Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 460
  1. #76
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Very good point.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3LB
    The cost of prescription drugs is astounding. Isn't there laws in place to prevent an industry from price gauging. Funny thing is, as soon as a drug becomes 'over-the-counter' its price goes down. I remember that about Motrin.
    I understand recouping the cost of development, but I'm curious as to why they cost less in other countries.

    This would be a good place to start. Let's see what happens here.

    FWIW, many chains like Walmart, Walgreens and many major food chains with pharmacies do offer many "$4.00" perscriptions for commonly perscribed generics. This doesn't require goverment approval to implement and is available now to anyone for the asking. It just takes a little looking or internet research.

    These save me a decent amount of money and are worth looking into. ...but some that aren't covered still cost a lot.
    Last edited by markw; 09-24-2009 at 07:12 AM.

  2. #77
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    I understand recouping the cost of development, but I'm curious as to why they cost less in other countries.

    This would be a good place to start. Let's see what happens here.

    FWIW, many chains like Walmart, Walgreens and many major food chains with pharmacies do offer many "$4.00" perscriptions for generics. This doesn't require goverment approval to implement and is available now to anyone for the asking. These save me a decent amount of money and are worth looking into. ...but some that aren't covered still cost a lot.
    A terrible thing happens to the rational consumer when a medical device or drug is seen as a necessity. The laws of supply and demand fly out the window and people pay up to everything they have...particularly if the best product is monopolized by a single company. Good industry to be in.

    I feel that anyone who's sick should hedge by buying stock in pharmaceuticals...

  3. #78
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    That's a great concept when it's a stranger being affected by the decisoins involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    A terrible thing happens to the rational consumer when a medical device or drug is seen as a necessity. The laws of supply and demand fly out the window and people pay up to everything they have...particularly if the best product is monopolized by a single company. Good industry to be in.

    I feel that anyone who's sick should hedge by buying stock in pharmaceuticals...
    A lot of drugs are seen as maintenance, such as blood thinners, beta blockers, blood pressure ,and other drugs. For some, these are the key to living a life where before them people would have died years ago. One of the good thing is that many are avaialble as generics on the $4.00 plans

    Would you rather they die rather than depend on them? I think you general opinon might change if it's you or yours in that operating room.

  4. #79
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    A lot of drugs are seen as maintenance, such as blood thinners, beta blockers, blood pressure ,and other drugs. For some, these are the key to living a life where before them people would have died years ago. One of the good thing is that many are avaialble as generics on the $4.00 plans

    Would you rather they die rather than depend on them? I think you general opinon might change if it's you or yours in that operating room.
    Huh? I pointed out the irrational behavior of consumers as an argument in favor of some sort of government involvement in drug pricing, and to partially answer why drugs cost more in the US than anywhere else in the world. Sometimes the free market doesn't play by the rules and consequences are far too great when it comes to health care.

    Universal health care may or may not be a good idea, but it's a shame both parties can't realize there's lots of wiggle room left when it comes to drug costs and at least start working there.

  5. #80
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Sorry, I must have misunderstood.

    I thought drug prices were brought up in the previous posts and this was another issue.

    And, yes, some sort of reform is needed in health care, but I'm not ready to just blindly turn it all over to the same people that put us in the banking/housing crisis without a damn good reason. And, yes the greed is on both sides, not just one.

  6. #81
    nightflier
    Guest

    So all right, then, let's talk about drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    A lot of drugs are seen as maintenance, such as blood thinners, beta blockers, blood pressure ,and other drugs. For some, these are the key to living a life where before them people would have died years ago. One of the good thing is that many are avaialble as generics on the $4.00 plans
    This is fine for the cheap stuff, but not all maintenance drugs are that cheap. One of my neighbors who is also into audio (well probably not for much longer), recently lost his job and his health insurance. He was on cancer medications that totaled some $14K a month! The insurance paid for most of it when he had a job, but now what? These aren't exactly $4 pills and... it's a matter of life & death.

    Now along comes the new healthcare bill that over time should slash drug prices (through competition, no less - competition: that mainstay of capitalism) to 1/10th of that cost. So instead of $14K, he'll pay $1400, still a chunk of cash, but much more manageable, and if your life depends on it, you'll find a way to pay for it.

    Then our local Republican blow-hard Cox says this bill isn't fair to the drug companies. WTF? We're talking about life and death here and Cox is saying that his campaign contributors Pfizer, Eli, Merck, & the rest of the gang's stock price could drop a little from competition in the market place? That's rich.

    So my neighbor's been on this letter writing, email, and calling campaign over this, but nary a single response from anyone (Democrat or Republican). He's a big believer in single-payer, but heaven forbid if that should happen. That would mean an Australia / Canada styled "socialist" system here - and we all know how horrible that is because that's what Fox news & Limbaugh are telling us.

