It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Under GOP control, Senate finally passes bill to repeal Affordable Care Act

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

Do you realize that Europe has its only regulatory department for drugs as well? Do you realize that drugs are developed in Europe as well?


I never said drugs aren't developed in other countries. There are all kinds of articles available explaining how the US subsidizes everyone's else socialized healthcare.

Why US Pays More

US Foots Bill

edit on 7-12-2015 by Edumakated because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Yea I get it. That's my biggest problem with the pharmaceutical industry. That we have to pay for the markup for drugs while everyone else gets them for cheap. The ONLY reason that is still the case is because of the pharmaceutical lobby. Any reasons about them not being able to afford to make new drugs anymore is a load of crap. Even now, the pharmaceutical industry is moving away from pill development. Turns out they are running out of new chemical formulas to test and possibly patent. The wave of the future is in biotechnology.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Honestly, I'm not sure what the solution is. I think private investment plays an important role in motivating companies to find new medications but the more I look at it, the more it feels like we need to more heavily subsidize development costs. If we're going to pay for drugs in development or on the pill I would rather directly fund development so that we're not also paying a percentage on the insurance companies profit margin.

Anything else seems to me like it's a legislative issue. Perhaps as part of our trade deals we could ask nations to buy our medication rather than make their own generic. Access to US markets is a powerful negotiating tool but also the antitheses of free trade.
edit on 7-12-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I'm not opposed to subsidizing development costs, but the problem starts becoming a bureaucratic one when you start shifting production costs to subsidies or government payments. More and more money starts to go towards bloat. So it really is a touchy situation.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Norway and Sweden and the UK are on the brink of Soviet style Communism and three-block long lines for toilet paper? Wow. I had no idea. Someone should tell them.


I am from Norway. I guess I must have lived in fantasyland, since I have never seen that ever here.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Norway and Sweden and the UK are on the brink of Soviet style Communism and three-block long lines for toilet paper? Wow. I had no idea. Someone should tell them.
. Ummm ok. thefederalist.com...


Perhaps you should get factual information from a person that actually lives there.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: pompel9

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Norway and Sweden and the UK are on the brink of Soviet style Communism and three-block long lines for toilet paper? Wow. I had no idea. Someone should tell them.


I am from Norway. I guess I must have lived in fantasyland, since I have never seen that ever here.



(I know! I should have put a "sarcasm" mark on my post!
I think Norway is a lovely country - wish I could visit.)




posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: pompel9

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Norway and Sweden and the UK are on the brink of Soviet style Communism and three-block long lines for toilet paper? Wow. I had no idea. Someone should tell them.


I am from Norway. I guess I must have lived in fantasyland, since I have never seen that ever here.


The century is young. Myopia is another common affliction of those who support socialism.
edit on 8-12-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: pompel9

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Norway and Sweden and the UK are on the brink of Soviet style Communism and three-block long lines for toilet paper? Wow. I had no idea. Someone should tell them.


I am from Norway. I guess I must have lived in fantasyland, since I have never seen that ever here.


The century is young. Myopia is another common affliction of those who support socialism.

That's ok...my benefits plan picks up whatever the Universal Health Care doesn't.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: Xtrozero

Yes. It is. $200x12=$2400, just for the premiums. $695 is a far cry from $2400.


Don't you find it a little wrong that a young healthy person doesn't want to pay 2400 per year with about 6000 cost before the plan kicks in and is then charged with a 700 fee?

I do...


It's wrong that I want to be able to...fix my car if it breaks down, buy shoes for my kids when they wear out, or any of the other necessities of life beyond rent, food, and utilities? Instead I should pay for insurance I can't even use because the deductible is so high? How does this even make sense, that I should pay the bulk of my income that's not already eaten up by necessities for insurance? I don't get this mindset.

Edit to add: Or did I totally misunderstand that post? I read it again and now I'm not sure if you're condemning me or agreeing that the whole scenario is insane.
edit on 10-12-2015 by riiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: riiver

It's wrong that I want to be able to...fix my car if it breaks down, buy shoes for my kids when they wear out, or any of the other necessities of life beyond rent, food, and utilities? Instead I should pay for insurance I can't even use because the deductible is so high? How does this even make sense, that I should pay the bulk of my income that's not already eaten up by necessities for insurance? I don't get this mindset.

Edit to add: Or did I totally misunderstand that post? I read it again and now I'm not sure if you're condemning me or agreeing that the whole scenario is insane.


I agree it is insane. The logic behind Obamacare is to charge the crap out of young healthy people who will not even see a doctor in ten years so they can generate free money to pay the exorbitant cost for everyone else. Of the 33 million without insurance 11 million are non-citizen immigrants (including illegals). 8 million age 19 to 34, and 14 million everyone else. It sure seems the Government could have done something for each one of these groups without plunging the whole country into medical chaos.



edit on 10-12-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero
The problem, in my opinion, is in our whole concept of what "health insurance" should be for. In my my humble opinion, what we have had for a long time isn't really health insurance, it's a prepaid health plan. Real insurance should be there to cover major expenses, emergencies, etc, not routine doctor's visits and monthly prescriptions.

Everyone likes to use the "car insurance" analogy, so imagine this: as it is, we insure our cars against catastrophe. What if we expected car insurance to cover all routine maintenance, engine repairs, new tires, gas and oil, etc.? Imagine how much it would cost then! This is what we've done with health insurance. Instead of being insurance against catastrophe, it's a maintenance plan. How on earth did we get here?



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: Xtrozero
The problem, in my opinion, is in our whole concept of what "health insurance" should be for. In my my humble opinion, what we have had for a long time isn't really health insurance, it's a prepaid health plan. Real insurance should be there to cover major expenses, emergencies, etc, not routine doctor's visits and monthly prescriptions.

