Well this man is looking better all the time first increasing mental health care to our vets and now taking care of the community. The sliding scale is a wondeful idea to help people get health coverage. I am really liking this guys more and more. I wish he had a little more experience in foriegn affairs but at home he has got some good ideas.



http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/29/obama.health.ap/index.html
Story Highlights• Sen. Obama says health care plan would cost between $50 and $65 billion
• Illinois Democrat says plan can be paid for by eliminating tax cuts for wealthy
• System would maintain private insurance but add public funds
Adjust font size:
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) -- Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Tuesday offered a plan to provide health care to millions of Americans and more affordable medical insurance, financed in part by tax increases on the wealthy.

Bemoaning a health care "cost crisis," Obama said it was unacceptable that 47 million in the country are uninsured while others are struggling to pay their medical bills. He said the time is ripe for reforming the health care system despite an inability to do so in the past, most notably when rival Hillary Rodham Clinton pursued major changes during her husband's presidency.

"We can do this," Obama said in a speech in Iowa City at the University of Iowa's medical school. "The climate is far different than it was the last time we tried this in the early nineties."

Obama's plan retains the private insurance system but injects additional money to pay for expanding coverage. Those who can't afford coverage would get a subsidy on a sliding scale depending on their income, and virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers.

Obama didn't mention that his plan would cost the federal treasury an estimated $50 billion to $65 billion a year once fully implemented. That information was provided in a memo written by three outside experts and distributed by the campaign after his speech.

The experts also said Obama could pay for his plan mostly through steps that the candidate has already said he would take -- allowing President Bush's tax cuts on dividends and capital gains and on those making more than about $250,000 a year to expire in 2010 instead of acting to make them permanent.

The rest of the $65 billion funding could come by raising taxes on inheritances worth more than $7 million. Many Democrats want to repeal Bush's elimination of taxes on estates worth more than $1 million. Obama wants the exemption to be higher but has not yet said exactly where it should be set.

Obama's proposal would spend more money boosting technology in the health industry such as electronic record-keeping. His package would prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It would also create a National Health Insurance Exchange to monitor insurance companies and limit their profits. Obama said the typical consumer would save $2,500 a year on premiums.

Obama's first promise as a presidential candidate was that he would sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of his firm term in the White House. But there is some dispute over whether his plan would provide universal care -- it's aimed at lowering costs so all Americans can afford insurance, but does not guarantee everyone would buy it.

"It's not totally clear that it would result in universal coverage," said Ron Pollack, executive director of the advocacy group Families USA. He praised Obama and other leading Democratic candidates for focusing on improving health care.

"What makes it a top national priority now is not simply a sense of sympathy for people who are uninsured but a sense of fear that the coverage that used to be taken for granted can no longer be taken for granted," he said.

Obama aides said they believe that everyone would buy health insurance if it were affordable enough, achieving universal care. If some Americans are still uninsured after a few years into the plan, Obama would reconsider how to get to 100 percent, the advisers said.

That's where he differs with Democratic rival John Edwards, the only other candidate who has laid out a specific plan. Edwards eventually would require every American to get health insurance, much like state requirements that drivers have auto insurance. Obama would only require that children be covered.

Edwards spokesman Mark Kornblau said Edwards' plan, estimated to cost between $90 billion and $120 billion annually, is "truly universal."

"He believes that incremental measures are not enough," Kornblau said. "Any plan that does not cover all Americans is simply inadequate."

In a CNN-Opinion Research poll conducted earlier this month, about two-thirds said the government should provide national health insurance for all Americans, even if it would mean higher taxes.

Clinton has promised universal health care but has yet to provide specifics.

Bouncy! Bouncy! My nipples explode with delight!

horney today Evak? You do have a left or right hand?? or is that against your religion.

I lost both my hands in the Spanish inquisition. I was mistaken for a Jew, I swear I'm not a Jew...I'm just Jew-ish.

lol

Sen. Obama says health care plan would cost between $50 and $65 billion

GASP!!! 65 billion, you say?!?!?!?!

Well, there just NO way we as a nation could ever justify spending THAT obscenely exorbitant amount of money on something of actual benefit to US citizens. Besides....where oh where --and how-- would we EVER be able to come up with 65 billion dollars??

