States fight back to Obama’s health care scam

[GodbetheGlory]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100806/ap_on_re_us/us_health_overhaul_lawsuit

I love it when I see people fight back against big Gov., that shows we still have some Democracy left.

It’s even better their fighting against this mandatory health care scam.
Why is it a scam?

To drive you have to be car insurance right? If you don’t take care of your car, never change the oil, add coolant, etc. and your engine breaks does your insurance cover the repair? No.
If you drive to fast and slam your breaks on all the time to where you need new brakes every year does insurance cover that? No.
Insurance it meant to cover you in an emergency, like an accident.

Medical insurance should not be covering people who fail to take care of their body by eating junk and being lazy and every time they want to run to the doctor for the latest drug to make them feel better. If they want the drugs they can buy it themselves.
This is the reason why medical and medical insurance costs are so high.
If you car insurance cover everyone who needed a new engine or brakes we’d be paying 5x more a month is car insurance. Now you see why medical insurance is so high.

If the Gov. wants us to pay for a health care plan that covers only emergency's and injuries (what insurance should be for) then I'mall for it. But I'm againt paying for all these drugs and treatments because people choose to not take care of their health. They can pay for thier own drugs just as I pay for my own gym membership each month.

Obama’s plan does not get to the root of the problem. All he’s doing is trying to force us to buy it, further adding to the problem.

I hope those State’s when the fight against this scam.

"The federal government does not have the authority to regulate an individual's decision to do nothing. If they did, then they could force us to purchase any product they want”.
-Karen Harned, executive director of the Small Business Legal Center of the National Federation of Independent Business.


YouTube - ‪Congressman Ron Paul on Healthcare‬‎

 

[lemmings]

Medical insurance should not be covering people who fail to take care of their body by eating junk and being lazy and every time they want to run to the doctor for the latest drug to make them feel better. If they want the drugs they can buy it themselves.

Drugs are very expensive, the pharmaceutical companies have a decade long protections against any competition in the US and importation has never been approved. It is unrealistic to expect most people to afford all of the prescriptions that they have and many people today are left with the choice of feeding themselves or their treatments.

This is the reason why medical and medical insurance costs are so high.

Not really, the US has an abnormally large portion of the population who practice unhealthy habits but this doesn't explain why we often pay twice as much for health care than other developed countries when you consider that most of them do not have the rationed care that you support.

If the Gov. wants us to pay for a health care plan that covers only emergency's and injuries (what insurance should be for) then I'mall for it. But I'm againt paying for all these drugs and treatments because people choose to not take care of their health. They can pay for thier own drugs just as I pay for my own gym membership each month.

You realize that those drugs and treatments that you are against paying for are so that you actually get better after an emergency or injury which you support paying for?

Obama’s plan does not get to the root of the problem. All he’s doing is trying to force us to buy it, further adding to the problem.

I agree that the plan does not do enough. The public option was never on the table when they where discussing this so there is no substantial way to control our skyrocketing prices.

 

[blueapplepaste]

Which is why I wish private insurance companies would come down much much harder on unhealthy people. If your chronically obese, or smoke, or excessively drink, then you should be more for health insurance than someone who eats healthy, exercises, drinks alcohol in moderation, etc.

Our country is disgustingly unhealthy.

 

[jayem]

If the Gov. wants us to pay for a health care plan that covers only emergency's and injuries (what insurance should be for) then I'mall for it. But I'm againt paying for all these drugs and treatments because people choose to not take care of their health. They can pay for thier own drugs just as I pay for my own gym membership each month.

How about coverage for all the illness that aren't preventable? As far as I know, there's no convincing evidence that any lifestyle change will reliably prevent prostate cancer. Type I diabetes is almost certainly genetic, and usually occurs in people who aren't overweight. What unhealthy activities would cause acute lymphoblastic leukemia in a 4 year old? Denying coverage for lifestyle related conditions is impractical and unfair. The science is still speculative for most diseases, and there are far too many other variables that can affect causation in any specific case.

I do agree with you though about how benefits should be structured. Insurance need not be dollar-one coverage for every conceivable medical need. More sensible is a basic, bare-bones, high-deductible policy. Individuals should cover their inital health needs themselves, and reserve insurance for big-ticket, catastrophic needs. This will keep premiums as low as possible. This is the kind of plan that should be mandated.

