Privatise the NHS

[Happy Face 29]

A complete backdown by the Uncle Tom president.

 

You'd like to think it was a fight he couldn't win and backed down on. Unfortunately there's no backdown involved. The point of the article is this is what Obama has aimed for from the get go....and that's not an idea that the author has just concocted after the fact, it's what he's been saying since all the evidence suggested it back in August.

[ChezGiven 0]

A complete backdown by the Uncle Tom president.

 

You'd like to think it was a fight he couldn't win and backed down on. Unfortunately there's no backdown involved. The point of the article is this is what Obama has aimed for from the get go....and that's not an idea that the author has just concocted after the fact, it's what he's been saying since all the evidence suggested it back in August.

 

He assumes that there has been no strategy to overcome republican filibustering, which is just stupid. Through this prism, Obama looks like he has wanted his solution all along.

 

In fact, thats an incredibly facile argument and there is absolutely no way that that blogger has been predicting the economic content of the final bill that eventually passes. Details within it will reveal changes in incentive mechanisms which will have predicted downstream financial consequences, some good, some bad, some neutral. He doent know what impact they will have yet.

 

"The legislation, which was outlined in a 2,074-page document, is said by Democratic aides to reduce deficits by $127bn (£76bn) over a decade and by as much as $650bn (£389bn) in the 10 years after that."

 

The real point of healthcare reform is to support the insurance and pharma companies as they employ millions of americans whilst at the same time introduce financial reform to cut costs whilst at the same time, try to increase coverage for americans. The impetus for reform was not the increased coverage, it was the basic financial/economic forecast that showed if the US system didnt change, 1 in 3 of every dollars spent in the US would be on healthcare. Thats disastrous for everyone.

 

However, all this is academic as at present we still have two separare bills (as far as i am aware, i've been off work for 10 weeks) which still have to be amalgamated before it gets in front of Obama.

[Park Life 70]

The same drugs cost x5 or more in the U.S. as to what they cost in Europe.

[ChezGiven 0]

No they dont.

[ChezGiven 0]

And its irrelevant.

[Renton 17842]

The impetus for reform was not the increased coverage, it was the basic financial/economic forecast that showed if the US system didnt change, 1 in 3 of every dollars spent in the US would be on healthcare. Thats disastrous for everyone.

 

This is the crux about it like, forget any equitable notions, the US spends almost twice as much as their GDP on healthcare as we do and don't receive anywhere near twice the quality of care (using just about any indicator available). It has to change or the country will bankrupt themselves. Which I would find quite amusing were it not for the millions who have almost no healthcare there.

[Happy Face 29]

The impetus for reform was not the increased coverage, it was the basic financial/economic forecast that showed if the US system didnt change, 1 in 3 of every dollars spent in the US would be on healthcare. Thats disastrous for everyone.

 

This is the crux about it like, forget any equitable notions, the US spends almost twice as much as their GDP on healthcare as we do and don't receive anywhere near twice the quality of care (using just about any indicator available). It has to change or the country will bankrupt themselves. Which I would find quite amusing were it not for the millions who have almost no healthcare there.

 

Is total healthcare spend being reduced or the federal deficit?

[Happy Face 29]

The same drugs cost x5 or more in the U.S. as to what they cost in Europe.

 

"Ask your doctor for" adverts for prescription drugs should be banned like.

 

Rising demand for the top 20 popular drugs accounted for half the $21 billion sales increase in 2000.

 

It now (2002) costs an average of $45 to fill a prescription in the US. The 50 top-selling drugs cost more than $67. Generic drugs on average cost a little more than $19.

 

http://www.allbusiness.com/insurance/healt.../5893743-1.html

Edited December 18, 2009 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

The impetus for reform was not the increased coverage, it was the basic financial/economic forecast that showed if the US system didnt change, 1 in 3 of every dollars spent in the US would be on healthcare. Thats disastrous for everyone.

 

This is the crux about it like, forget any equitable notions, the US spends almost twice as much as their GDP on healthcare as we do and don't receive anywhere near twice the quality of care (using just about any indicator available). It has to change or the country will bankrupt themselves. Which I would find quite amusing were it not for the millions who have almost no healthcare there.

 

Is total healthcare spend being reduced or the federal deficit?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_r...ional_proposals

 

What does 'demand' for a product mean when it cant be prescibed unless it is "indicated" under FDA regulation? You could cite Bextra and Pfizer but the real impact of that case on patients was minimal.

 

If you are 'indicated' for a treatment that means there is a real medical condition and a real medical need. Advertising the drugs just gets patients off their arse or asking for a treatment which they have an exisitng need for.