    So what next? Revolution? A massive dying off of people? Pray and hope that Cox gets cancer? Yeah we can laugh about that last one, but personal involvement has actually been the one thing that has had a positive effect and changed a few of the more recalcitrant minds out there (Nancy Reagan and stem cell research, Ariana Huffington and gay rights, there's a long list...). But these about-faces are rare, so what does one do from a grass-roots perspective?

  7. #82
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    "After the Democratic victory in November 2006, [the industry] had to scramble," says Ira Loss, a pharmaceutical analyst with Washington Analysis Corporation. "They had to hire more Democratic lobbyists." Ken Johnson, senior vice president of communications at PhRMA, acknowledged that the industry faced "a difficult political environment." But he maintained that PhRMA doesn't see having a Democratic Congress as a disadvantage. "We don't look at it through the prism of Democrats and Republicans. We look at it in terms of those who support free market policies and those who don't."

    A review of campaign contributions reveals that the industry has dramatically increased donations to the Democrats since their victory in November 2006. In the current election cycle so far, for the first time on record, the pharmaceutical and health products industry has given slightly more money to Democrats than Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

    If you offer it, they will take it

    So much for dropping that one in the republicans lap. No, you don't want a pissing contest. do you? At least be man enough to admit it.

    You make it sound like I'm against improved health care. I'm not. I just want to know what we're getting into. I just don't believe that only those making above 250k will wind up paying for it and that those of us with workable plans through the workplace won't be adversely affected to the point where we will have to give up what we have and lose our now adequate coverage, and still wind up paying more. You should study politics more.

    Now, can you please provide more "facts" on this wondrous health plan you're referring to, or you just operating on blind faith, partisan politics, and anger?
    Last edited by markw; 09-24-2009 at 10:50 AM.

  8. #83
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    If I was going to deal with this issue, I would start with Insurance companies administrative costs, and target CEO compensation and benefits packages. Let's take Aetna's Ron Williams. $1,091,764 in base salary, $13,537,365 coming from option awards, $6,456,630 in stock awards which totals to $24,300,112. On top of that 401k matching and access to a private jet kicks in an additional $101,487. This is outrageous for a single year salary.

    H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA
    Total Compensation: $30.16 million

    Angela Braly - WellPoint
    Total Compensation: $9,844,212

    Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care
    Total Compensation: $9,047,469

    Michael Neidorff - Centene
    Total Compensation: $8,774,483

    James Carlson - AMERIGROUP
    Total Compensation: $5,292,546

    Michael McCallister - Humana
    Total Compensation: $4,764,309

    Ladies and Gentlemen, these are the small potato health insurance providers. We have not even gotten into Blue Shield which is the largest carrier in the country.

    When you look at the five year salary total compensation, it is over 14 billion dollar for 18 regional providers going back to 2003. If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by reducing these guys salaries to more realistic level. But we have not even covered the big boys, or even the waste that occcurs as a claim goes through the system. These salaries represent a pittance when compared to a company like Blue Shield.

    We now understand that the administrative costs for Medicaid are 21 percent. However for the private for profit insurance companies it is 33 percent which is mostly attributed to CEO salaries and benefits. So while we have approximately 46 million AMERICANS (not including illegal immigrants, but counting the recently unemployed who have lost their insurance) who do not have insurance, these guys are making $400,000 per week, have the company pay for country club fees, private jet rides, sponsoring expensive company junkets, and having expenses on their housing paid for.

    This is a big problem for me, and why I support a public option. The insurance companies must be forced into becoming more efficient and streamlined in their operational costs, and the best place to start is right at the top of the organization.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  9. #84
    nightflier
    Guest

    Give me a break!

    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    "After the Democratic victory in November 2006, [the industry] had to scramble," says Ira Loss, a pharmaceutical analyst with Washington Analysis Corporation. "They had to hire more Democratic lobbyists." Ken Johnson, senior vice president of communications at PhRMA, acknowledged that the industry faced "a difficult political environment." But he maintained that PhRMA doesn't see having a Democratic Congress as a disadvantage. "We don't look at it through the prism of Democrats and Republicans. We look at it in terms of those who support free market policies and those who don't."

    A review of campaign contributions reveals that the industry has dramatically increased donations to the Democrats since their victory in November 2006. In the current election cycle so far, for the first time on record, the pharmaceutical and health products industry has given slightly more money to Democrats than Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

    If you offer it, they will take it
    Totally moronic response. I mentioned Democrats and Republicans alike and didn't seek to single out either party. The only reason I picked on Cox (a Republican) is because he's done a piss-poor job on this issue, here - ask anyone in OC. And if you want to get into a political discussion (I really don't want to here, but we've opened the can of worms already), then why are Republicans calling this healthcare bill socialist? Isn't it about creating more competition in the market place? I thought competition was a Republican virtue?