I know the mandate is unpopular, but it's necessary. Two reasons: 1) To keep premiums as low as possible for everyone, the risk pool must be expanded. Sharing the risk among the entire population is the most effective, and ultimately the cheapest way to do it. 2) It reduces cost-shifting. The sticker price of medical care is marked up to cover the costs of people who are uninsured. If you have to pay your medical bills yourself, you're likely paying more than you should. And the negotiated rates insurors pay are also inflated, to a degree, for the same reason. People who don't have insurance wind up costing all of us more. But this will be mitigated if everybody has health coverage. And the best way to approach universal health coverage is to requrie that everbody buy insurance. As I said, it need only be a basic, catastrophic policy. But it's perfectly fair that everyone buy a policy and share the risk

 

[salida]

Show Me Obamacare
http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704026204575266472609370944.html#
　
My state did Prop C-71% voted yes

 

[GodbetheGlory]

As I said, it need only be a basic, catastrophic policy. But it's perfectly fair that everyone buy a policy and share the risk

I agree.
In which case the coverage would be very inexpensive compared to what is now.

If someone wants to buy a coverage plan that covers drugs and their weekly trips to the doctor because they fail to take care of themselves they can do that. But that should not be mandatory.

 

[GodbetheGlory]

Drugs are very expensive, the pharmaceutical companies have a decade long protections against any competition in the US and importation has never been approved. It is unrealistic to expect most people to afford all of the prescriptions that they have and many people today are left with the choice of feeding themselves or their treatments.

Drugs arent that expensive. The cost of drugs are expensive because of the huge markup. Drug companies know insurance will cover most the cost of drugs so they make the price way up to create great profits for themselves. Drug companies know people can afford to pay $20 for a drug (that cost them $2 to make) so they mark the price up to $100 so insurance covers the other $80. This drives the cost of insurance way up for everyone. Drugs have the highest markup of any industry I can think of.
What the video I posted it goes into this more.

You realize that those drugs and treatments that you are against paying for are so that you actually get better after an emergency or injury which you support paying for?

I've had two surgeries and a dislocated shoulder. I took pain killers for few days and they weren't that expensive. One time I even just used Ibuprofen.

I agree that the plan does not do enough. The public option was never on the table when they where discussing this so there is no substantial way to control our skyrocketing prices.

Its easy to control the skyrocking prices. Stop covering some many things. Emergency's, childhood illnesses, ok. But unnecessary tests, treatments, and drugs, No. People can pay for that out of their own pocket just as I pay for healthy foods and my gym membership myself.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

I've got a plan for poor and unhealthy people the conservatives here will love.

I can't say it's original with me, however...

 

[EdwinWillers]

Drugs arent that expensive. The cost of drugs are expensive because of the huge markup. Drug companies know insurance will cover most the cost of drugs so they make the price way up to create great profits for themselves. Drug companies know people can afford to pay $20 for a drug (that cost them $2 to make) so they mark the price up to $100 so insurance covers the other $80. This drives the cost of insurance way up for everyone. Drugs have the highest markup of any industry I can think of.

It's not that simple though. Yes, the actual cost of producing a drug, the equipment, processes, ingredients, etc. are quite inexpensive in most cases. But those are just production costs. The R & D costs necessary to develop a new drug however can far outdistance the costs to produce something, once it's defined. Then there are the insurance costs to cover law suits for the few drugs that turn out not to do what they were supposed to do. We see ads on TV practically every day now from lawyers who are suing drug companies for products like Avandia (a diabetes drug) or a host of others for which people are being awarded millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Those costs, risks, are built in to the cost of doing business as a drug company.

Then there's competition - most drug companies have but 17 years (I think that's the period for drug patents, might be less) to recoup all the R & D costs that go into a drug that actually makes it to market (remembering too that many drugs never even make it to market - there are those costs too) before competitors can come in, get their formula, and produce it as their own brand, never having to pay any of the R & D costs the originator of the product did.

Its easy to control the skyrocking prices. Stop covering some many things. Emergency's, childhood illnesses, ok. But unnecessary tests, treatments, and drugs, No. People can pay for that out of their own pocket just as I pay for healthy foods and my gym membership myself.

Well, cutting coverage is how Obamacare is going to manage its skyrocketing costs. Cutting coverage is indeed an option, and valid for frivolous things for sure. Another way to cut costs is tort reform, performing responsible triage - ending frivolous lawsuits, ending exorbitant punitive damages, etc. Back to the TV ads - time was when it was a disgrace for a lawyer to advertise - now we have ambulance-chasers producing ads all the time (almost every commercial break contains at least one lawyer's ad), because there's big money in suing doctors, insurance companies, drug companies.

But I agree - we should need to be getting ourselves much healthier than we are now. Society shouldn't have to pay for individual's poor habits.

Re testing though - man, I'm all for preventative medicine and testing. We can identify, isolate, and treat pending issues at far less expense in advance than once the illness or malady blossom into full maturity. Diabetes, cancers, heart disease, just to name a few are all things that preventative medicine and testing can spot and treat, and often prevent, before the illness actually develop. Once it does, the costs skyrocket compared to those costs that could've prevented it.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I've got a plan for poor and unhealthy people the conservatives here will love.

I can't say it's original with me, however...

Wasn't Soylent a corporation?

 

[blueapplepaste]

Drugs arent that expensive. The cost of drugs are expensive because of the huge markup. Drug companies know insurance will cover most the cost of drugs so they make the price way up to create great profits for themselves. Drug companies know people can afford to pay $20 for a drug (that cost them $2 to make) so they mark the price up to $100 so insurance covers the other $80. This drives the cost of insurance way up for everyone. Drugs have the highest markup of any industry I can think of.

As EdwinWillers points out, it's not so simple. Sure an actual drug may only cost $2 in actual supplies to make, but billions of dollars went into research into that drug. Plus many drugs have billions invested in them, but they never make it to market for one reason or another. Are some drugs probably over priced even taking into account R&D, I'm sure some are. But at the same time, as a scientist, I can fully appreciate just how expensive research is to do. Let alone research where the end product is ultimately destined for human consumption.

Its easy to control the skyrocking prices. Stop covering some many things. Emergency's, childhood illnesses, ok. But unnecessary tests, treatments, and drugs, No. People can pay for that out of their own pocket just as I pay for healthy foods and my gym membership myself.

Not that I disagree with you, but just playing devil's advocate, what constitutes "unnecessary". What if a doctor thinks you may be at risk for a treatable illness and wants you to take a test for that illness. But what if there's only a 5% chance you would have that illness, do we play the odds and say pay for it yourself? Or should insurance cover it? Or what if you can't afford the test, and later, after its too late, find out you have that illness. Then what? I think defining unnecessary is going to be the tough part. But I agree, that we're too quick to want every test and every drug for minute things.

I also think we, as a country, need to have a serious discussion about end of life care. Currently 1/4 of Medicare costs are for the last year of people's lives. Now, not for a single second am I suggesting that we just start letting people die or kill them off or anything of the such. But I think we need to ask ourselves is spending so much money to extend someone's life, even if the quality of life is long gone, is worth it? What if a person is going to die in 6-9 months but an operation could extend that to 9-12 months, but that operation costs $100k?

 

[GodbetheGlory]

It's not that simple though. Yes, the actual cost of producing a drug, the equipment, processes, ingredients, etc. are quite inexpensive in most cases. But those are just production costs. The R & D costs necessary to develop a new drug however can far outdistance the costs to produce something, once it's defined. Then there are the insurance costs to cover law suits for the few drugs that turn out not to do what they were supposed to do. We see ads on TV practically every day now from lawyers who are suing drug companies for products like Avandia (a diabetes drug) or a host of others for which people are being awarded millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Those costs, risks, are built in to the cost of doing business as a drug company.

I have an idea: Make a safer product.
If your product is killing 100,000’s of people and you’re getting lawsuits left and right then maybe its time to make it safer.
I shouldn’t have to pay for their lawsuits.

Plus drug companies are one of it not the most profitable businesses. So while millions of Americans are struggling to pay bills I wont be giving drug companies and sympathy.

Well, cutting coverage is how Obamacare is going to manage its skyrocketing costs. Cutting coverage is indeed an option, and valid for frivolous things for sure. Another way to cut costs is tort reform, performing responsible triage - ending frivolous lawsuits, ending exorbitant punitive damages, etc. Back to the TV ads - time was when it was a disgrace for a lawyer to advertise - now we have ambulance-chasers producing ads all the time (almost every commercial break contains at least one lawyer's ad), because there's big money in suing doctors, insurance companies, drug companies.

Cutting coverage can be good if cut out the right things and you also cut costs. If someone needs knee surgery they should get it. If someone wants the latest drug they saw advertised they should pay for it themselves.
But I'm pretty sure Obamas plan will not cut costs.

But I agree - we should need to be getting ourselves much healthier than we are now. Society shouldn't have to pay for individual's poor habits.

Thats the problem, we are paying for individual's poor health that could have been prevented.

