The Cellar - Impeding changes to our Health Care system

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Impeding changes to our Health Care system (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=16747)

If they brought you in with a gunshot wound, you would have gone right in and they'd have worried about payment later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

That amazes me. Not once in my memory have I ever received care before insurance or payment was verified. Even sitting in the ER with a dislocated ankle I had to hand over the debit card and insurance card first.

I think the hospitals in your area are jaded (as well they should be, they get more than their fair share of non-paying customers.) I've never been asked for payment before treatment, and in one case I was desperately trying to give them my insurance information and they said they didn't want it, didn't have time to deal with it, they'd mail me an automated bill and I could deal with it then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 594154)

This has been my experience as well. With a screaming/passing out post-surgical infant, with a husband who though he was having a heart attack, with a toddler with a pistachio jammed in his nose, myself with the sniffles (face swelling sinus infection) multiple times. They have never not verified insurance information first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar (Post 594180)

If they brought you in with a gunshot wound, you would have gone right in and they'd have worried about payment later.

Yea, we call that triage, which is why "The Dude" on the corner who is an illegal gets free care.

Typical exchange:

"How did you get shot?"

"Man I was sitting there minding my own business and up walks this Dude and he just shoots me!"

"Oh really? so one of the famous Dude Brothers shot you?"

"Yea man, I was just minding my own business! And he shot me!"

"Sure."

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 594240)

Was that all in the same hospital visit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 593948)

Did you find that part of the constitution that gave the govt the authority to make the louisiana purchase yet? No? Didn't think so.

Wait a minute, doesn't this mean if folks don't live in the original 13 they have to STFU and stop using our Constitution? sweeet, let's down-size America. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 594152)

.... Some are willing to go the distance and make the sacrifice to have a better life, some are not. Those that do should not feel bad or be vilified for hard work and reward.

But should basic healthcare be unattainable to middle class hard working families so that the surgeon can have more vacations and investment properties? Where does "a better life" at the expense of others' wellbeing become vilifyable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 594154)

It surprised me, too. Nevertheless, that's what happened at Brandywine Hospital.

Quote:

You will be greeted warmly by nurses who are truly compassionate and a registration staff that understands that people come before paperwork.

Except that the triage nurse was a beee-otch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 594314)

Was that all in the same hospital visit?

Yeah, what a shit day that was lemme tell ya...

Why did Obama give PhRMA a great deal when even the Dems don't agree with it?

Quote:

Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who heads the Energy and Commerce Committee and helped write the House health care bill, vowed to fight the White House, asserting that it was conceding too much to the powerful drug industry lobby, PhRMA.
“PhRMA would like to see if they can get a bargain,” Mr. Waxman said. “I think that PhRMA should contribute more than PhRMA wants to contribute.”
Under pressure from drug industry lobbyists, the White House for the first time Wednesday clarified its commitment to a behind-the-scenes deal negotiated by the Senate Finance Committee in June. It would limit the drug makers’ share of the cost of a health care overhaul to a total of $80 billion over 10 years without imposing other savings sought by House Democrats, like the government’s negotiation of prices for the drugs it buys under Medicare.

We know we can squeeze more from the system,” Ms. Pelosi told a Washington Post blogger a few weeks ago. “The minute the drug companies settled for $80 billion, we knew it was $160 billion.”
“The president made the agreements he made,” she added. “And maybe we’ll be limited by that. But maybe not!”

Some members of the Finance Committee said Thursday that they, too, were surprised by the explicitness of the promise to the drug makers negotiated by their chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, and the White House.

“I think we could do more,” said Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican involved in the panel’s health care talks. “It wasn’t enough.”
“When I read about it, it gave me heartburn,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Senate Finance Committee.
Asked about his chances of undoing the deal, Mr. Waxman said, “I don’t do handicapping.”

Profit
Profit
Profit
Dems speak out on drug industry profits
profit

Profit

Quote:

Aggressive advertising: Since the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) relaxed the rules governing TV ads in 1997, the drug industry has increased its direct-to-consumer spending by roughly 40 percent a year. (Last year, ad spending was up 41 percent, according to Fortune.) As a result, two companies – Merck and Pharmacia – spent $460 million on ads in 2000, which was 20 percent more than Burger King.

Lower tax rate: A 1999 study by the Congressional Research Service found that thanks to a variety of tax credits, the effective tax rate for drug companies was 16 percent compared to the overall industry average of 27 percent.

Corporate welfare: According to a study released by the FDA in January 2000, one relatively new government incentive alone accounts for $600 million in additional annual profits. The so-called Pediatric Exclusivity Provision gives companies an extra six-months of monopoly patent protection in exchange for conducting tests on children. But rather than use the incentive to primarily study drugs most important to children – as Congress had hoped – drug companies used it for blockbuster products, such as Claritin, that stood to gain the most from a six-month patent extension. The pediatric provision sunsets at the end of this year and its congressional sponsors, Sens. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), are pushing for permanent authorization. The FDA estimates this would cost consumers $14 billion over 20 years, by delaying the market entry of lower-priced generic drugs.

Finally, it's important to note that the drug company's annual reports reveal where their revenues go – and what their priorities really are. The drug industry has long maintained that it needs extraordinary profits to fuel risky and expensive research into new medicines. But the reports show that the companies plow far more into profits and marketing than into research and development (R&D). Consider:

Fortune 500 drug companies channeled 17 percent of revenue into profits last year and 30 percent into marketing and administration – yet they spent just 12 percent of revenues on R&D. (see Graph 3)

Eight of the 10 most profitable Fortune 500 drug companies devoted more of their revenue to profits than to R&D. (see Graph 4)

Because it's not an edict, it's a political process that has to get through congress, which is comprised of elected officials that are beholdin', if not owned, by the drug companies. A concerted effort by the drug companies could defeat anything... they could probably get Christmas canceled if they really tried. So you tell them ok, it'll only cost you $80 billion, now back off. That's the reality of politics in this country, who has the money and the power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 594405)

Just wait til you see what happens if the Supreme Court overturns provisions of McCain-Feingold and gives expanded first amendment rights of free speech to corporations. In recent similar cases, the liberals on the court would not give those first amendment rights to corporations; the conservations on the court would.

If overturned, the 2012 campaign will be a corporate feeding frenzy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 594405)

Because it's not an edict, it's a political process that has to get through congress, which is comprised of elected officials that are beholdin', if not owned, by the drug companies.

Seems like that needs to be reformed. Makes more sense to start there than worrying about the administrative cost of private insurance companies. Certainly more money to be saved there.

Quote:

A concerted effort by the drug companies could defeat anything... they could probably get Christmas canceled if they really tried. So you tell them ok, it'll only cost you $80 billion, now back off.

Back off??? They're not fighting it - they are all freaking for it. They're pushing for it. They obviously want to make even more money, and know they will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 594407)

It's insane. As Justice Ginsburg asked, "Is a corporation endowed by the creator with unalienable rights to free speech like a natural human being?"

The answer is absolutely not. A corporation is not a person and it has no rights. A corporation has no right to exist and only does exist because the government allows it to as long as it pays taxes on its profits.

These taxes, were the only taxes on income the founders supported.

People have rights, corporations, unions, or other organizations do not. Money is not speech, regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

All political donations should be limited to $1000 per household, per year, per candidate, and if someone donates their money to a PAC for a candidate, that should be the total of their allowable contributions for that campaign. If a household gives $1000 to a particular candidate's campaign, they should be prevented from giving another $1000 to a political action committee.

Political parties should be prevented from using any contributed money to advertise for or against any candidates, and only be allowed to spend money on issues or ballot propositions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 594420)

Seems like that needs to be reformed. Makes more sense to start there than worrying about the administrative cost of private insurance companies. Certainly more money to be saved there.

The only way to do that is vote their asses out, but that won't happen because the more seniority them have, the more pork they can bring home to their district. Screw the country, it's all about meeeeee, on another level.

Quote:

Back off??? They're not fighting it - they are all freaking for it. They're pushing for it. They obviously want to make even more money, and know they will.

Don't you think they brought the threat of fighting it to the table? Why else would they be offered the price of only 80 billion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 594420)

Back off??? They're not fighting it - they are all freaking for it. They're pushing for it. They obviously want to make even more money, and know they will.

Absolutely! That is why they made the non-tranparent back door deals with the White House.