    Other than the Single-payer option, which has less than a snowball's chance in hell of being considered, the healthcare bill that's being floated around is one that includes both a private and public option: people get to choose. Why the heck are Republicans and their proponents (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilley, and the rest of the gang) calling this socialist? What the heck is socialist about this? It's competition, for chrissakes.

    If you want to make this a political discussion, then let's dispense with the niceties. The Republicans have in the last 20+ years gone from fighting for competition in the marketplace to fighting for corporatism without competition, that is, unless they've been too busy encroaching in the bedrooms of ordinary citizens. The Democrats on the other hand (and I am equally critical of them), have been trying to get along with everyone (to no avail) or they've still standing around like deers in the headlights wondering what the hell happened in the Carter years.

    Look, you can cite from conservative sources all you want, but that won''t change the fact that the Republican party is split 50/50 between the bible-thumping one-issue xenophobic voters who are hindering economic growth and progress, and those who still believe in competition, positive change, new technologies and to participate in a world economy. Unfortunately for the party, the latter group mostly voted for Obama in the last election. Fortunately for them, Obama's been a model Republican for the most part. As far as I'm concerned, the Republican party that I knew is no more.

    As for the healthcare bill, the ones who have done more to hinder any meaningful progress than any other group are the right-wing Republicans. Yes, the far lefties have done their share, but they will go along with the middle-of-the-road Democratic majority when it's time. They are so insignificant in Congress that they have no choice but to go along. But the far-righties have the whole Republican party by the balls and they are holding up everything they can get their greasy paws into, including this bill.

    Congressman Cox is in that category too - I know because I read about him regularly. But if he was a Democrat doing the same shenanigans, I'd be just as vocal about it.

  10. #85
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Well, here we are again.

    You can thank nightflier for taking what was turning out to be a real discussion into a partisan pissing contest.

    Thanks for not disappointing me.

  11. #86
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    "After the Democratic victory in November 2006, [the industry] had to scramble," says Ira Loss, a pharmaceutical analyst with Washington Analysis Corporation. "They had to hire more Democratic lobbyists." Ken Johnson, senior vice president of communications at PhRMA, acknowledged that the industry faced "a difficult political environment." But he maintained that PhRMA doesn't see having a Democratic Congress as a disadvantage. "We don't look at it through the prism of Democrats and Republicans. We look at it in terms of those who support free market policies and those who don't."

    A review of campaign contributions reveals that the industry has dramatically increased donations to the Democrats since their victory in November 2006. In the current election cycle so far, for the first time on record, the pharmaceutical and health products industry has given slightly more money to Democrats than Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

    If you offer it, they will take it

    So much for dropping that one in the republicans lap. No, you don't want a pissing contest. do you? At least be man enough to admit it.

    You make it sound like I'm against improved health care. I'm not. I just want to know what we're getting into. I just don't believe that only those making above 250k will wind up paying for it and that those of us with workable plans through the workplace won't be adversely affected to the point where we will have to give up what we have and lose our now adequate coverage, and still wind up paying more. You should study politics more.

    Now, can you please provide more "facts" on this wondrous health plan you're referring to, or you just operating on blind faith, partisan politics, and anger?
    Mark,
    Are you referring to contribution to the DNC or to individual Democrats. From what I understand, much of the contributions have gone to Blue Dog democrats, and far less to the progressives and libs as individual contributions are concerned. A Blue Dog Democrat is nothing more than a Republican in a blue suit. As far as individual contributions have gone, the last thing I have seen is the Republicans are getting the lion share in 2008, with that amount increasing as Republicans have stood against the public option. This is recent, and not in 2006. What you see here is the individuals that have received the most contributions, are the ones that are the most against a public option. That would be Blue Dog Demo's and the Republican party. The tide has definitely shifted as you see more Democrats supporting a strong public option. I heard this from my representative two weeks ago.

    This does not have to degrade into a pissing contest if you don't want it to. But it is crystal clear that the Republicans do not want to see anything change from what it is, and the Democrats do. To be balanced, neither one is really being truthful or forthcoming when it comes to the facts, and both are beholden to campaign money the health insurance gives them. It is evident to me and many others that money is more important than you and I are.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  12. #87
    nightflier
    Guest

    No disagreement from me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    This is a big problem for me, and why I support a public option. The insurance companies must be forced into becoming more efficient and streamlined in their operational costs, and the best place to start is right at the top of the organization.
    But how do we change this? The people in congress and those who influence them are all products of the proverbial revolving door. You're basically asking them to put a lock on it and cut all those lofty perks. Not going to happen - human nature is too greedy.

