The pharmaceutical industry is wasting no time trying to protect its profits from the coming Democratic majority in Congress, the New York Times reported. Top company executives met this month to develop strategies to block attempts to allow the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices. The 2003 Medicare law, which was written and rammed through Congress by Republicans, prohibits the government from negotiating drug prices or establishing a list of preferred drugs.
The drug companies argue that price negotiations would lead to price controls and restrictions on access to drugs. But Democrats, and most of the public, see the lack of negotiations as a payoff for the $100 million a year that drug companies spend on lobbying, and a main reason the Medicare drug program costs taxpayers so much money.
Democrats also want to allow drug imports from Canada, encourage more generic drugs, and investigate drug profits and advertising.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Agnatha on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
62 Comments
Investors watch Eli Lilly shares drop $2.80 post election.
My issue is Zyprexa which is only FDA approved for schizophrenia (.5-1% of pop) and some bipolar (2% pop) and then an even smaller percentage of theses two groups.
So how does Zyprexa get to be the 7th largest drug sale in the world?
Eli Lilly is in deep trouble for using their drug reps to ‘encourage’ doctors to write zyprexa for non-FDA approved ‘off label’ uses.
The drug causes increased diabetes risk,and medicare picks up all the expensive fallout.There are now 7 states (and counting) going after Lilly for fraud and restitution.
—
Daniel Haszard
I would be extremmely surprised to see congress do something about the pharmaceutical industry. I hope I am. I think they own too much of congress to hold out much hope, though.
the pharmaceutical industry has the largest number of lobbyists and contributes the most to political campaigns. The recently selected leadership of both parties know where their proverbial bread is buttered – don’t expect any major changes to the drug laws / profits —- maybe a national boycott of major companies over the counter products would make a difference??
Doesn’t the federal government fund most of the R&D for drugs?
Will there ever be a true debate and research about the use of medical marijuana?
The pharmaceutical companies have lobbying and bribing down to a science.
Starting at the top they have executives with smoozing skills to wine and dine the powerful. They hire ‘gunslinger’ lobbyists to do the heavy lifting in D.C. Meanwhile the smoozers will wine and dine insurance executives to put out some bad data on their competitor’s drugs. An anti-RD force will fund some inane University study on how good their product is while contributing heavily to a medical department at that University.
The pharmaceutical also wine and dine state legislatures, contribute to PACs and generally take their 800 pound gorilla with them if they need to ‘kill an issue’ that won’t favor their existances.
They keep the little guys happy by passing out all those free samples (pills and meds) at the various medical clinics. At these small clinics they will pass out calendars, pens, desk sets, golf balls like party favor beads during a Mardi Gras parade. This keeps the little guys loyal, doesn’t take much to buy them off.
They offer big name pharmancies “incentives” to keep their product stock on the top shelf and a few extra displays. Pharmacists that don’t get or are a little slow will get a little “extra” in their coat pocket; most come around.
Now, the consumer. They have powerful advertising firms who make warm-voiced, vibrant actors dressed in medical white coats while soft scenic backgrounds along with soothing music draws the prospective customer like a moth to a porch light.
Most people think Medical Doctors, but the Pharmaceuticals also trade with Veterinarians. They will offer many good deals to the Veterinarians to keep their loyalty. Use a particular brand of rabies vaccine? Well, expect some clinic ‘goodies to come along with that vaccine order to keep the Vets loyal.
Veterinary Colleges are heavily wined and dined, research grants are waved around like firework sparklers to attract the uninitiated and lure them into brand loyalty.
Confused about what brand to buy? Not a problem, pharamaceuticals will make sure that the different brands on the shelf you see displayed may have different names and different prices, but they are owned and produced by the same parent companies. Smaller subsidaries under the direction of the parent companies make these ‘cheaper’ versions to attract the budget conscious.
Running for office? Not a problem when you have PAC hustlers in all sorts of disguises making funds available.
After you get in office, you can go to that golf tournament in an exotic place that has had some ‘help’ where rooms are a bit cheaper or free, food is available everywhere. Packaged tours and somehow at beckoned calls where they normally wouldn’t be.
Still not convinced? Well, perhaps your favorite Hollywood actor will get some palm greasing and then proclaim how good such and such is when they may not even use the product. Doesn’t matter right? They are actors after all.
Don’t call me, I’ll be busy attending that party with the University Presidents, State Senators and some local clergy putting on some ‘benefit’ for the culturally powerful. Has anyone seen the shrimp cocktail table?