Everyone likes to use the "car insurance" analogy, so imagine this: as it is, we insure our cars against catastrophe. What if we expected car insurance to cover all routine maintenance, engine repairs, new tires, gas and oil, etc.? Imagine how much it would cost then! This is what we've done with health insurance. Instead of being insurance against catastrophe, it's a maintenance plan. How on earth did we get here?



In my opinion, it's different in that it's a live human body we're working on instead of a car. Routine maintenance on a body prevents catastrophic illness. An infection in my finger that might be minor at first, could land me in the hospital in a coma. A sinus infection could deplete my immune system enough for me to catch the flu. Yeah I can still work with a broken finger, I don't really need to fix it, but shouldn't I be able to? I had debilitating back pain last year, couldn't even sit without pain. I got some pain pills from the urgent care and then had a couple of sessions with a chiropractor and good as new. It wasn't a catastrophe, but under your post above It shouldn't be covered under health insurance.

Nor do we really need a doctor for childbirth, birth control etc, but ...I like living in a country where those things are covered.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing
I didn't mean that those things shouldn't be addressed, anymore than you should not fix things on your car when they break. I didn't make my point very well. I meant that those should be things we just pay for out of our pockets. Got a sinus infection? Go to the doctor. Pay for it, go fill your prescription. Minor stuff like this shouldn't be an insurance issue. Insurance, if it were kept for catastrophes like it was originally, would serve its purpose and be much, much more affordable. That was the point I meant to make.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: amazing
I didn't mean that those things shouldn't be addressed, anymore than you should not fix things on your car when they break. I didn't make my point very well. I meant that those should be things we just pay for out of our pockets. Got a sinus infection? Go to the doctor. Pay for it, go fill your prescription. Minor stuff like this shouldn't be an insurance issue. Insurance, if it were kept for catastrophes like it was originally, would serve its purpose and be much, much more affordable. That was the point I meant to make.



Fair enough, however, here's my point. So if you have insurance and get your sinus infection checked out, the copay or what you would pay is $15-$30. If you don't have insurance, the doctors visit to just be checked out can run $300 or more. That's not affordable. If you have a broken finger that Xray could cost you an additional $100 dollars...

Without insurance paying for this most of us would just have to ride out sinus infections, treat broken fingers ourselves, keep that rash hidden and hope for the best, keep that spider bite under wraps and hope it's not deadly etc.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Fair enough, however, here's my point. So if you have insurance and get your sinus infection checked out, the copay or what you would pay is $15-$30. If you don't have insurance, the doctors visit to just be checked out can run $300 or more. That's not affordable. If you have a broken finger that Xray could cost you an additional $100 dollars...

Without insurance paying for this most of us would just have to ride out sinus infections, treat broken fingers ourselves, keep that rash hidden and hope for the best, keep that spider bite under wraps and hope it's not deadly etc.


Most of that however is due to insurance. Doctor's offices charge very high rates so that they have negotiating leverage with the insurance company when they compromise on the real rate. But if you don't have insurance, you don't get to compromise.

Market forces could easily fix that. Make a centralized database of medical records, remove insurance for small things, and then let doctors advertise their prices. Whoever has the lowest price gets the patient.
edit on 11-12-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

If we didn't have insurance paying for it the prices would drop, because we would refuse to pay the insane prices out there. Do you know that many doctors etc and even hospitals will offer a "cash discount" to those who are paying out-of-pocket?

An extreme example of this is the story of "the man who was treated for $17,000 less," which is an eye-opener.

This happens on a less-shocking level all the time though. For instance, my sister had surgery for a hammertoe a couple of years ago. She doesn't have insurance, and she was charged $1500. She had a friend who had the exact same surgery at the same location with the same doctor. The friend had insurance. She was charged $4500.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan
Exactly. A huge chunk of the insane cost of things isn't that they really, truly cost that much. Insurance isn't the solution, it's part of the problem.


Edit to add: and NOT allowing catastrophic policies is also part of the problem. I would love to have a catastrophic policy, in case I have a car wreck and chop my leg off or something, or fall down the stairs and break both bones in my arm, or some other unforseeable thing. However, instead I have nothing. If something like that happens I'll be paying forever because I'm not ALLOWED to get the coverage that's actually what I need rather than what Big Brother thinks I should have.

And to hell with everyone that says, "oh, but some day you WILL get cancer/heart disease/some other catastrophic thing." That's bull#. That's the mindset that got us in this mess. It's NOT inevitable that you'll get desperately sick some day unless you don't take care of yourself. And taking care of yourself has a lot less to do with going to the doctor than with eating well, getting off your butt, etc etc.

edit on 11-12-2015 by riiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: amazing

If we didn't have insurance paying for it the prices would drop, because we would refuse to pay the insane prices out there. Do you know that many doctors etc and even hospitals will offer a "cash discount" to those who are paying out-of-pocket?

An extreme example of this is the story of "the man who was treated for $17,000 less," which is an eye-opener.

This happens on a less-shocking level all the time though. For instance, my sister had surgery for a hammertoe a couple of years ago. She doesn't have insurance, and she was charged $1500. She had a friend who had the exact same surgery at the same location with the same doctor. The friend had insurance. She was charged $4500.


On the surface this sounds good and I know that if we changed the prices would drop, but in my case I'd have been out over $20,000 last year and I wouldn't have been able to have my tendinitis and back checked out this year. I would have been unable to work and wouldn't have been able to afford it without the insurance. It's the only thing saving me from financial ruin.




top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join