    Even if Obama is the Mr.Smith-Goes-To-Washington type, he simply doesn't have the political power to change this system, even from the top down. He is surrounded by people who make up this system and he's been put up there by them on the promise that he wouldn't mess with the status quo. I still think (and hope) that he wants to do some good things, but the more he tries, the more he's finding out it's not going to come to pass. How many campaign promisses has he already had to abandon or "modify"?

    We had another president like that once, his name was Carter.

  13. #88
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    If I was going to deal with this issue, I would start with Insurance companies administrative costs, and target CEO compensation and benefits packages. Let's take Aetna's Ron Williams. $1,091,764 in base salary, $13,537,365 coming from option awards, $6,456,630 in stock awards which totals to $24,300,112. On top of that 401k matching and access to a private jet kicks in an additional $101,487. This is outrageous for a single year salary.

    H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA
    Total Compensation: $30.16 million

    Angela Braly - WellPoint
    Total Compensation: $9,844,212

    Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care
    Total Compensation: $9,047,469

    Michael Neidorff - Centene
    Total Compensation: $8,774,483

    James Carlson - AMERIGROUP
    Total Compensation: $5,292,546

    Michael McCallister - Humana
    Total Compensation: $4,764,309

    Ladies and Gentlemen, these are the small potato health insurance providers. We have not even gotten into Blue Shield which is the largest carrier in the country.

    When you look at the five year salary total compensation, it is over 14 billion dollar for 18 regional providers going back to 2003. If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by reducing these guys salaries to more realistic level. But we have not even covered the big boys, or even the waste that occcurs as a claim goes through the system. These salaries represent a pittance when compared to a company like Blue Shield.

    We now understand that the administrative costs for Medicaid are 21 percent. However for the private for profit insurance companies it is 33 percent which is mostly attributed to CEO salaries and benefits. So while we have approximately 46 million AMERICANS (not including illegal immigrants, but counting the recently unemployed who have lost their insurance) who do not have insurance, these guys are making $400,000 per week, have the company pay for country club fees, private jet rides, sponsoring expensive company junkets, and having expenses on their housing paid for.

    This is a big problem for me, and why I support a public option. The insurance companies must be forced into becoming more efficient and streamlined in their operational costs, and the best place to start is right at the top of the organization.
    You bring up very good points. These people make obscene salaries, but so do people in the banking institutions, car companies and a lot of high tech industries.

    The problem is that aside from the banking, heanth, and insurance industries, we all need these and they should be looked upon as a "regulated" industry, somewhat like public utilities are locally. I've seen the results of their stepping into the auto industry, and the only ones who came out ahead are the UAW (The secured bondholders got screwed!), and I'm still waiting to see the results of the banking/finance bailouts on the common guy but, so far, I ain't too impressed. So far, the rich are still getting richer and everyone else is on the outside looking in.

    I'm not comfortable turning over yet another vital industry to their control.

    But, how do we do this? It'll take a really good plan and I don't think anyone has come up with a ideas yet, at least that I've seen or heard. I'm not exactly sure what a "public option" (that's a very neblous term) entails but if it means dismantling a working, but extremely top-heavy system, I don't know if I can get behind that. I look at it like I would the difference between this doctor and a mechanic.

    A mechanic was removing the cylinder heads from the motor of a car when he spotted the famous heart surgeon in his shop, who was standing off to the side, waiting for the service manager to come to take a look at his car.

    The mechanic shouted across the garage, “Hello Doctor! Please come over here for a minute.” The famous surgeon, a bit surprised, walked over to the mechanic. The mechanic straightened up, wiped his hands on a rag and asked argumentatively, “So doctor, look at this. I also open hearts, take valves out, grind ‘em, put in new parts, and when I finish, this will work as a new one. So how come you get the big money, when you and me is doing basically the same work? ” The doctor leaned over and whispered to the mechanic ….. What did he say ???

    He said : “Try to do it when the engine is running”.

    This is gonna take a bit more planning than I think has been done, or at least presented to us.

  14. #89
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    You can thank nightflier for taking what was turning out to be a real discussion into a partisan pissing contest.

    Thanks for not disappointing me.
    Mark,
    Let be truthful here, this has become a partisan issue hasn't it? As much as I loath defending NF, he is only reflecting the reality of the current climate that has surrounded this issue. Just like everything else, this has split down to partisan politics for sure.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  15. #90
    nightflier
    Guest

    Let's stick to the facts....

    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    You can thank nightflier for taking what was turning out to be a real discussion into a partisan pissing contest.
    I tried real hard to keep it non-partisan, but when the Republicans bare the lion's share of the blame for the standstill in congress, I'm not going to shy away from saying so.

    Sorry if that doesn't jive with your political tendencies, but that's how things are.

  16. #91
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    But how do we change this? The people in congress and those who influence them are all products of the proverbial revolving door. You're basically asking them to put a lock on it and cut all those lofty perks. Not going to happen - human nature is too greedy.