 

Generics take up more of the drugs bill than branded, we've been over this before though.

[Happy Face 29]

The impetus for reform was not the increased coverage, it was the basic financial/economic forecast that showed if the US system didnt change, 1 in 3 of every dollars spent in the US would be on healthcare. Thats disastrous for everyone.

 

This is the crux about it like, forget any equitable notions, the US spends almost twice as much as their GDP on healthcare as we do and don't receive anywhere near twice the quality of care (using just about any indicator available). It has to change or the country will bankrupt themselves. Which I would find quite amusing were it not for the millions who have almost no healthcare there.

 

Is total healthcare spend being reduced or the federal deficit?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_r...ional_proposals

 

 

Exactly. Total spend is going UP. Of course it is, to cover millions of more people. It has to. Rather than subsidise it by raising taxes, providing a government run alternative or imposing meaningful restrictions on insurers or big pharma, the deficit is being shifted to the poorest 40 million consumers by holding a gun to their head and forcing them to pay.

 

Anyway, this all gets away from the point. What's on the table is better than nothing. It covers millions of people that wouldn't be covered. Small mercies and that. But the fact that it benefits big business financially and only costs the poorest citizens (the poorest just above the popverty line) is what Obama was aiming for all along.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Happy Face

[Park Life 70]

No they dont.

 

Saw a progreamme about it healthcareboy.

[Happy Face 29]

Anyway, this all gets away from the point. What's on the table is better than nothing. It covers millions of people that wouldn't be covered. Small mercies and that. But the fact that it benefits big business financially and only costs the poorest citizens (the poorest just above the popverty line) is what Obama was aiming for all along.

 

 

GG's just posted a follow up article where he says it far more eloquently....

 

The health care bill is one of the most flagrant advancements of corporatism yet, as it bizarrely forces millions of people to buy extremely inadequate products from the private health insurance industry -- regardless of whether they want it or, worse, whether they can afford it (even with some subsidies). In other words, it uses the power of government, the force of law, to give the greatest gift imaginable to this industry -- tens of millions of coerced customers, many of whom will be truly burdened by having to turn their money over to these corporations -- and is thus a truly extreme advancement of [the] corporatist model.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...tism/index.html

[ChezGiven 0]

The impetus for reform was not the increased coverage, it was the basic financial/economic forecast that showed if the US system didnt change, 1 in 3 of every dollars spent in the US would be on healthcare. Thats disastrous for everyone.

 

This is the crux about it like, forget any equitable notions, the US spends almost twice as much as their GDP on healthcare as we do and don't receive anywhere near twice the quality of care (using just about any indicator available). It has to change or the country will bankrupt themselves. Which I would find quite amusing were it not for the millions who have almost no healthcare there.

 

Is total healthcare spend being reduced or the federal deficit?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_r...ional_proposals

 

 

Exactly. Total spend is going UP. Of course it is, to cover millions of more people. It has to. Rather than subsidise it by raising taxes, providing a government run alternative or imposing meaningful restrictions on insurers or big pharma, the deficit is being shifted to the poorest 40 million consumers by holding a gun to their head and forcing them to pay.

 

Anyway, this all gets away from the point. What's on the table is better than nothing. It covers millions of people that wouldn't be covered. Small mercies and that. But the fact that it benefits big business financially and only costs the poorest citizens (the poorest just above the popverty line) is what Obama was aiming for all along.

 

The biggest difference between the bills, currently, is in how they are financed. In addition to the items listed in the above bullet point, the House relies mainly on a surtax on income above $500,000 ($1 million for families). The Senate, meanwhile, relies largely on an "excise tax" for high cost 'Cadillac' insurance plans, as well as an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for high earners.[103]

 

Thats called 'raising taxes'. How else do you think these curves cross the negative for the long-temr budget impact?

 

[Renton 17842]

No they dont.

 

Saw a progreamme about it healthcareboy.

 

Parky saw a progreamme on it. That's Chez telt.

[ChezGiven 0]

No they dont.

 

Saw a progreamme about it healthcareboy.

 

Parky saw a progreamme on it. That's Chez telt.

 

Think i may have to resign.

[Happy Face 29]

The impetus for reform was not the increased coverage, it was the basic financial/economic forecast that showed if the US system didnt change, 1 in 3 of every dollars spent in the US would be on healthcare. Thats disastrous for everyone.