Later.
I’ve worked in doctors offices and the drug reps were routinely bringing in lunch for the entire staff (that includes receptionists, med assistants, medical transcriptionists, clerical, nurses and doctors). And they didn’t just bring in any old food – they were bringing in Panera Bread, Piccadilly, Macaroni Grill and other nicer than fast-food restaurants.
These lunches were always about the latest push for whatever drug they were pushing that day.
So just imagine one of these lunches every day in just one doctor’s office multiplied by thousands and thousands across the country – the cost of these lunches are passed on to the consumers and this is why nothing will be ever be done about the pharmaceutical companies’ profits.
When money talks – bullshit walks!
There’ still enough republicans to block change to their cash cow.
The pharmaceutical companies will be brought into line when the big oil companies are brought into line and I’m not holding my breath!
The drug companies always whine about the cost of research and blame that for the high cost of drugs, but most of their budget is spent on advertising and marketing. In Japan, drugs can’t be advertised and drug reps can’t give perks to DR’s. That keeps the cost down for the consumer. We should do the same here, plus allow drugs from other countries to make the market more competitive. Drug companies in this country want a monopoly on the market, and they have the politicians in their pockets. The whole Medicare drug program is a nightmare and is costing the taxpayers a fortune. Anytime you throw in government subsidies, greed will take over an industry.
Mary- it used to be the same way here in the US also. I remember a time (I’m 53) where it was considered unethical to advertise medicine on television. Now we are bombarded by all these ads (usually erectile dysfunction medications).
But money is the root of all this crap. There is alot of money in the pharmaceutical business and these companies have found their way to ensure they will get their piece of the pie.
Haszard, my son uses Risperdal for a formerly off-label use, and I’m thrilled beyond words that they did. It was the only medication he would take, and it has improved his life dramatically. They just this past month or so went ahead and approved the use for my son’s condition (autism/anxiety).
We are told the risks, we know the risks. But to us, the benefit greatly outweighs the risk.
Off-label uses have been around for years, to deny doctors (AND PATIENTS) the rights to make their own informed decisions is a bad, bad move.
Sunny is right, I’ve benefitted from the drug reps dinners too. But I do trust my doctor to make the right decision regarding my care.
Those samples are (at least in my dr.’s office) saved for poor who can’t afford insurance.
For about 10 years after a med is approved by the FDA, we’re all still guinea pigs for it’s use.There are times when a new med is better, but go with the tried and trues IF you can.
In my mind, it’s the FDA that has the biggest problem. The drug companies pay the salaries of the FDA, and that is a major conflict of interest. Their salaries depend on the drugs they approve!
And heads of the Dept are often appointed- so if you have an agenda (like Bush against birth control), they can appoint the guys who will back their view.
Silicone breast implants should have NEVER been re-approved by the FDA, but they are. And morning after pills shouldn’t have taken so long to become OTC- their safety and benefit was indisputable.
There are your politics.
The Repub. leaders, took what could have been a very benefical program and made it twice as expensive as it need be. Same as they did with tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Both were filled with Tit-for-Tat, and like they would have done in passing a minimum wage law, if the Dems. hadn’t finally stood up.
“Silicone breast implants should have NEVER been re-approved by theFDA, but they are.”
The above is the top-dog of junk science. There is not one case of any woman dying, or even being seriously harmed, by silicone implants. It was the LAWYERS who manufactured that scare for the sole purpose of MAKING MONEY!!!
Then there was the Alar scare. Remember that one? How many apple orchad owners lost everything because some movie star got before congress and said, “but what’s it doing to our children?” Ten years later, the same scientists who proclaimed it the worst chemical ever said, “oops . . . our bad.”
Junk science . . . the real bane of civilization. Religion hasn’t done half the damage lawyers have with their win-at-all-costs attitude. And we’re enabling them everyday.
Dusty, I don’t think it’s quite that cut-and-dried:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/12/earlyshow/health/health_news/main687545.shtml
But, if your implants rupture, you could always try using a healing crystal. . . :-)
Dusty you seem to think a lot about ‘junk science’. What are your credentials to determine something is ‘junk’?
An IQ above freezing. Maybe you should try to delve into facts instead of fox/cnn/abc/cbs news sources. The internet has it all; all you have to do is search and read.
Idiot.
“The committee heard directly and indirectly from many women who suffer severe systemic illnesses that they firmly believe are due to their silicone breast implants. Many of these women are seriously ill, and the committee was moved by their suffering. However, the committee is convinced that in most instances the silicone breast implants are not causally related to these illnesses since such illnesses appear to occur at about the same frequency in women with silicone breast implants and in women without implants.
On the other hand, the committee was impressed by what appear to be the relatively high frequencies of local complications (such as rupture and contracture) that are unique to women with silicone breast implants. Although they are not life-threatening, these local complications may result in discomfort, inconvenience, disfigurement, pain, and other morbidity and when further corrective procedures are necessary, in additional expense.”
http://www.nap.edu/html/silicone_safety/
Idiot?
“”The committee heard directly and indirectly from many women who suffer severe systemic illnesses that they firmly believe are due to their silicone breast implants.”
But not scientifically proven. Big difference. Which points out the difference between real and junk science.
While silicone implants can and do rupture, the silicone, by itself, causes no disease, cancer, or illness. That they are used for MAINLY personal beautification, thus ego, purposes, should not deter the victum from making the doctor pay for any surgury necessary to correct the breakage.
You want big tits? You also want doctors to be gods. Just why did the government okay silicone implants again? Surly the public outcry would have stopped that. After all, womens groups, such as NOW, MADD, etc, all, by the way, I support, would have stopped it before it got started if there was anything scientiffically proveable concerning silicone implants. You’re beating a dead horse here.And you’re wrong.
Can anybody justify a $6.00 charge on an aspirin at the local hospitals?All the over pricing for medical care, treatments, drugs and insurance, can anybody justify?At what cost is worth the lost of your soul at the end of your own life for the hardships that you have inflicted upon others because you feel that you earned it by working two jobs, going to college getting a degree, make a lot of money and saying “Hey, I am a model citizen in my society and to my fellow man”?‚”Well at lease there are two on this comment board that have confess to the high costs of medicine and will earn good points on judgment day ‚Äì political_mom and sunny.”Anybody else want to make a confession?
Dusty, NOW does oppose silicone breast implants. LOUDLY opposes.While NOW likes to say that women are beautiful no matter how big her breasts are, they have no issue with the use of saline implants.
http://www.now.org/issues/health/implants/
My take:
#1. Doctors, hospitals charge a cash-basis price much lower than their ‘insurance’ price on a net-30 basis (keep it current). Allowed to charge finance and surcharges if beyond 30 days.
#2. Drug companies must divest, publicly, their R&D costs, so that there is some ’sunshine’ on their claims that R&D is causing them malaise.
#3. Direct-To-Consumer Advertising of pharmaceuticals, like cigarette ads on TV, banned. Artificial demand for life or quality of life saving drugs prevents abuse.
#4. You, the consumer, stop being such a f***ing hypochondriac, get on with your life, and unless you NEED a doctor, stop asking for antibiotics to treat your virus.
Damn postal.
I don’t agree with pulling advertising, at least not totally. I think the companies have the right to try to benefit from their research. There are many things your doctor just may not tell you about, and patients being informed consumers is a nice thing to have. I sure haven’t run out to buy Prilosec just because it was advertised. However if it was a problem I had, I’d like to know the different meds available to treat it. Often if you ask your doctor, they WILL tell you what other meds are available.
People are not hypchondriacs. More often than not, people are ignoring the warning signs of serious illness, cancer, heart disease, stroke, and the longer you wait to treat it, the worse off it gets and the more expensive.
Many who NEED to get into the doctor can’t or won’t because they don’t have insurance and know that if their diagnosis comes before they have the chance to get insurance, the insurance won’t pay.
Doctors are not prescribing abx (antibiotics) as they once were. That is a good thing. Even when one asks for it. Cultures should be being done MORE frequently, for treating with abx that don’t work only increases drug resistant strains. Use the right drug the first time. But that would cost more.
Like we’ve been warning for years, the system is just broken. We need universal healthcare now.
PeeMom,We HAVE univeral healthcare now. There isn’t one single person in the US (even the illegals) who can’t get suitable care.
I was gonna say I beg to differ golfnuts.
But begging aint my style.
So I’m gonna be more direct and opine that you are as usual wrong.
I currently have no health insurance. I have any number of needs for health care that I cannot afford. I am far from alone
Emergency rooms are reqired only to provide stabilizing care. I don’t call that “suitable”.
The thread?
We may hope with the dem control of Congress that the joy ride of big pharmaceuticals is over.
JR, so you agree with me.
Healthcare IS available, you just choose not to purchase insurance. That’s your business.
PeeMom has complained in the past about not having health insurance, even though her husband is (or was) a state employee with benefits.
One pack of cigarettes per day equates to about $120/month…about half the cost of the insurance…but, would she quit? No effin’ way…
It’s all about personal choice, huh?
Golfnuts
NO I do not CHOOSE not to purchase health insurance. I cannot afford it.
Your latest post is as inaccurate as your first. By your calculations, health insurance can be had for $240 a month.
I can’t afford that either but I will oblige you to post what carrier offers insurance at that rate. Fail that and I call you a liar.
Nationalized health care IS coming. All that means is YOU will have to spend a few more minutes in the waiting room and a few less at the country club.
Asshole
I’m of the impression that our government subsidizes much of the research that drug companies do?
Testicles is an asshole. No you can’t walk into an ER and say “I found a lump in my breast’.
They’ll turn you around and walk you right out the door, because the first appointment they make with a specialist will NOT take you anyway.
I will have health insurance soon, but it’s not going to be able to cover any of my pre-existing conditions for more than a year.
So FU goofytesticles, you just don’t want to have to see that people do suffer, so you can la-de-dah your butt around in blissful oblivion.
Actually I see Universal Health Care in the future but not because of the Democrats but because US companies, Ford, GM, Walmart ect are getting tired of losing profits paying for health care. Also small business that cant afford to offer health benefits get tired of losing good employees to companies with benefits.
It must be nice to have some of those luxuries!One of the biggest problems with health insurance is they will cover extreme conditions involving hospital stays to a lesser extent or cover some extreme surgical procedures somewhat by a percentage amount, but trying to find a coverage of a specification made by the consumers instead of by committee board members of insurance companies is virtually impossible.Most of your insurances will offer you hospitalization that is fairly good if the need should arise but are very limited when it comes to doctor’s office visits.It is their way of promoting healthy life styles or is that just backwards thinking?It is like the opposite of something like Delta Insurance, you know how it is set up, the worst it is the less they pay, the better your teeth are the more they will pay.It is hard and impossible to find reasonable price insurances for just only doctor’s visits, x-rays, MRI, testing, therapy and prescription medicines without including hospitalization.Political mom, do you know anything about ankylosing spondylitis?
“You’re beating a dead horse here.And you’re wrong.”
How can you say I’m wrong when you just conceded my point??
political_mom and JR are on the same health care plan that I am. Bush’s Plan: Don’t Get Sick.
In order to qualify for medicaid assistance, you have to meet income guidelines. Anyone with a job wouldn’t meet those quidelines, so it’s the working class that get stuck without health care because it’s too damned expensive and they can’t get assistance. $250 a month for health insurance? You’ve got to be kidding! I’ve had cancer, my premiums would be so high that there is no way I could afford to pay for it myself. The average cost for a family to get private insurance is about $800 a month. If given the choice between health insurance and food, which would you choose?Socialized medicine can’t get here soon enough for me. It works in other countries, and we could afford it if we had our priorities straight and quit invading other countries.So what if you have to wait a little longer to see the doctor, at least you could see a doctor when you needed to.
Same ol’ story from the libs…
“I can’t afford it” *bawl*
You certainly don’t have any trouble affording smokes and other non-value-added items in your lives.
I know this: if I didn’t have health insurance, I wouldn’t have ANY non-essentials in order to afford it. It’s not about being able to afford it. It’s about making quality choices for your family.
Hey golfnuts?
Got a link to that $250 insurance you posted about?
Methinks you spend too much time at the 19th hole.
Cigarettes are an affordable antidepressant, and they just might be the thing holding the low-income back from doing a little ‘redistribution of wealth’ by preventing a tremendous sense of hopelessness.
Yes, there are a lot of people on public assistance that purchase ‘non-value-added’ products. I would say the products you’re referring to are alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, and drugs. They tend to crop up in a subsection of society that the world forgot. What you’re forgetting, golfy, is that part of the repression of that lower class is to raise excise taxes on those goods, and to offer lottery tickets (false hope) which are just a voluntary tax. Last I checked, drug and alcohol treatment are expensive as hell, and the only way to get it at low/no cost is either to go 12 step (works for about 3%) or in/outpatient via court order (i.e. you get arrested and convicted, and therefore become even less employable.) Nicotine replacement therapies do NOT work (it’s sorta like methadone… you cannot treat the addiction by giving the person a drug they are addicted to.) They are expensive. If they work, it is in spite of the product, not because of it. Prescription agents are expensive as all hell, and remaining an addict is cheaper and easier. KSGolfslut has probably never dealt directly with addiction, but it’s not pretty, and a lot of times there’s not much ‘choice’ in some instances.
To sum up: The government helps industry and itself to a big chunk of money from the lowest class of people, and only steps in to ‘help’ them when and if they break the law. The poor may pay a very small amount of INCOME TAX, but they pay a very large amount of excise taxes and the like. And where does one get health insurance for less than $300 a month for SELF ONLY, let alone family, Golfy???
Wise all I know is that it’s a kind of ‘freezing’ of the spinal cord, right?
Can you people not read?
$250/month is about the out-of-pocket cost for a family of four for health insurance for a State of Kansas employee that under $30k annually. The actual cost of the insurance is about $800/month, but the state picks up the balance.
I’m using PeeMom as an example because she’s noted in the past that her husband is a state employee.
They raised the price of my husband’s health insurance again this year, so we’re going to be paying 400 a month for two of us.
GoofTesticles truly doesn’t understand life, much less anything else.
My family has never had a person who started smoking, quit totally. I believe I’m one of those who have that gene. And I’ve said that long before anyone even THOUGHT there was a gene for addiction to smoking. My grandmother died of emphysema, and she smoked till the day she died. My mother has had multiple cancers, and she STILL smokes, albeit, one or two a week.
I have quit drinking by myself, quit using drugs by myself, but smoking is the ONLY thing I seem to be unable to quit. It is the strongest thing I have ever known. Who in their right mind would continue to do something so expensive and so bad- unless they couldn’t stop!
Goofy already knows that I feel guilty for smoking. That’s why he keeps bringing it up.
BAWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
As I’ve said before – multiple times – the liberals are GREAT at playing the victim and blaming their self-induced problems on someone else.
“The Smoking Gene”..oh man, now THAT is a laugher.
That’s the same thing as saying…
“My brain is so small that I cannot overcome the power of the gene that forces me to smoke.”
It’s the Force, dammit! Darth Vader is making her smoke!
“Cindy, it is your..destiny”
I hope you’ll avail yourself of a future blog meet up golfnuts. I’ll be glad to tell you to your face that you are a prick.
Ya know? I never can figure out why misanthropes (look it up) are not just honest. Why don’t you just come out and say that the poor should suffer and die. It IS what you mean.
I repeat
Ash…
http://www.apa.org/releases/smoke99.html
I’m not alone. And considering my family history with smoking, doesn’t it seem rather likely that I do, in fact, carry this gene?
It’s ok Jr, I’ve been dealing with this asshole for a very, very long time. He’s PERFECT, and the rest of us are inferior.
Pmom –I have smoked for 33 years and have quit smoking for two years now.It has taken me about five years to learn how to quit.Not all methods work the same way for all people, it is different for everyone.There are three kinds of addictions to smoking.1. Habit2. Chemical3. PsychologicalThe first two are easy to over come but that third one is the hardest, why?Smoking does have associations to what we are doing at our present point in time; we have a need to smoke after a meal, a drink, during working or whenever it is convenient.A lot of people do not realize that you learn how to smoke, when to smoke.In quitting to smoke for some people it will work best to undo that learned process, in other words, you learned how to smoke; now you need to learn how to not smoke.(Do you know anybody that started smoking at two packs a day?)Just the same as it took a long time for you to get one way, it will take you a long time to get the other way.Keep pushing away from it and eventually you will succeed and remember that it is Ok to give in once in awhile but keep pushing away.By the way Pmom, golfnuts is actually the inferior one when it comes to genetic makeup.Your genetic makeup is very adaptable to chemical changes, where his is not, which stands to the reasons of your tolerance to nicotine.P.S. – From my other post, yes it is freezing of the spinal but systemic, wherever ligaments and cartilages are attach.No cure for it, no effective medicine for it either.It was a strong motivational point for me to be able to quit smoking as sooner or later my ribcage will not be able to expand to its full capacity.
JR,I’d happily attend any “gathering” of blogophites. While I don’t take this shit personally, it is clear that you do. *shrug*
Allowing your enemies (clearly, you have labeled me as such) to raise your ire is a sign of weakness. You might work on it prior to any meeting – just friendly advice.
I’m sorry Wiseman, from what I understand of it, its a very painful debilitating disease process.
Never say never, Golfnut, that will only come around and bite you in the ass someday.
Yes, there is a genetic predisposition to addiction, and nicotine addiction is no exception to that. Some people find it easier to quit while others find it nearly impossible. I didn’t have much trouble quiting cigarettes, but my father who was a recovering alcoholic smoked right up to the hour he died.Some experts say that cigarettes are more addictive than heroin, and even after quiting, the craving never goes away for some.
Golfnut, it might do you well to remember “There, but for the grace of God, go I”
Im sure everyone will relish that Nationalized Health Care when it arrives. The Brits and Canuks now wait a minimum of about 18 weeks IF they are allowed to see a doctor. Surgery is even longer. So you need to have little Johnny be sure to let you know ahead if he is planning on falling off the swing etc.
And remember that free lunch you are anticipating will be born either by YOU or the Company you work for.
Those major corps. that are pushing for national health care so they can pull you off their books are also in for a surprise. So what if they pull you off the books. Guess who will be on the books then….Uncle Sam in a BIG way. Imagine what the new Corporate Tax rate will be when they have to start paying tax big time for EVERYONE and not just their self selected and likely more healthy employees.
Oh, and that evil amount of money these companies have been making…for the last 30 years the return on investment for Oil co. = 9%, for Pharma co. = 14% but the ones we really need to watch for are those evil Newspaper cos. which make about 20%.
It’s still the ol’ blame/victim mentality.
Since you have the “smoking gene”, then you certainly aren’t responsible for your addictive behavior.
Blame it on the Force!
Mr Bill, you should talk to some who actually live under Universal Healthcare. THEY say the reason for the wait (and there is no wait for emergency surgery) is because the doctors all leave Canada to come to the states.
Their healthcare ALL outrank the USA, in quality, AVERAGE TIME, and satisfaction with the system.
Remember, if you DON’T have health insurance, the wait for services is FAR longer than just a mere few weeks. It could be years if at all.
Besides, you already pay for your own healthcare, and national healthcare anyhow. So I really don’t see why the ones who have health insurance now are complaining.
I said a few years ago, you who have it, you better be happy you do, because you might be next. And I’ve known people who have lost it.
Me, at least I only pay for what I use right now. You’re paying double.
The final nail in the coffin of the debate for “National Healthcare”….
HIGHER TAXES.
The end.
The Republican Party ran on a platform of moral values. Why then is the US the last industrialized nation to have universal health insurance? Isn’t having healthy citizens a moral value for our country?
I surmise the real reason we don’t have universal health insurance is because then the fat cats won’t be raking in the millions of profits off the backs of the average American citizens.
the middle class are already expected to work longer hours for less pay due to outsourcing of jobs. And then corporations wonder why there is no longer any loyalty to the company – it’s because the company sold the employees down the river for an extra penny profit.
If higher taxes would be less than I pay for my health insurance, then it would be cheaper to go with the higher taxes – wouldn’t it?
Plus, with universal health insurance – everyone will have insurance. Not just those without any pre-existing conditions.
In the current system, I have to pay for health insurance plus I am paying taxes for those without health insurance that do go to the hospital’s ER. Where do you think those hospitals get the money they lose on uninsured people? They go after everybody else by raising their prices.
so, yeah, charge me higher taxes and I would save money bottom line.
Lucee,I don’t think you get it. You’ll pay the taxes you pay now PLUS taxes that are higher than what you pay for care now.
PLUS, the service at the hospitals, clinics, doctors offices…they’ll all have the same level of service as other government offices: the DMV, the drivers license office, the post office, the court system, the police….
No thanks – I think capitalism is far better.
I WANT you paying higher taxes golfnuts. I’ll pay mine too but since you make your living off the backs of others well I figure you owe some extra.
I bet you DO think capitalism is better. You probably never really worked a day in your life.
Way up thread, Dingus is right once more. The driving force for a national health coverage is going to come from big business. As it stands now, U.S. companies when competing with European companies have to figure in 10% greater costs due to their health care obligations that European companies do not have to worry about — because their governments are invested in helping citizens AND corporations.
This will be a big issue in the 2008 election.
Competition as the only answer in medical care is so 19th-century-rust-belt-zero-sum-game-myopia, that I am sure you Repubs will feel much better when the voters install adults into government to solve this problem.
Competition is PART of the ANSWER, but not the ONLY ANSWER.
Sorry guys, your time is over. Graciously concede the obvious and go away.
Actually statistically, those countries with national healthcare pay less than we do now.
So yes, the taxes will be higher, but you’ll be paying less.