    Even if Obama is the Mr.Smith-Goes-To-Washington type, he simply doesn't have the political power to change this system, even from the top down. He is surrounded by people who make up this system and he's been put up there by them on the promise that he wouldn't mess with the status quo. I still think (and hope) that he wants to do some good things, but the more he tries, the more he's finding out it's not going to come to pass. How many campaign promisses has he already had to abandon or "modify"?

    We had another president like that once, his name was Carter.
    You do not have to cap their salaries through legislation, you cap it through competition with a public option. You force them to reduce their overhead, so they can effectively compete with a public option. The most logical place is the place with the most waste, and that would start right at the top of the food chain - the part that seems to consume the most money.

    I personally would not look at what Obama has had to abandon since he became President. I think every candidate has to face the realities of stepping into this office. I believe his intentions were pure and honest, but he has had to face a reality that is not pure or honest. Compromise is what makes a democratic engine turn. I just want to see how this all plays out. I am very worried for my kids though. With all that is going on, I get the feeling their quality of life will be far less than mine, and that bothers me a lot
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  17. #92
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    You bring up very good points. These people make obscene salaries, but so do people in the banking institutions, car companies and a lot of high tech industries.
    Hence why we are in the mess we are in now. Our existence is based on a series of balancing events. When things get out of balance (like these guys salaries and benefits) the system seeks to correct itself. The problem is the system has gotten so grafty in favor of these guys, it will be a very difficult correction for the masses.

    The problem is that aside from the banking, heanth, and insurance industries, we all need these and they should be looked upon as a "regulated" industry, somewhat like public utilities are locally. I've seen the results of their stepping into the auto industry, and the only ones who came out ahead are the UAW (The secured bondholders got screwed!), and I'm still waiting to see the results of the banking/finance bailouts on the common guy but, so far, I ain't too impressed. So far, the rich are still getting richer and everyone else is on the outside looking in.
    Boy do I agree with this. However I think the UAW should come out ahead. They have taken hit after hit in favor of the stockholders, and there should be some balance in the mix. The more I look at this, the more I think things will end up like the Russian revolution of 1917.

    I'm not comfortable turning over yet another vital industry to their control.
    Since we see the results of unregulated control, I am more comfortable with seeing more a balance brought on by government control. I am no longer a believer of pure capitalism, but am leaning more towards a hybrid system of government and free market.

    But, how do we do this? It'll take a really good plan and I don't think anyone has come up with a ideas yet, at least that I've seen or heard. I'm not exactly sure what a "public option" (that's a very neblous term) entails but if it means dismantling a working, but extremely top-heavy system, I don't know if I can get behind that. I look at it like I would the difference between this doctor and a mechanic.

    A mechanic was removing the cylinder heads from the motor of a car when he spotted the famous heart surgeon in his shop, who was standing off to the side, waiting for the service manager to come to take a look at his car.

    The mechanic shouted across the garage, “Hello Doctor! Please come over here for a minute.” The famous surgeon, a bit surprised, walked over to the mechanic. The mechanic straightened up, wiped his hands on a rag and asked argumentatively, “So doctor, look at this. I also open hearts, take valves out, grind ‘em, put in new parts, and when I finish, this will work as a new one. So how come you get the big money, when you and me is doing basically the same work? ” The doctor leaned over and whispered to the mechanic ….. What did he say ???

    He said : “Try to do it when the engine is running”.

    This is gonna take a bit more planning than I think has been done, or at least presented to us.
    From what I HAVE seen on the public option, I like it more than all of the other proposals on the table. The idea of just giving tax credits so we can purchase on the free market is just not viable when there is no controls on the costs of insurance. I could see us down the line wasting a lot of tax money and still have a lot of folks that cannot get affordable insurance coverage because of a market where costs are just too high because of the greedy insurance companies.

    While I agree legislators should take their time and get this right, I also think that giving more time just gives detractors more time to poison the atmosphere with misinformation and outright lies, just as we have seen as of late. Obama has it right on this point. When you have folks like Palin proporting death panels, and folks like Michael Steele saying the public option will steal healthcare away from seniors just to score brownie points, time is not on reforms side. My hero on this issue is Olympia Snowe. I feel she is VERY sincere in what she is trying to do, and she is getting clobbered for it by her own party.

    The political climate right now is so full of poison nobody can get anything done. If nothing is done, the country goes bankrupt. So it seems to me the party that torts themselves as financially responsible should be taking the lead on this issue rather than impeding it. Perhaps public financing of political campaigns may not be a bad idea after all. Get the lobby and corporate money out of the way, and the private citizen becomes much more important, which is the way it should be
    Last edited by Sir Terrence the Terrible; 09-25-2009 at 07:47 AM.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  18. #93
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Believe it or not, I basically agree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    You do not have to cap their salaries through legislation, you cap it through competition with a public option. You force them to reduce their overhead, so they can effectively compete with a public option. The most logical place is the place with the most waste, and that would start right at the top of the food chain - the part that seems to consume the most money.