No.....as any right-thinking Conservative will no doubt tell you; it is far better that America (as it is doing with the Iraq war, for example) should pile up over 10 times that many taxdollars in a huge hundred-dollar-bill mountain, and set it on fire.

LOL

glad to see you freethinker. I know it such a chore to take care of our citizens basic needs like health care. I mean let them get sick and die or worse go to the hospital uninsured and then have the hosptal make us pay for it.

No.....as any right-thinking Conservative will no doubt tell you; it is far better that America (as it is doing with the Iraq war, for example) should pile up over 10 times that many taxdollars in a huge hundred-dollar-bill mountain, and set it on fire.
And of course some stray bills get caught by the wind and spread the flames onto the innocent children playing around the pile of money below.

Due to the opposition to this mass travesty I can't wait to see which candidates claim support for the war (as McCain has) so I can vote against them.

This was a huge mistake for Obama. He would have been better off keeping his mouth shut than float this piece of crap pipe-dream out to the voting public.

WTF - he wants to give us universal insurance when what we need is universal health care.

Any politician, especially dems, that float anything other than universal health care are commiting political suicide.

I really thought Obama was smarter that this ... he's done. Next !!!!

This was a huge mistake for Obama. He would have been better off keeping his mouth shut than float this piece of crap pipe-dream out to the voting public.

WTF - he wants to give us universal insurance when what we need is universal health care.

Any politician, especially dems, that float anything other than universal health care are commiting political suicide.

I really thought Obama was smarter that this ... he's done. Next !!!!


Ah, he's just trying to curry favor with both parties. It's a big gamble, he could lose both.

Yeah this looks like just a big government handout to insurence companies. Fuck that.

Yeah this looks like just a big government handout to insurence companies. Fuck that.

Agreed!

yeah you know I never thought of that. No one is holding the pharmacies and doctors accountable for gouging the people. That is an interesting concept. So what we do fight to allow canada and Mexico to sell medication here? for real price competition?

That is an interesting concept. So what we do fight to allow canada and Mexico to sell medication here? for real price competition? that would invovle a new INDEPENDANT regulating body. The FDA is notoriously corrupt and has a revolving door policy with pharmacuitical companies.

hmm can we create a lobbyist group for that?

So what we do fight to allow canada and Mexico to sell medication here? for real price competition?
Here's the problem Warrior. If an American company spends a half billion dollars developing, testing and marketing a drug and that drug gets FDA approval, how do they then recoup their investment if another company is permitted to steal it and sell it cheaper?

When you allow this, that will be the end of new drugs, new cures and new preventive medicines.

When you allow this, that will be the end of new drugs, new cures and new preventive medicines.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not profit.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not profit.Then call it the necessity of profit.

One good thing I'll say about Obama is that his ideas are better than Hillary's

She says she won't allow insurance companies to "discriminate" against people with pre-existing conditions.
Figure that one out.

One good thing I'll say about Obama is that his ideas are better than Hillary's

She says she won't allow insurance companies to "discriminate" against people with pre-existing conditions.
Figure that one out.

I totally agree with Hillary on that. Denying someone healthcare for any reason is immoral.

If you get sick while you hold one job, and then you change jobs and change insurance companies, suddenly you cannot get coverage anymore for your "preexisting condition".

That is total bullshit, but it happens all the time in America.

I don't give a damn if a condition is "preexisting" or not. That is a weak excuse for denying someone necessary healthcare.

Then call it the necessity of profit.

Profit is a luxury.

Clean Air, Food and Water are necessities.

I don't give a damn if a condition is "preexisting" or not. That is a weak excuse for denying someone necessary healthcare.
A business shouldn't be required to subsidize people in need. That's the government's job.
Should supermarkets or car dealers or sports teams or airlines be required to do this also?
Obviously you don't work for an insurance company and your family's existence doesn't depend on a paycheck from one.

Profit is a luxury.
Clean Air, Food and Water are necessities.I said that half-facetiously because I thought you were joking.

Do you really believe that necessity, more than profit, sparks inventiveness and creativity in this country?
(By creativity I'm referring to the corporations that produce what we need and want and not to you or your wife picking out rugs and paint.)

A business shouldn't be required to subsidize people in need. That's the government's job. thanks for argueing for national healthcare
:)
Clean Air, Food and Water are necessities. You forgot health care and housing...

