abbott, BMS, Lilly, Amgen, Genentech...

And then if you look at the top Medical Device companies in the world:

1. Johnson & Johnson - USA
2. GE Healthcare - USA
3. Medtronic - USA
4. Baxter - USA
5. Cardinal Health - USA
6. Tyco Healthcare - Bermuda
7. Siemens - Germany
8. Philips - Netherlands
9. Boston Scientific - USA
10. Stryker - USA

The future of medicine is in biotech, not pharma...So lets take a look at the top 15 or so biotech companies:

1. Amgen - USA
2. Genentech - USA
3. Genzyme - USA
4. UCB - Belgium
5. Gilead - USA
6. Serono - Switzerland
7. Biogen Idec - USA
8. CSL - Australia
9. Cephalon - USA
10. MedImmune - USA
11. Celgene - USA
12. Abraxis Bioscience - USA
13. Actelion - Switzerland
14. Imclone - USA
15. Amylin - USA

Even a great multinational company such as GlaxoSmithKline has its roots in America, dating back to the late 1800's - though now it is based in the UK.

And there are certainly other great European companies like Roche, Bayer, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, etc.




Soxfan!

Do you mean that if a firm isn’t among the worlds biggest, it has done nothing important?

I know that we have many small Biotech firms in Denmark, which do a lot of research and sometimes find new ways to do things. But many times their improvements are sold to a big firm with a lot of money, often a big firm from the great country USA. In our little country it’s not so easy to get the millions it costs to produce too example a new pill.

We have many research workers in Denmark from other countries, and guess; some of them like to stay in, what you will call our socialistic/ Marxist country (where the socialist have been in opposition for 8 years). Why? Oh, they tell that they like our Welfare State with the good health care system.

BTW I’m still curious about the question to XOXO concerning medicine prices in USA.
Can you answer that?

Linne

[soxfan22]

The article linked below entitled “Making Health Care Better” from the Sunday NYT magazine is about the successful application of metrics and other proven management techniques to the field of health care. It has some appealing concepts and methods that have and can improve outcomes and save money that could be used to defray the cost of extending health insurance to more people. Predictably, the key element of expanding the use of treatment protocols has also been demonized by the shouters.

It’s a long read, but quite interesting, especially if you know anything about quality and efficiency systems like Six Sigma, Lean, and Deming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magaz ... mlCPV450AA

We use six sigma to help physicians' practices to become more efficient.

I have not read your article, but I have a feeling that they're talking about Comparative Effectiveness Research. Proponents of it say that it will help identify most effective treatments by looking at a number of different metrics.

Opponents of CER say that governments will use and are currently using it as a means to ration treatments. I tend to be an opponent.

I'll have to read this again, but I could swear there is a provision in this bill that says that the federal government will be electronically sending treatment guidelines/updates to physicians that are based on comparative effectiveness research...Again, this will ultimately lead to less autonomy for physicians, and honestly, that is not good for anybody.