Healthcare Reform

• Bigdogg

  I just got my renewal from Anthem for my company today. 18% increase to keep everything the same or 10.54% to up the deductible to 3,000 ind and 6,000 family. We have been averaging 5-6% increase every year for the past ten years. We can not provide health insurance and stay in business at this rate. Something HAS to be done!
• I Wear Pants

  Also, take in mind when I wasn't looking at the options like Cleveland Buck said. I was only talking about my opinion on a national health care policy.
  
  If we don't do a national policy then things like opening up state lines and increasing competition on definitely needed.
• Footwedge

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  What benefits do we get from a smaller FDA? There are already plenty of faulty drugs that get approval, I'd think a smaller FDA would only add to that problem.

  First of all, I should have added a 4th point. Break up the biggest drug and insurance companies (not a government takeover, but legally through our anti-trust laws) into smaller companies that will have to compete with each other.
  
  Now for the FDA. There is no reason it should cost tens of millions of dollars to get a drug approved especially when much of the time it is a dangerous or worthless drug anyway. I can't even understand why it costs that much. There isn't that much involved in testing a drug. Either the FDA is extremely wasteful (and I'm sure it is) or they jack up the cost so only the biggest drug companies get their drugs on the market. If it is the first problem, then you can afford to cut the fat there. If it is the second problem, then hopefully breaking up the big drug companies will solve that one.

  I agree with much of what you say here. The process for drug approval is in fact a tedius one and believe it or not, better than 95% of drugs tested never make it to market.
  
  There are 3 phases that have to pass before the FDA stamps approval.
  
  With that said, I don't know where the pharmaceitical companies can lay their claim that each approved drug costs 800 million to bring to market.
  
  Your point on busting up the corporations...I couldn't agree more. Case in point....Buffet's company just spent approximately 40 billion dollars in buying a business that is complementary to his own.
  
  These are the type of things that contribute to the corporate collusion conundrum.
• Footwedge

  I Wear Pants wrote: Before anything I feel we need tort reform in the medical sector. Something needs to be done about frivolous malpractice suits which drive up the cost of malpractice insurance and by proxy, our medical bills.
  
  The "network" system needs simplified or gotten rid of. It's confusing and stupid that sometimes you can't go to a doctor across the street because they don't have a deal with your provider.
  
  45,000 people die in the US each year from lack of health care. Compare that to the 16,204 murders per year and you can see why it's such a huge problem.
  
  Out of the proposed solutions I've seen I think the public option is the worst, it doesn't fix any of the problems we currently have. I think there's promise to a Single Payer system. Our Veterans Administration health care system is an example of a single payer system and from what I gather it works wonderfully.
  
  That's what I can think of right now. Good job pushing the topic in the right direction LJ.
  
  Edit directed at Cleveland Buck: You just got a bump up in my list now that I know your opinions, while I still disagree with some, are at least consistent.
  
  What benefits do we get from a smaller FDA? There are already plenty of faulty drugs that get approval, I'd think a smaller FDA would only add to that problem. That's just conjecture on my part though. Didn't know we had a big problem with the FDA. There's a phrase about learning things I could use here.

  IWP....The FDA does do any excellent job in ensuring that the food we eat is very safe. We. as Americans, sometimes take things for granted.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  IWP....The FDA does do any excellent job in ensuring that the food we eat is very safe. We. as Americans, sometimes take things for granted.

  That's why I didn't propose eliminating the FDA completely.
• eersandbeers

  I Wear Pants wrote: So am I to understand that you believe we should provide no form of assistance to our citizens. I also assume you're against Medicare and Social Security because they are *gasp* socialism.
  
  Wanting to assist people in need doesn't mean I condone people who take advantage of a helping hand. The, relatively few, people who scam welfare and similar services are scum.
  
  I still think that we, the most prosperous society in history, could provide our citizens with some standard of living. Besides "tough luck".

  Yes, that is exactly what I mean. It is not a legitimate function of the federal government to take my tax money and hand it out to others. If you want to argue it is a function of the state then you would be correct.
  
  You are probably confused on my stance though. This doesn't mean I don't want to help anyone. Quite the opposite actually. I believe Americans can help one another through private charity and giving. I don't need to have the government steal a percentage of my paycheck to hand it out to others. I am more than capable of helping my fellow neighbor our if they are having a tough time.
  
  

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  IWP....The FDA does do any excellent job in ensuring that the food we eat is very safe. We. as Americans, sometimes take things for granted.

  That's why I didn't propose eliminating the FDA completely.

  
  Makes me happy to see somebody else type this. I have been speaking out against this corrupt organization for awhile now.
  
  They protect big pharma interests by not allowing competing products into the market.
• I Wear Pants

  Why would assistance programs at the state level be any better than at the federal level? Both are government.
  
  Is it just that the states originally had more power or do you feel it would be more effective/whatever?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: Why would assistance programs at the state level be any better than at the federal level? Both are government.
  
  Is it just that the states originally had more power or do you feel it would be more effective/whatever?

  First, it is up to the states to take care of those issues, not the the federal government. Second, many states are not even allowed to run a budget deficit, and the ones that do generally (unless you're California or New York) keep it under control. If one state bankrupts itself, it doesn't destroy the whole country. If the federal government goes bankrupt we are all in real trouble.
• I Wear Pants

  I don't think your first argument is very good because it essentially boils down to "that's the way it's setup."
  
  Your second point is a good reason to keep it at a state level though. Again, most of my questions aren't asked with a "let's see you answer this one" attitude but a "I don't know this" one.
• RoyalNut

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: Before anything I feel we need tort reform in the medical sector. Something needs to be done about frivolous malpractice suits which drive up the cost of malpractice insurance and by proxy, our medical bills.
  
  The "network" system needs simplified or gotten rid of. It's confusing and stupid that sometimes you can't go to a doctor across the street because they don't have a deal with your provider.
  
  45,000 people die in the US each year from lack of health care. Compare that to the 16,204 murders per year and you can see why it's such a huge problem.
  
  Out of the proposed solutions I've seen I think the public option is the worst, it doesn't fix any of the problems we currently have. I think there's promise to a Single Payer system. Our Veterans Administration health care system is an example of a single payer system and from what I gather it works wonderfully.
  
  That's what I can think of right now. Good job pushing the topic in the right direction LJ.
  
  Edit directed at Cleveland Buck: You just got a bump up in my list now that I know your opinions, while I still disagree with some, are at least consistent.
  
  What benefits do we get from a smaller FDA? There are already plenty of faulty drugs that get approval, I'd think a smaller FDA would only add to that problem. That's just conjecture on my part though. Didn't know we had a big problem with the FDA. There's a phrase about learning things I could use here.

  I am curious why you compared lack of health care to murder?

  eersandbeers wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: So am I to understand that you believe we should provide no form of assistance to our citizens. I also assume you're against Medicare and Social Security because they are *gasp* socialism.
  
  Wanting to assist people in need doesn't mean I condone people who take advantage of a helping hand. The, relatively few, people who scam welfare and similar services are scum.
  
  I still think that we, the most prosperous society in history, could provide our citizens with some standard of living. Besides "tough luck".

  Yes, that is exactly what I mean. It is not a legitimate function of the federal government to take my tax money and hand it out to others. If you want to argue it is a function of the state then you would be correct.
  
  You are probably confused on my stance though. This doesn't mean I don't want to help anyone. Quite the opposite actually. I believe Americans can help one another through private charity and giving. I don't need to have the government steal a percentage of my paycheck to hand it out to others. I am more than capable of helping my fellow neighbor our if they are having a tough time.
  
  

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  IWP....The FDA does do any excellent job in ensuring that the food we eat is very safe. We. as Americans, sometimes take things for granted.

  That's why I didn't propose eliminating the FDA completely.

  
  Makes me happy to see somebody else type this. I have been speaking out against this corrupt organization for awhile now.
  
  They protect big pharma interests by not allowing competing products into the market.

  I STAND AND APPLAUD YOU! You hit the nail on the head!
• eersandbeers

  I Wear Pants wrote: Why would assistance programs at the state level be any better than at the federal level? Both are government.
  
  Is it just that the states originally had more power or do you feel it would be more effective/whatever?

  
  It wouldn't be better, but it would be Constitutional. I would have no legal complaint if it was happening at the state level.