 

This is the crux about it like, forget any equitable notions, the US spends almost twice as much as their GDP on healthcare as we do and don't receive anywhere near twice the quality of care (using just about any indicator available). It has to change or the country will bankrupt themselves. Which I would find quite amusing were it not for the millions who have almost no healthcare there.

 

Is total healthcare spend being reduced or the federal deficit?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_r...ional_proposals

 

 

Exactly. Total spend is going UP. Of course it is, to cover millions of more people. It has to. Rather than subsidise it by raising taxes, providing a government run alternative or imposing meaningful restrictions on insurers or big pharma, the deficit is being shifted to the poorest 40 million consumers by holding a gun to their head and forcing them to pay.

 

Anyway, this all gets away from the point. What's on the table is better than nothing. It covers millions of people that wouldn't be covered. Small mercies and that. But the fact that it benefits big business financially and only costs the poorest citizens (the poorest just above the popverty line) is what Obama was aiming for all along.

 

The biggest difference between the bills, currently, is in how they are financed. In addition to the items listed in the above bullet point, the House relies mainly on a surtax on income above $500,000 ($1 million for families). The Senate, meanwhile, relies largely on an "excise tax" for high cost 'Cadillac' insurance plans, as well as an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for high earners.[103]

 

Thats called 'raising taxes'. How else do you think these curves cross the negative for the long-temr budget impact?

 

 

My bad. Fixed my post.

[Park Life 70]

A hard pill to swallow

Why U.S. drug prices are so high

 

Pills spilling out of a bottle of prescription medicine.

Drug prices, especially for brand names, are sky high and rising in the United States. According to a couple of University experts, the steep price of drugs depends on many factors--like the shielding of insured consumers from the true prices of drugs, patent laws, and the byzantine structure of an industry whose practices are all but impossible to track.

 

by Deane Morrison

 

From M, spring 2004

 

The last thing Marie, a University employee, thinks about when she reaches for her asthma medication is its cost. Thanks to her Health Partners coverage, she pays only $20 for a three-month supply of Advair. If Marie paid cash at the Nicollet Mall Walgreen's in Minneapolis, she would pay $151.59 for a one-month supply. If she were buying online from Canada, the price would be about $99 a month, and if a generic form of the drug were on the market, the price would probably be slightly lower than the Canadian price.

 

Marie is getting a good deal with her HMO coverage, but her situation illustrates one reason why drug prices, especially for brand names, are sky high and rising in the United States. According to a couple of University experts, the steep price of drugs depends on many factors--like the shielding of insured consumers from the true prices of drugs, patent laws, and the byzantine structure of an industry whose practices are all but impossible to track.

 

Consumer price insulation

 

One simple factor in high drug costs is that the doctor who chooses a drug doesn't pay for it and may have no idea of its price; therefore, he or she may pick a high-priced brand name over a generic version of the drug without a second thought. Doctors get much of their information about drugs from the manufacturers, who send "detail" people to doctors' offices--complete with free samples--to extol the virtues of the latest brand-name drugs. Ads aimed at consumers also tout brand names, increasing the demand for more expensive drugs.

 

If an HMO or other health plan is paying, that's good for the consumer but not for prices. "Suppose each refill costs you a flat $10 to $20 co-pay, whether it's a $50 brand-name drug or a $30 generic," says Roger Feldman, a University professor of health services research and policy. "Demand for the drug would be insensitive to price." Such arrangements help insulate consumers like Marie from the true cost of their medications, so they have no incentive to shop around. But an insurance policy that requires the consumer to pay a certain percentage of all costs would introduce some price sensitivity, and encourage both consumer and insurer to seek better bargains.

 

Both Stephen Schondelmeyer and Roger Feldman scoff at companies' claims that anti-reimportation laws serve to ensure the safety of drugs from Canada. "Anti-reimportation laws have little to do with safety and everything to do with profit," says Feldman.

 

Oh, Canada

 

U.S. prices got so high in the first place partly because, in the 1970s and 1980s, companies began pricing according to a percentage of a country's median income, says Stephen Schondelmeyer, head of the University's PRIME Institute, which monitors the pharmaceutical industry. Drug prices in Canada run about 50 to 60 percent of the U.S. figure; in Europe it's about 40 to 50 percent. But the U.S. has huge income disparities; affluent people tend to have HMO or other coverage, and those who don't have any coverage tend to be the poor or elderly.

[ChezGiven 0]

So about twice as expensive then, not 5 times

 

And its still irrelevant.

[Rob W 0]

So about twice as expensive then, not 5 times

 

And its still irrelevant.