    I personally would not look at what Obama has had to abandon since he became President. I think every candidate has to face the realities of stepping into this office. I believe his intentions were pure and honest, but he has had to face a reality that is not pure or honest. Compromise is what makes a democratic engine turn. I just want to see how this all plays out. I am very worried for my kids though. With all that is going on, I get the feeling their quality of life will be far less than mine, and that bothers me a lot
    Basically, I said.

    I understand compromise but so far I haven't seen any real issues brought up to either defend or contest, just neblous rhetoric.

    Speaking from a personal standpoint, my plan through work is adequate. Not great, but adequate. I don't want anyone rocking that boat.

    I would really like to see what that "public option" is before saying yea or nay on it. So far, I haven't seen too much on that, just demands that the representatives vote for it sight unseen.

    ...very scary...

    Frankly, I'd have been very disappointed if they did. I think a lot of people would have been.

  19. #94
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Basically, I said.

    I understand compromise but so far I haven't seen any real issues brought up to either defend or contest, just neblous rhetoric.
    While I haven't seen any details of the public option, the concept works for me. From what I have gleaned from the concept (nobody has really fleshed out details) the government would fund a startup plan which offered benefits like what is already offered to government employees which include house and senate members. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for the average American. That part is clear. What is not clear is how they are going to pay for it without adding to the budget deficit.

    Speaking from a personal standpoint, my plan through work is adequate. Not great, but adequate. I don't want anyone rocking that boat.
    The problem is that the boat may just get rocked whether you like it or not. The way things are going, insurance may become too costly for your employer to afford, and they may have to cut benefits so they don't go broke offering it to you. Since 2000, Disney has changed the plans they have offered to us because the current plan had become to expensive. Each time I have had to pay more to get less, and have had to pay even more to get what I had previously. At this rate they are going to bankrupt me on something I so desperately need to keep. I have lupus, and while I have been largely healthy and have had no real illnesses, no insurance company is going to sell me insurance if I had to purchase it outside my company. This has to change.

    I would really like to see what that "public option" is before saying yea or nay on it. So far, I haven't seen too much on that, just demands that the representatives vote for it sight unseen.

    ...very scary...

    Frankly, I'd have been very disappointed if they did. I think a lot of people would have been.
    Nobody has been asked to vote on it, that is misinformation. They have not even been able to get to the point of providing details on it, they have just been saying they don't want it as it would bankrupt the private insurance companies, a point that has already been refuted by the Congressional Budget Office. So everyone is basically opposing the concept and not the details themselves. This is part of the problem.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  20. #95
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    While I haven't seen any details of the public option, the concept works for me. From what I have gleaned from the concept (nobody has really fleshed out details) the government would fund a startup plan which offered benefits like what is already offered to government employees which include house and senate members. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for the average American. That part is clear. What is not clear is how they are going to pay for it without adding to the budget deficit
    Then let's see what happens when the crystal ball clears up. As far as I know, this isn't going to be quite the same plan as the ones our representatives get, or at least at a reasonable cost. I also understand they all voted to "opt out" of it anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    The problem is that the boat may just get rocked whether you like it or not. The way things are going, insurance may become too costly for your employer to afford, and they may have to cut benefits so they don't go broke offering it to you.
    Then I don't want it. They ar edoing the right thing opposing it then. I gotta do what's best for me and mine. I've got a health issue myself and would love a real,tangible, working, reasonable alternative but as it stands now, I'm on the same merry-go-round as you. We pay incrementally more for a little less each year, but It sure beats nothing.

    I still want to see the alternative...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Since 2000, Disney has changed the plans they have offered to us because the current plan had become to expensive. Each time I have had to pay more to get less, and have had to pay even more to get what I had previously. At this rate they are going to bankrupt me on something I so desperately need to keep. I have lupus, and while I have been largely healthy and have had no real illnesses, no insurance company is going to sell me insurance if I had to purchase it outside my company. This has to change.
    I feel for ya, but you don't think it's going to cost you more in the long run anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Nobody has been asked to vote on it, that is misinformation. They have not even been able to get to the point of providing details on it, they have just been saying they don't want it as it would bankrupt the private insurance companies, a point that has already been refuted by the Congressional Budget Office. So everyone is basically opposing the concept and not the details themselves. This is part of the problem.
    That's the point, Nobody knows the details. Come up with a plan, run it up the flagpole, and then we'll see who salutes it.

    I've been around too long to trust a politician who says "Trust me. I've got your best interests at heart".

  21. #96
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Then let's see what happens when the crystal ball clears up. As far as I know, this isn't going to be quite the same plan as the ones our representatives get, or at least at a reasonable cost. I also understand they all voted to "opt out" of it anyway.
    I actually read it, and it is the same type of plan.