Re testing though - man, I'm all for preventative medicine and testing. We can identify, isolate, and treat pending issues at far less expense in advance than once the illness or malady blossom into full maturity. Diabetes, cancers, heart disease, just to name a few are all things that preventative medicine and testing can spot and treat, and often prevent, before the illness actually develop. Once it does, the costs skyrocket compared to those costs that could've prevented it.[/quote]

Good nutrition + exercise = prevention.
Health is a person responsibility. If some chooses to eat junk and be lazy they most likely will get cancer, diabetes, and/or heart disease. Studies show exercise reduces cancer by almost 40%. Type 2 diabetes can be cured with exercise and good nutrition.
Problem with tests is some many are unnecassary. Too many doctors are having there customers do these tests simply because health insurance covers it and it makes the doctor more money.

 

[meh]

Good nutrition + exercise = prevention.
Health is a person responsibility. If some chooses to eat junk and be lazy they most likely will get cancer, diabetes, and/or heart disease. Studies show exercise reduces cancer by almost 40%. Type 2 diabetes can be cured with exercise and good nutrition.
Problem with tests is some many are unnecassary. Too many doctors are having there customers do these tests simply because health insurance covers it and it makes the doctor more money.

Who gets to decide who is being "healthy" enough in their choices? You? How do you monitor people? Hook us all to machines that will monitor what we eat and when we exercise? What about people who are extremely healthy in their choices and drop dead of heart attacks anyway because that just happens sometimes? Were they just not doing enough?

I say let 'em all suffer and die if they can't pay their own way. That's what Jesus would do.

 

[lordbt]

I have an idea: Make a safer product.
If your product is killing 100,000’s of people and you’re getting lawsuits left and right then maybe its time to make it safer.
I shouldn’t have to pay for their lawsuits.

Plus drug companies are one of it not the most profitable businesses. So while millions of Americans are struggling to pay bills I wont be giving drug companies and sympathy.

They arent looking for your sympathy, but you will, however, be looking for their product should you become ill. But if you think the drug companies arent doing a good enough job or are charging too much for their product, start your own drug company and drive them out of business.

 

[Nurbz]

"We're sending a message: If you get cancer and can't work to afford your insurance payments, then God doesn't love you enough in the first place to deserve healthcare and you should die quickly!"

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

They arent looking for your sympathy, but you will, however, be looking for their product should you become ill. But if you think the drug companies arent doing a good enough job or are charging too much for their product, start your own drug company and drive them out of business.

Yeah, because I worship Satan and therefore have tens of millions of dollars to start my own drug company.

Here's a thought: if you don't like the notion of having to pay taxes and have reasonable regulations on industries, and to contribute to the infrastructure and education systems that make this nation possible, why don't you go start your own country?

Nope, no excuses...you tell anyone who expresses dissatisfaction with any aspect of the corporatist system, "hey, if you don't like it, start your own company," so fair is fair. If you don't have a few million acres of land, and your own army and at least a few thousand potential citizens, quit your bellyaching and suck it up.

 

[GodbetheGlory]

They arent looking for your sympathy, but you will, however, be looking for their product should you become ill. But if you think the drug companies arent doing a good enough job or are charging too much for their product, start your own drug company and drive them out of business.

No i wont be. I dont do drugs.
Not to say that every drug they make is unnecessary, most are, but I live my life in such a way that I won’t need any.
There are many people that have and do live a long and healthy life Drug Free. You’ve just been brainwashed into believing you need drugs, this is just not true.

 

[lordbt]

Here's a thought: if you don't like the notion of having to pay taxes and have reasonable regulations on industries, and to contribute to the infrastructure and education systems that make this nation possible, why don't you go start your own country?

Nope, no excuses...you tell anyone who expresses dissatisfaction with any aspect of the corporatist system, "hey, if you don't like it, start your own company," so fair is fair. If you don't have a few million acres of land, and your own army and at least a few thousand potential citizens, quit your bellyaching and suck it up.

Eleven score and 14 years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. I make the same argument today and I am asked to leave that very same nation and start my own. Kind of says it all, doesnt it.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Eleven score and 14 years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. I make the same argument today and I am asked to leave that very same nation and start my own. Kind of says it all, doesnt it.

Hey, no excuses. I've hoisted you by your own petard. By your own moral calculus, which you've expounded on time and time again, if you're not big and powerful and rich enough to start your own country, you don't count. You're a pleb.

How many times have you said, "Well, if you don't like how that insurance company/bank/drug company/department store treats you, start your own." Knowing full well no one except the trust-fund babies and Forbes list types is going to have enough money to do that.

So quit complaining about America. Go start your own country if it's that bad.

 

[Terry123]

People talk here about how much R&D the drug companies spend, and how difficult it is for them to actually bring a product to market. Bull!

It looks like they put together some elements, see what it does, and then they invent a disease for it to cure. Remember Restless Leg Syndrome!