 

 

If you lived and worked in the States you'd know just how frightened people are about health care coverage, and costs and the fear of falling ill

 

The NHS isn't maybe as good as Canada or France but its a hell of a lot better than the USA which is quite Third World in its approach

[ChezGiven 0]

So about twice as expensive then, not 5 times

 

And its still irrelevant.

 

 

If you lived and worked in the States you'd know just how frightened people are about health care coverage, and costs and the fear of falling ill

 

The NHS isn't maybe as good as Canada or France but its a hell of a lot better than the USA which is quite Third World in its approach

 

Yeah, i know nothing about US healthcare, as this thread demonstrates.

[Park Life 70]

So about twice as expensive then, not 5 times

 

And its still irrelevant.

 

Depends on the drug.

[Happy Face 29]

Here's a quick breakdown of major health insurance company stock performance from Oct. 27 (since Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said that he would filibuster a Senate health care reform bill if it included a public option) to Friday's market close:

 

* Coventry Health Care, Inc. is up 31.6 percent;

 

* CIGNA Corp. is up 29.1 percent;

 

* Aetna Inc. is up 27.1 percent;

 

* WellPoint, Inc. is up 26.6 percent;

 

* UnitedHealth Group Inc. is up 20.5 percent;

 

* And Humana Inc. is up 13.6 percent"

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/s...t_n_399733.html

[Rob W 0]

Obama's Health Care Bill passes both Houses!!!

[Happy Face 29]

There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate’s version of President Obama’s effort to reform health care.

 

The bill that passed the Senate with such fanfare on Christmas Eve would impose a confiscatory 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which are popularly viewed as over-the-top plans held only by the very wealthy. In fact, it’s a tax that in a few years will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care.

 

Which is exactly what the tax is designed to do.

 

The tax would kick in on plans exceeding $23,000 annually for family coverage and $8,500 for individuals, starting in 2013. In the first year it would affect relatively few people in the middle class. But because of the steadily rising costs of health care in the U.S., more and more plans would reach the taxation threshold each year.

 

Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy.

 

Proponents say the tax will raise nearly $150 billion over 10 years, but there’s a catch. It’s not expected to raise this money directly. The dirty little secret behind this onerous tax is that no one expects very many people to pay it. The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans.

 

These lower-value plans would have higher out-of-pocket costs, thus increasing the very things that are so maddening to so many policyholders right now: higher and higher co-payments, soaring deductibles and so forth. Some of the benefits of higher-end policies can be expected in many cases to go by the boards: dental and vision care, for example, and expensive mental health coverage.

 

Proponents say this is a terrific way to hold down health care costs. If policyholders have to pay more out of their own pockets, they will be more careful — that is to say, more reluctant — to access health services. On the other hand, people with very serious illnesses will be saddled with much higher out-of-pocket costs. And a reluctance to seek treatment for something that might seem relatively minor at first could well have terrible (and terribly expensive) consequences in the long run.

 

If even the plan’s proponents do not expect policyholders to pay the tax, how will it raise $150 billion in a decade? Great question.

 

We all remember learning in school about the suspension of disbelief. This part of the Senate’s health benefits taxation scheme requires a monumental suspension of disbelief. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, less than 18 percent of the revenue will come from the tax itself. The rest of the $150 billion, more than 82 percent of it, will come from the income taxes paid by workers who have been given pay raises by employers who will have voluntarily handed over the money they saved by offering their employees less valuable health insurance plans.

 

Can you believe it?

 

I asked Richard Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., about this. (Labor unions are outraged at the very thought of a health benefits tax.) I had to wait for him to stop laughing to get his answer. “If you believe that,” he said, “I have some oceanfront property in southwestern Pennsylvania that I will sell you at a great price.”

 

A survey of business executives by Mercer, a human resources consulting firm, found that only 16 percent of respondents said they would convert the savings from a reduction in health benefits into higher wages for employees. Yet proponents of the tax are holding steadfast to the belief that nearly all would do so.

 

“In the real world, companies cut costs and they pocket the money,” said Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America and a leader of the opposition to the tax. “Executives tell the shareholders: ‘Hey, higher profits without any revenue growth. Great!’ ”

 

The tax on health benefits is being sold to the public dishonestly as something that will affect only the rich, and it makes a mockery of President Obama’s repeated pledge that if you like the health coverage you have now, you can keep it.

 

Those who believe this is a good idea should at least have the courage to be straight about it with the American people.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/opinion/...amp;ref=opinion

[NJS 3986]

I still don't get why so many people who are completely dependent on their employers for any kind of healthcare and who must be aware of how vulnerable all jobs are can be so opposed to the public option - is it just dogmatic stupidity?