    Then I don't want it. They ar edoing the right thing opposing it then. I gotta do what's best for me and mine. I've got a health issue myself and would love a real,tangible, working, reasonable alternative but as it stands now, I'm on the same merry-go-round as you. We pay incrementally more for a little less each year, but It sure beats nothing.
    I think you misunderstood me. What I am saying has nothing to do with the public option, but more to do if they do nothing at all. Unfortunately the end result of paying incrementally more and getting less is the less ends up being and expensive nothing at some point. Less and less does eventually lead to nothing.

    I still want to see the alternative...
    The alternative to a public plan is a co-op plan. This may work for electricity and food, and in less populated areas, but it does not work for those living in high density areas. Stupid idea out of the gate.

    I feel for ya, but you don't think it's going to cost you more in the long run anyway?
    It will if we don't get a public option on the table. Something has to slow down if not bring down that cost of private insurance, and the only way that will happen outside of plain legislation(which nobody wants) is strong competition from a public option.

    That's the point, Nobody knows the details. Come up with a plan, run it up the flagpole, and then we'll see who salutes it.
    We could get to that point if the Washington idiots would stop arguing over the concept and get to figuring out the details.

    I've been around too long to trust a politician who says "Trust me. I've got your best interests at heart".
    Yeah, we have heard that argument before in the name of the war against terror. We have spent enough money on that project to fund the startup of the public option.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  22. #97
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Sir T-Some great points in your posts1
    Mark W- My main point was that high health care costs are not driven by the legal system and that abusive testing is not in most cases as a result of "defensive medicine". I am not against doctors earning a living but you seem to imply that only the "best and the brightest" are attracted to the medical profession because of the lure of high salaries. that logic was/is used by Wall Street to justify those ridiculous bonuses and we all know how that worked out....

    Other suggestions to lower health care besides eliminate doctors from owning medical labs (and lawyers BTW whose use medical labs to generate bills in automobile accident cases)

    Review patent laws that lead to drug monopolies for a drug specific period of time.
    Cap administrative costs at both the provider and the insurance level

    Limit the pay of hospital executives and health insurance executives to no more than 10 times the average salary of their employees

    Allow people to reduce their health care premiums if they are part of a regularly monitored wellness/excercise program

    Put price controls on certain basic health care items-syringes,bandages,swabs etc

    How's that for a start??
    A bit socialistic?? Maybe but the current market based system is a mess.....

  23. #98
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Sir T-Some great points in your posts1
    Mark W- My main point was that high health care costs are not driven by the legal system and that abusive testing is not in most cases as a result of "defensive medicine". I am not against doctors earning a living but you seem to imply that only the "best and the brightest" are attracted to the medical profession because of the lure of high salaries. that logic was/is used by Wall Street to justify those ridiculous bonuses and we all know how that worked out....

    Other suggestions to lower health care besides eliminate doctors from owning medical labs (and lawyers BTW whose use medical labs to generate bills in automobile accident cases)

    Review patent laws that lead to drug monopolies for a drug specific period of time.
    Cap administrative costs at both the provider and the insurance level

    Limit the pay of hospital executives and health insurance executives to no more than 10 times the average salary of their employees

    Allow people to reduce their health care premiums if they are part of a regularly monitored wellness/excercise program

    Put price controls on certain basic health care items-syringes,bandages,swabs etc

    How's that for a start??
    A bit socialistic?? Maybe but the current market based system is a mess.....
    Oh look, details! Thanks Kid. These are some great ideas. Keep them coming. Maybe somebody in DC will pay attention.
    Ok, so they won't, but at least it would be good to see a plan that could work if they did.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  24. #99
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Sir T-Some great points in your posts1
    Mark W- My main point was that high health care costs are not driven by the legal system and that abusive testing is not in most cases as a result of "defensive medicine". I am not against doctors earning a living but you seem to imply that only the "best and the brightest" are attracted to the medical profession because of the lure of high salaries. that logic was/is used by Wall Street to justify those ridiculous bonuses and we all know how that worked out....
    Sorry, I can't quite let go the fact that tort reform should be a major part of this issue. Maybe where you're from it's not an issue,but it does seem to have a profound effect, at least here.

    "The cumulative effect of medical malpractice claims on the health care system is staggering. A 2007 study by the Pacific Research Institute estimated that 3.4 million Americans have been added to the rolls of the uninsured because of medical liability concerns. According to several estimates, 10 cents of every dollar spent on health care can be attributed to the costs of medical liability and defensive medicine. That is as much as is spent on prescription drugs — an expenditure that actually treats patients."