If an American company spends a half billion dollars developing, testing and marketing a drug and that drug gets FDA approval, how do they then recoup their investment if another company is permitted to steal it and sell it cheaper? Yeah people never donate towards ending diseases, oh wait, people donate towards that all the time. What we are talking about is drugs. In fact in a profit driven model it is in the companies interest that these people never get better so that they are dependant on the medicine for life. So rather then spending money on how to rid people of various illnesses its more profitable to treat the symptoms. Viva la profit. The GDP goes up.

A business shouldn't be required to subsidize people in need. That's the government's job.

I agree our businesses shouldn't carry that burden, which is why I support doing away with employer based Healthcare and going to Single-payer National Healthcare.

Regardless, the excuse that a condition was previously existing is still bullshit and denying somone necessary healthcare is immoral and wrong.



Obviously you don't work for an insurance company and your family's existence doesn't depend on a paycheck from one.

That is hardly an excuse for denying someone necessary healthcare.

I said that half-facetiously because I thought you were joking.

Do you really believe that necessity, more than profit, sparks inventiveness and creativity in this country?
(By creativity I'm referring to the corporations that produce what we need and want and not to you or your wife picking out rugs and paint.)

Corporations do not invent anything.

Corporations are fictional entities that exist only on paper for the purpose of limiting liability.

People invent things.

People invent cures for diseases because a cure is necessary for survival, not merely because there is a buck to be made in doing it.

I agree our businesses shouldn't carry that burden, which is why I support doing away with employer based Healthcare and going to Single-payer National Healthcare.


Actually, DB, there is little choice left. Either we adopt a single-payer health care system or we sit and watch GM, Ford, Chrysler and many others go down the toilet. Those companies openly admit the bulk of their problems is due to health care costs (active and retirees) and they need relief.

I guess there is one other way to keep the GM's of the world in business which is to have the american tax payers pick up the tab for their health care. But somehow I get a feeling that would not go over too big. Let's see ... hmmmm ... we get to pay for well-off union workers health care and also get to pay for all illegal alien health care ???? while at the same time, the person doing the paying doesn't even have his/her own health care.

Yuh ... that's gonna be a big hit.

But, if I know this country, the xtian-right will tell us that had god intended us to have health care, (s)he would have provided it and if you die from lack thereof ... well that's because god willed it. Then Rush, Ann, Bill and Sean will swear to it.

In fact in a profit driven model it is in the companies interest that these people never get better so that they are dependant on the medicine for life. So rather then spending money on how to rid people of various illnesses its more profitable to treat the symptoms.

That would be true if there was a monopoly. But given the level of competition, if one company comes out with a drug that only treats symptoms, the other companies will attempt to trump them by introducing a drug that actually cures the disease and therefore steal their profits.

Regardless, the excuse that a condition was previously existing is still bullshit and denying somone necessary healthcare is immoral and wrong. "Necessary healthcare" is a moral issue, I agree. But insurance companies being forced to insure people that are guaranteed to cost them money is wrong. Actuarial tables objectively determine what an insurance company charges.

When Hillary talks about forcing insurance companies to lose money, that's not "necessary healthcare".

Corporations do not invent anything.
People invent things.
People invent cures for diseases because a cure is necessary for survival, not merely because there is a buck to be made in doing it.Joking?

People do invent things. But your typical chemist can't afford to stock his basement with seven million dollars worth of equipment and spend eight years working on five drugs, one of which become viable.
The corporation is just as important as the inventor in this case.

Cure and survival is why people buy drugs, not why people develop them.

You're probably a very nice guy in real life, but will you work forty hours a week on something because it may possibly help people you will never meet and may not even like? Or would you rather be paid?

"Necessary healthcare" is a moral issue, I agree. But insurance companies being forced to insure people that are guaranteed to cost them money is wrong. Actuarial tables objectively determine what an insurance company charges.

When Hillary talks about forcing insurance companies to lose money, that's not "necessary healthcare".


So do we continue with the system there is now where the sick go to the hospital don't pay the hospital bill and then it is passed onto the people who have insurance. I mean your insurance if you have it is high because of the people who do not pay into insurance go to the hospital because they cannot turn them away and do not pay and they add the bill onto the paying customers. I mean for our family it cost 750 a month it would be half if everyone paid into the insurance. Hospital visit are double the actual cost almost because of those who cannot afford to pay.
I mean if people could get to the doctors office until waiting until thier illness is so out of control they are hospitalized it would cost us less as a whole.

Is there a better way??

I mean your insurance if you have it is high because of the people who do not pay into insurance go to the hospital because they cannot turn them away and do not pay and they add the bill onto the paying customers. There are many reasons why insurance is high. But Hillary's plan is to take private companies and force them to take on certain clients who they know will cost them money. As I already said, will the government force car dealers or grocery stores to charge certain people less also? Insurance companies are private companies.

When I was younger, the doctors lived in your neighborhood and had a shingle in front of their house and an office in the back. People often paid out of their pockets.
Now everyone has insurance, doesn't shop price and no longer cares how expensive a doctor or a procedure is. That's why doctors don't live in your neighborhood anymore.

"Necessary healthcare" is a moral issue, I agree. But insurance companies being forced to insure people that are guaranteed to cost them money is wrong.

You have two conflicting moral issues.

Personally, I believe it is immoral to put profits above the health of human beings. Therefore, I do not believe that profit motive should dominate in issues of life and death. The vast majority of Americans used to feel the same way.

That is one of the main reasons why we have socialized Police and Fire services, because people agreed that there are some things more important than the profits of corporations.

It is simply a fact that there are some services that are best provided without profit as the primary motive. Those services being ones critical to life and death, in my opinion. That is a moral judgment on my part.


Actuarial tables objectively determine what an insurance company charges.

In my opinion it is immoral to try to use an actuarial table to justify why someone was denied adequate health care, or god forbid, why someone had to die.

When Hillary talks about forcing insurance companies to lose money, that's not "necessary healthcare".

As I have said before, I do not agree with a for-profit insurance system for health care. I do not care whatsoever for the profits or losses of the health care insurance industry. In my opinion it is a parasite on the back of society leeching away our wealth while ruining our health.


.

1. Personally, I believe it is immoral to put profits above the health of human beings.
2. That is one of the main reasons why we have socialized Police and Fire services, because people agreed that there are some things more important than the profits of corporations.
3. In my opinion it is immoral to try to use an actuarial table to justify why someone was denied adequate health care, or god forbid, why someone had to die.
4. I do not care whatsoever for the profits or losses of the health care insurance industry.
5. In my opinion it is a parasite on the back of society leeching away our wealth while ruining our health.
1. Without the profit motive in the healthcare industry, the health of human beings would be greatly diminished.

2. Was there ever another system that was replaced by the current one?

3. The acturial tables are the only reason insurance companies are able to exist and function. Unless you'd be willing to pay the same rates as an 87 year old overweight alcoholic who smokes.
Since you'd be unwilling to do that, insurance companies would cease to exist.

4. I'm not crazy about mortgages, student loans or car loans. But without them you'd be homeless, carless and uneducated.

5. Do you accept a paycheck for services performed? Does that make you a leech?
If you don't like the health insurance industry then don't use it. They are a business that provides a service for which they are paid. That's it.

No one is against helping the needy, but that responsibility cannot be forced upon private industry unless it is somehow spread to all aspects of private industry.
It already is actually, through the taxes they have to pay.

Yeah this looks like just a big government handout to insurence companies. Fuck that.
You know I was thinking the same thing. I would seem that pharmaceutical and insurance companies would just be overjoyed at the prospect of this. Since the taxpayers will be paying for this, which is a pot of gold, invariably the companies will raise prices and hold us hostage to pay the commitment. Health care for everyone will be an open-ended check that will draw us into serious financial issues down the road.
Its difficult to assess how we can pay for this or how much when we have those that aren't on the book, and don't pay taxes. That combination alone will make for chaos. This needs far greater study and would take years to implement a workable system. I could see this being scammed to death like the IRS gets scammed. I think it is a noble idea, but one without enough foresight of error.

You know I was thinking the same thing. I would seem that pharmaceutical and insurance companies would just be overjoyed at the prospect of this. Since the taxpayers will be paying for this, which is a pot of gold, invariably the companies will raise prices and hold us hostage to pay the commitment. Health care for everyone will be an open-ended check that will draw us into serious financial issues down the road.
Its difficult to assess how we can pay for this or how much when we have those that aren't on the book, and don't pay taxes. That combination alone will make for chaos. This needs far greater study and would take years to implement a workable system. I could see this being scammed to death like the IRS gets scammed. I think it is a noble idea, but one without enough foresight of error.


You mean just like the mandatory auto insurance, only on a grander scale?

You mean just like the mandatory auto insurance, only on a grander scale?
Well those are different. On one hand we have one paid for by tax dollars and the other is direct pay for you the consumer for a product. Arguably, mandatory auto insurance protects our property and pockets from the effects of uninsured drivers. If you get into an accident with someone and they do not have insurance you have to go after them in court, which may be futile. Also, an health care cost will have a billable source and not the hospital, insurance company, or worse you. Until you've been in an accident with a driver with no insurance you really wouldn't understand the necessity that it be mandatory.

Well those are different. On one hand we have one paid for by tax dollars and the other is direct pay for you the consumer for a product. Arguably, mandatory auto insurance protects our property and pockets from the effects of uninsured drivers. If you get into an accident with someone and they do not have insurance you have to go after them in court, which may be futile. Also, an health care cost will have a billable source and not the hospital, insurance company, or worse you. Until you've been in an accident with a driver with no insurance you really wouldn't understand the necessity that it be mandatory.


I started driving, in Calif., long before insurance became mandatory. Never had a problem with uninsured motorists. But it was affordable, then. Just as soon as it became mandatory the rates doubled. Now the biggest part of my premium is for uninsured motorist coverage.
Any time a service becomes "mandatory" the cost of that service will go up, regardless of what the service may be, or who is paying for it.

I started driving, in Calif., long before insurance became mandatory. Never had a problem with uninsured motorists. But it was affordable, then. Just as soon as it became mandatory the rates doubled. Now the biggest part of my premium is for uninsured motorist coverage.
Any time a service becomes "mandatory" the cost of that service will go up, regardless of what the service may be, or who is paying for it.
I would not say that universal health care coverage is going to be mandatory. It would be able to be accessed by those who otherwise would never have it. Nobody is going to tell you that you can not walk the streets if you don't have health care. No if you never had a problem with uninsured motorist that's great. However, we do not live in a society where it never happened to me so it should be so. Fact is many accidents happen everyday and those people should have some assurances that others "accidents" do cost them. This the an argument of a practical effect on another and one on yourself.

I would not say that universal health care coverage is going to be mandatory. It would be able to be accessed by those who otherwise would never have it. Nobody is going to tell you that you can not walk the streets if you don't have health care. No if you never had a problem with uninsured motorist that's great. However, we do not live in a society where it never happened to me so it should be so. Fact is many accidents happen everyday and those people should have some assurances that others "accidents" do cost them. This the an argument of a practical effect on another and one on yourself.

You have missed the point, entirely. Obama's health care plan would be abused by the insurance companies, in the same manner they have abused mandatory auto insurance. And yes, his health care plan would be required for all. Apparently the employer would pay the premiums for those working, and tax payers would pay for those not working. It would not take long for those premiums to start creeping higher and higher.
About auto insurance: I find it strange that such a large part of my premium is to cover something, that by law, should not exist. Thats not the case with any other property I have protected by (discretionary) insurance.

Hey Dharm,

What do the medical compaines do with the evil profits?

Ummmm well well they spend the evil profits on research and development.

How often does a socialised medicine operation come up with a medical break through?




You have two conflicting moral issues.

Personally, I believe it is immoral to put profits above the health of human beings. Therefore, I do not believe that profit motive should dominate in issues of life and death. The vast majority of Americans used to feel the same way.




.

Hey Dharm,

What do the medical compaines do with the evil profits?

Ummmm well well they spend the evil profits on research and development.

Surely you don't think all the money goes for R&D do you? Where do the large CEO salaries and stockholder dividends come from?

When you talk about "medical companies", are you including the insurance companies?


How often does a socialised medicine operation come up with a medical break through?

Probably pretty often.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=8000


Swedish medical research most cited in the world

Swedish clinical medical research is the most cited in the world, according to a measure that compares the number of citations with the size of a country’s population.

The number of times a scientific article is cited is often used as a measure of its quality and the effectiveness of research. Because of this, league tables have been created to rank countries by the number of citations they gain.

Under a method devised by UK researcher Alec Coppen and his colleague John Bailey, the number of citations is then compared with a county’s population. Under this method Sweden, with 57 citations per 1000 population ranks as world number one, followed by Scotland and Switzerland.

In a letter published in the prestigious UK medical journal The Lancet, the pair state that “citation rates are regarded as the best index of scientific excellence of a paper.”

http://www.isa.se/templates/News____25077.aspx

The Swedes seem to be doing ok. :)

Hey Dharm,

What do the medical compaines do with the evil profits?

Ummmm well well they spend the evil profits on research and development.

I see that you didn't read my response when you posted the same thing last week, sisko. Why am I not surprised?

:rolleyes:

Drug companies have things called advertising and marketing departments. Surely you've seen the zillions of TV commercials they pay zillions of dollars to fill the airwaves with (primarily, please note, drugs to make limp dicks stiff - VERY important life-saving drugs, wouldn't you say?).

In 1999 Bristol Meyers Squibb spent 22.6% of its revenue on advertising, but only 9.1% on R&D (total profit that year, 21.0%). Warner Lambert spent 46.1% of its revenue on marketing and administration, and only 9.7% on R&D, while still making a 13% profit.

Drug companies also have things called outrageously overpaid executives. In 1999 C.A. Heimbold Jr., CEO of Bristol Meyers Squibb, was paid nearly $40 MILLION dollars. If you add in unexercised stock options, his 1999 salary came to $160 MILLION.

Here are the 1999 stats for all the big drug companies. (http://www.actupny.org/reports/durban-licensing.html) Imagine how much more they're spending on advertising today.

Here's a New York Review of Books review from 2004 that explains it in greater detail:

The Truth About the Drug Companies

In the past two years, we have started to see, for the first time, the beginnings of public resistance to rapacious pricing and other dubious practices of the pharmaceutical industry. It is mainly because of this resistance that drug companies are now blanketing us with public relations messages. And the magic words, repeated over and over like an incantation, are research, innovation, and American. Research. Innovation. American. It makes a great story.

But while the rhetoric is stirring, it has very little to do with reality. First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits. In fact, year after year, for over two decades, this industry has been far and away the most profitable in the United States. The prices drug companies charge have little relationship to the costs of making the drugs and could be cut dramatically without coming anywhere close to threatening R&D.

Second, the pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. As hard as it is to believe, only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The great majority of "new" drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called "me-too" drugs. The idea is to grab a share of an established, lucrative market by producing something very similar to a top-selling drug. For instance, we now have six statins (Mevacor, Lipitor, Zocor, Pravachol, Lescol, and the newest, Crestor) on the market to lower cholesterol, all variants of the first. As Dr. Sharon Levine, associate executive director of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, put it,

"If I'm a manufacturer and I can change one molecule and get another twenty years of patent rights, and convince physicians to prescribe and consumers to demand the next form of Prilosec, or weekly Prozac instead of daily Prozac, just as my patent expires, then why would I be spending money on a lot less certain endeavor, which is looking for brand-new drugs?"

Third, the industry is hardly a model of American free enterprise. To be sure, it is free to decide which drugs to develop (me-too drugs instead of innovative ones, for instance), and it is free to price them as high as the traffic will bear, but it is utterly dependent on government-granted monopolies—in the form of patents and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved exclusive marketing rights. If it is not particularly innovative in discovering new drugs, it is highly innovative— and aggressive—in dreaming up ways to extend its monopoly rights.

And there is nothing peculiarly American about this industry. It is the very essence of a global enterprise. Roughly half of the largest drug companies are based in Europe. (The exact count shifts because of mergers.) In 2002, the top ten were the American companies Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Wyeth (formerly American Home Products); the British companies GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca; the Swiss companies Novartis and Roche; and the French company Aventis (which in 2004 merged with another French company, Sanafi Synthelabo, putting it in third place). All are much alike in their operations. All price their drugs much higher here than in other markets.

Since the United States is the major profit center, it is simply good public relations for drug companies to pass themselves off as American, whether they are or not. It is true, however, that some of the European companies are now locating their R&D operations in the United States. They claim the reason for this is that we don't regulate prices, as does much of the rest of the world. But more likely it is that they want to feed on the unparalleled research output of American universities and the NIH. In other words, it's not private enterprise that draws them here but the very opposite—our publicly sponsored research enterprise. --New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244)

That drug prescription you just paid $100 for? Between $23 and $46 dollars of that prescription went to advertising alone. Less than $10 went for research and development of the drug.

I see that you didn't read my response when you posted the same thing last week, sisko. Why am I not surprised?
Here's what I said when sisko posted the same thing last week:
Excellent post, Frannie, but I wouldn't count on sisko understanding a single word of it.

You're not telling him what he wants to hear. :eek:ROFL!

You have missed the point, entirely. Obama's health care plan would be abused by the insurance companies, in the same manner they have abused mandatory auto insurance. And yes, his health care plan would be required for all. Apparently the employer would pay the premiums for those working, and tax payers would pay for those not working. It would not take long for those premiums to start creeping higher and higher.
About auto insurance: I find it strange that such a large part of my premium is to cover something, that by law, should not exist. Thats not the case with any other property I have protected by (discretionary) insurance.
Well in business the increased load on private insurance companies to take care of those that are uninsured will increase their cost. This is a basic business principle here were talking about. The loss in revenues has to be made up somewhere. The only way to save the money quickly is to layoff people or raise prices. There is no way around this. The government also has limits on what its willing to pay for even under the medicaid/medicare plan that we currently have. This stiffs the insurance company for millions a year because if something cost 1.00 the government is only paying .75. Sometimes this is due to the government not keeping pace with inflation. Once, again who pays or the company goes out of business.

Think about it. You can not just look at it from YOUR pockets point of view all the time. There are two sides to a fence, and only when you look at both can you come to a practical conclusion. By the way, you WILL NOT be required by law to care health insurance even when that program is in effect. Its access to health care that is being pushed by Obama. If the government made it mandatory every citizen have health care insurance paid for by the government itself do you have any idea how much that would cost the American taxpayer. It won't be 60 Billion. That would only begin to scratch the surface.

You talked about mandatory auto insurance. That is in effect to help you, the insured, if you ever had an accident with an uninsured. We talking about machine that cost a lot and serious bodily injury can come from the use of them. That fee was put there so the government could pay it to the insurance company to keep the cost of your premium for it down. So therefore, that fee is not as high as it could be. The purpose of the Fund is to reduce the cost of uninsured motorist insurance coverage. Moneys are distributed annually from the Fund among the insurers writing motor vehicle bodily injury and property damage liability insurance on vehicles.

So in essence this protects you and helps you at the same time.

1. Without the profit motive in the healthcare industry, the health of human beings would be greatly diminished.

That is fearmongering nonsense.

The health of human beings is already being diminished because of the profit motive in our health care system.

45 Million Americans have no access to affordable health care specifically because it is not profitable to cover them.


2. Was there ever another system that was replaced by the current one?

Yes.


3. The acturial tables are the only reason insurance companies are able to exist and function...

...If they want to make a "healthy profit". I noticed you forgot to mention that part. :rolleyes:

Again, arguing for profits is not going to change my stance on a moral issue.



Unless you'd be willing to pay the same rates as an 87 year old overweight alcoholic who smokes.

As I have said repeatedly, I would rather profit motive be taken out of health care completely.

It is immoral to force someone into that choice.

That is essentially the same as asking, "Would you rather I rob you, or an 87 year old overweight alcoholic who smokes rob you?"

I see it as an immoral choice based upon greed, choosing profit over the health of human beings.


insurance companies would cease to exist.

:woohoo:


4. I'm not crazy about mortgages, student loans or car loans. But without them you'd be homeless, carless and uneducated.

You are trying to make the laughable inference that there is no other alternative to the health care insurance industry we have today and that if we didn't have them we would have no health care? Allow me to remind you for the umpteenth time that we are the only industrialized nation in the world without national health care.


5. Do you accept a paycheck for services performed? Does that make you a leech?

Prostitutes perform a service. Assassins and Hit-men perform a service. Do you believe their professions are morally right and should be legal?


If you don't like the health insurance industry then don't use it.

No problem. That is my intention and I will stop using them as soon as we, the American people, have created an alternative to them for obtaining health care.


They are a business that provides a service for which they are paid. That's it.

An immoral and utterly corrupted "service".

No thanks.


No one is against helping the needy, but that responsibility cannot be forced upon private industry unless it is somehow spread to all aspects of private industry.

I have already said that one reason I support single-payer national health care because it would greatly benefit all industry by removing that burden from them so they can compete better in the world market.

Because again, everyone else already has national health care and not having it is putting us at a distinct disadvantage in international business.


It already is actually, through the taxes they have to pay.

Actually Industry pays less tax now than ever before. We carry the majority of the tax burden, not industry.

I agree though that we can fund this without raising taxes for the middle class or poor. Simply repealing Bush's Paris Hilton Tax Breaks would go a long way toward paying for a national health care system. Once we get out of Iraq, that will free up billions we are spending there. I would rather see my taxes put to good use here, investing in America, rather than paying of foreign occupations.

Dharma, health insurance companies compete with one another. If one wanted to charge obsenely high premiums people would switch companies. That's how it works Dharma.
Unless you're suggesting that there's a conspiratorial collusion going on between them. Even Dop hasn't posited this one on us yet.

You address the "leech" question by comparing insurance companies to prostitution. If you have to exaggerate yadda, yadda, yadda.
Insurance companies perform a legal function. The business is not immoral, and claiming that doesn't make your point any stronger.

The bottom line is, you need it like you need your mortgage, student loans and car loan.

You address the "leech" question by comparing insurance companies to prostitution. Insurance companies perform a legal function.

Just because something is "legal" at the moment doesn't mean it is moral.
I made a perfectly valid comparison between two businesses that charge a fee for a service, which was your excuse for the health insurance industry.

The business is not immoral

That is your opinion and I think you are dead wrong.
I have told you repeatedly that I think putting profit above the health of human beings definitely is immoral. You aren't going to change my opinion by trying to insult me.

The bottom line is, you need it like you need your mortgage, student loans and car loan.

ROFL!!!
I don't even "need" all those things.
I do not buy cars on credit. I pay cash.
I chose to use student loans to get my degree faster, but I did not "need" them in order to get it.

So yeah, I "need" for-profit health insurance as much as I need those... not at all.

So yeah, I "need" for-profit health insurance as much as I need those... not at all.Then you've found a better way and good for you.

Sadly, those less fortunate than yourself need the immorality of a company paying their medical when they are unlucky enough to need it.

So yeah, I "need" for-profit health insurance as much as I need those... not at all.
ok, so don't use it...pay out of pocket up front.

and hope you don't come down with anything worse than a planter's wart because we know you're not putting away $500 a month in a medical savings account.

insurance is insurance...being on your car, house, or person is no different, it's a crap shoot that sreads costs out over the long term over a large group.

BTW-BC/BS is a not for profit corp. FYI:rolleyes:

Then you've found a better way and good for you.

Yes, it is called Single Payer National Health Care and it is a better way for everyone!

Especially the 45 Million less fortunate Americans who cannot get affordable health care in the for-profit market.

I am really interest to the intricacies of how this will play out financially for those who will use the program. If the recipients are on public assistance, unemployed, or homeless what will be their cost. Public assistance program are not enough for someone to live off of now. Are we adding an additional cost to these people and will it put them further in poverty. Sounds like then we will have to find them a way to help with paying their part of this program. I hope this has been mulled over amongst the hopefuls.

I am really interest to the intricacies of how this will play out financially for those who will use the program.

What program? Who are you talking to?
Couldn't fit any English classes into your phd curriculum?

What program? Who are you talking to?
Couldn't fit any English classes into your phd curriculum?
Answer 1: National Health care program. It will be a program just as all the others are currently.
Answer 2: Anyone who has any answer.

Couldn't fit any English classes into your phd curriculum?That was uncalled for.

BC/BS is a not for profit corp. FYI:rolleyes:

Not exactly...

From Wikipedia:

Some of the state plans have been merged to achieve economies of scale. Many plans are administered by not-for-profit organizations, while others are for-profit companies. (Though all Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans must pay Federal income tax under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, some plans are still considered not-for-profit at the state level.)

The 14-state WellPoint is the largest Blue Cross-Blue Shield member, and is a publicly traded company. Other multi-state organizations include CareFirst in the Mid-Atlantic and The Regence Group in the Pacific Northwest. The largest non-investor owned member is Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC), which operates four Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans in the Midwest and Southwest.

In 2003, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association took in US$182.7 billion in revenue.