    Here's the link if you're interested

    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Other suggestions to lower health care besides eliminate doctors from owning medical labs (and lawyers BTW whose use medical labs to generate bills in automobile accident cases)
    I don't necessarily have problems with doctors owning medical labs, but don't you sort of reinforce my statement about needing some sort of tort reform here?

    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Review patent laws that lead to drug monopolies for a drug specific period of time.
    They do. IT costs a heckuva lot of money to develop, test, and get FDA approval for new drugs and they want to make that money back. They expire after a period of time after which generics can be made. I can't find an exact number but here's how the whole scenario plays out if you're interested.

    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Cap administrative costs at both the provider and the insurance level
    Great in theory and it would be great if it can be done. It should be tried.

    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Limit the pay of hospital executives and health insurance executives to no more than 10 times the average salary of their employees
    I think 10 x is a bit unrealistic. Nobody will go for that. These are huge corporations that require a really, really high quality level of administration just to keep the company running. I believe the Japanese used to cap it at about 100 X the lowest salary, which might be a little more realistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Allow people to reduce their health care premiums if they are part of a regularly monitored wellness/excercise program
    That works for me. Why not add not smoking to that list?

    Unless one comes in through a workplace paid plan, I do believe they have to go through a physical where their personal traits are "rated" before the final rates are specified. Getting it through work means that they have to accept everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Put price controls on certain basic health care items-syringes,bandages,swabs etc
    Unless the government controls the entire supply chain, distribution, and labor costs, this isn't really do-able. The people at Walmart don't make a heckuva lot to begin with and, face it, their pharmacy is greatly used for a lot of these.

    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    How's that for a start??
    Not bad. A little more thought might be called for some of them but you've got the spirit.

    Actually, I'd like to see a tax credit, preferably refundable, for the cost of premiums but that would cost the government too much. But, it might them inspire them to acting on lowering the costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    A bit socialistic?? Maybe but the current market based system is a mess.....
    A free market society can have some portions are socialistic, particularly when it comes to keeping the infrastructure needed for commerce. Public utilities are regulated, public schools are "supposed to" be geared towards the common good (but I think they are failing and moving more towards indoctronation) and the police and fire departments reek of socialism (which is a necessary thing here). But all are needed and can work well in this country.

    But, to let it get too socialistic, like this takeover of GM and Chrysler scares the hell outta me.
    Last edited by markw; 09-25-2009 at 09:47 AM.

  25. #100
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    MarkW-I appreciate your posts and since I am home sick today.....

    Trust me I am no fan of lawyers but in general tort reform IMO is an easy prop that is used to supposedly cure alot of ills. Tort Reform IMO would allow business to in effect pre-determine the fine(s) they would recieve for illegal or immoral acts and then they would just make a CBA decision and build the cost model into their pricing. But that is probably another topic...

    Specific to your position regarding malpractice costs/testing. If doctors order tests so as to prevent them from being sued but malpractice lawsuits/premiums remain high then isn't the purpose for the test pointless? Is the real culprit for the abusive tests the doctors faulty logic that the tests are preventing malpractice claims? I would also again caution you on your source material and understand the agenda behind it. The PRI you quote is a right leaning conservative think tank with a pro-business agenda and as such has been promoting a tort reform agenda.

    Again I do not understand your seeming reluctance to such a simple solution to reducing costs by removing the conflict of interests that exists with doctors who order the tests and the labs owned by the same doctor who owns the lab. Its like handing them a key to their own money making machine. My position here is not inconsistent because I don't think it is actual malpractice claims that drive these tests but simple greed and the misplaced fear I cite above.

    Regarding the patent reform I admit I am no expert here (or anywhere if I think about it..) but I do understand the tremendous cost to developing an effective drug to market. What I am saying is lets look at the system that appears to cause a drug company to grab all the money they can before their patent expires or results in increased costs associated with protecting their patents. If we can increase the number of "authorized generics" which would allow the original drug maker to at least recoup most of their costs through increased license fees we would free up millions of dollars for additional R&D and lower the cost of prescription drugs.

    Limiting the pay to 10 times the salary of the average salary does not seem to me too far fetched. I really do not quite understand your logic when you imply that smart people only go to where the money is and that some how limiting income limits your ability to attract talent. I would agree that capping pay in only the healthcare field might create the brain drain you fear but I think given the excesses of Wall Street it is time to limit executive pay in a whole host of industries. A level playing field in the area of compensation may benefit us in many areas and end this ego driven thirst for higher and higher pay that is disproportional to the returns these supposed business genius produce. Anyone who is not motivated to earn 10 times more than the average worker is probably not really motivated by money at all in any case.

    Price controls might be drastic but I am talking about a systemic approach at all levels. One of the reason I think costs have risen so much is that market forces are not really being applied here. Costs are just being passed on through the chain and only ends with higher premiums passed on to business and when they no longer can afford it people find themselves uninsured.

Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •