President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Rockindeano]

Here everyone:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_c ... hcare.html

Again...a Canadian doctor...4 month waits for radiation treatments, days (not DAY, DAYS plural) long waits in the ER, PET and CAT scan machines off limits to patient care because they are being used for animal research???

DO YOU WANT THIS?

I don't know. let's see, wait for 2 days for a CAT scan, or never get one at all. Real easy choice.

Not TWO days for a cat scan...weeks...2 day for ER care.

So you do want that?

Again, you are full of shit.

Just curious...what location are you referring to? Canada is a very large and expansive land, with remote locales. This story you mention absolutely did not happen in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton or Toronto. I bet it happened out in Moose Jaw or Brandon.

Shall I post an article of the man here in Los Angeles who died in the ER at MLK hospital? He died right in the ER room, and not one hospital personnel touched him because he lacked care.

There are sensational stories from BOTH sides, so please, keep it real.

[S2M]

Reality

[RossValoryRocks]

Why do you think you can buy the SAME drug in Vancouver for 75% cheaper than you can in Denver?

Because the Canadian government set the prices on prescription drugs.

Dean you just don't know what you are talking about.

Go do some research...then get back to us.

YOU are the one who is full of shit. You just spew out certain favourable articles you find. hell, I can go find liberal articles and post them here, and call it gospel too. Does that make it right?

I have a fundamental disagreement with you, and you cannot stand the fact that I am giving you fits on this.

No I can't stand the fact you are being an IDIOT...when I know you are smarter than you are acting.

That isn't a LIBERAL article...it is one written by a Canadian doctor after working IN the system...Everyone here sees how you operate...when you can't refute the fact you try and discredit either the person giving the facts or where they get the information from. Democrat tactics 101. You learned well.

[S2M]

Reality is that Drug companies need to recoup the R&D money....you think they are gonna take the reach around on that? I think there needs to be a law on just how long a pharma can recoup money before they have to make the drug affordable. But that's just my line of thinking. Money before life, right?

[RossValoryRocks]

Here everyone:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_c ... hcare.html

Again...a Canadian doctor...4 month waits for radiation treatments, days (not DAY, DAYS plural) long waits in the ER, PET and CAT scan machines off limits to patient care because they are being used for animal research???

DO YOU WANT THIS?

I don't know. let's see, wait for 2 days for a CAT scan, or never get one at all. Real easy choice.

Not TWO days for a cat scan...weeks...2 day for ER care.

So you do want that?

Again, you are full of shit.

Shall I post an article of the man here in Los Angeles who died in the ER at MLK hospital? He died right in the ER room, and not one hospital personnel touched him because he lacked care.

There are sensational stories from BOTH sides, so please, keep it real.

First it was a woman, and she wasn't denied care because she didn't have coverage, she died because the ER was a shitty ER...I read the article...but please post it again...It was because the piss poor ER staff thought she was looking for pain killers and "faking" puking blood...so don't blame it on not having coverage and the like...completely disengenous argument.

MLK is known as "Killer King" because it is just a TERRIBLE hospital...

[Angel]

Shall I post an article of the man here in Los Angeles who died in the ER at MLK hospital? He died right in the ER room, and not one hospital personnel touched him because he lacked care.

He probably didn't get care because the ER was already packed with colds, earaches, backaches and anxiety-all things that do NOT require an ER visit. It is illegal for a person to be denied care in an ER for lack of insurance and it carries a minimum $50,000 fine for each incident so I can pretty much guarantee you that this person did not die because he was refused care due to lack of insurance.

[Angel]

Reality is that Drug companies need to recoup the R&D money....you think they are gonna take the reach around on that? I think there needs to be a law on just how long a pharma can recoup money before they have to make the drug affordable. But that's just my line of thinking. Money before life, right?

They do....7 years. Then a generic can be made and often times the brand name drug price will drop as well to compete with the generic, but since the generic is the SAME thing most people just get the generic anyway.

[RossValoryRocks]

Shall I post an article of the man here in Los Angeles who died in the ER at MLK hospital? He died right in the ER room, and not one hospital personnel touched him because he lacked care.

He probably didn't get care because the ER was already packed with colds, earaches, backaches and anxiety-all things that do NOT require an ER visit. It is illegal for a person to be denied care in an ER for lack of insurance and it carries a minimum $50,000 fine for each incident so I can pretty much guarantee you that this person did not die because he was refused care due to lack of insurance.

No the ER staff thought she was looking for drugs to feed her habit...and they just let her die...terrible yes...but not because the woman did or didn't have coverage...but because that hospital is just a terrible hospital.

[Angel]

Shall I post an article of the man here in Los Angeles who died in the ER at MLK hospital? He died right in the ER room, and not one hospital personnel touched him because he lacked care.

He probably didn't get care because the ER was already packed with colds, earaches, backaches and anxiety-all things that do NOT require an ER visit. It is illegal for a person to be denied care in an ER for lack of insurance and it carries a minimum $50,000 fine for each incident so I can pretty much guarantee you that this person did not die because he was refused care due to lack of insurance.

No the ER staff thought she was looking for drugs to feed her habit...and they just let her die...terrible yes...but not because the woman did or didn't have coverage...but because that hospital is just a terrible hospital.

I've read many similar stories so I couldn't remember the specifics of this one but I knew it wasn't for lack of coverage.

[S2M]

Reality is that Drug companies need to recoup the R&D money....you think they are gonna take the reach around on that? I think there needs to be a law on just how long a pharma can recoup money before they have to make the drug affordable. But that's just my line of thinking. Money before life, right?

They do....7 years. Then a generic can be made and often times the brand name drug price will drop as well to compete with the generic, but since the generic is the SAME thing most people just get the generic anyway.

Hmmm....I think that is true, but if a person has good coverage they get the brand name, and the drug company gets the full price....if the person is under-insured, or it's out of pocket - they get generic, no?

[Angel]

Reality is that Drug companies need to recoup the R&D money....you think they are gonna take the reach around on that? I think there needs to be a law on just how long a pharma can recoup money before they have to make the drug affordable. But that's just my line of thinking. Money before life, right?

They do....7 years. Then a generic can be made and often times the brand name drug price will drop as well to compete with the generic, but since the generic is the SAME thing most people just get the generic anyway.

Hmmm....I think that is true, but if a person has good coverage they get the brand name, and the drug company gets the full price....if the person is under-insured, or it's out of pocket - they get generic, no?

It's the person's choice if they want name brand or generic, regardless of coverage, unless the provider specifically orders the brand name and indicates to "dispense as written." There are VERY few cases in which a brand name is required over a generic. Most people choose generic because even if they have insurance coverage their co-pay is usually less.

[RossValoryRocks]

Reality is that Drug companies need to recoup the R&D money....you think they are gonna take the reach around on that? I think there needs to be a law on just how long a pharma can recoup money before they have to make the drug affordable. But that's just my line of thinking. Money before life, right?

They do....7 years. Then a generic can be made and often times the brand name drug price will drop as well to compete with the generic, but since the generic is the SAME thing most people just get the generic anyway.

Hmmm....I think that is true, but if a person has good coverage they get the brand name, and the drug company gets the full price....if the person is under-insured, or it's out of pocket - they get generic, no?

Ok...so how do ofset the cost of researching the drug? It IS VERY expensive to bring a drug to market.

Not being a smart ass here...asking a serious question...the US drug companies do something on the order of 75% of the worlds research precisely because they CAN make the money back...what happens when they can't anymore because some liberal thinks it is "immoral"?

[Rockindeano]

Reality is that Drug companies need to recoup the R&D money....you think they are gonna take the reach around on that? I think there needs to be a law on just how long a pharma can recoup money before they have to make the drug affordable. But that's just my line of thinking. Money before life, right?

They do....7 years. Then a generic can be made and often times the brand name drug price will drop as well to compete with the generic, but since the generic is the SAME thing most people just get the generic anyway.

Hmmm....I think that is true, but if a person has good coverage they get the brand name, and the drug company gets the full price....if the person is under-insured, or it's out of pocket - they get generic, no?

Ok...so how do ofset the cost of researching the drug? It IS VERY expensive to bring a drug to market.

Not being a smart ass here...asking a serious question...the US drug companies do something on the order of 75% of the worlds research precisely because they CAN make the money back...what happens when they can't anymore because some liberal thinks it is "immoral"?

The fact you must always get in a "Liberal" shot, further discredits anything you say. You prove you are a repetitive right wing zealot, Hell bent on spreading the Hannity sermon. it's ridiculous. But I am the idiot, right?

[S2M]

Reality is that Drug companies need to recoup the R&D money....you think they are gonna take the reach around on that? I think there needs to be a law on just how long a pharma can recoup money before they have to make the drug affordable. But that's just my line of thinking. Money before life, right?

They do....7 years. Then a generic can be made and often times the brand name drug price will drop as well to compete with the generic, but since the generic is the SAME thing most people just get the generic anyway.

Hmmm....I think that is true, but if a person has good coverage they get the brand name, and the drug company gets the full price....if the person is under-insured, or it's out of pocket - they get generic, no?

It's the person's choice if they want name brand or generic, regardless of coverage, unless the provider specifically orders the brand name and indicates to "dispense as written." There are VERY few cases in which a brand name is required over a generic. Most people choose generic because even if they have insurance coverage their co-pay is usually less.

Yeah, but again....I don't care how you divy it up...if a script costs $80...who cares if Ins pays $60, and the insured pays $20....the cost is still $80....the company gets FULL PRICE.

[Angel]

But I am the idiot, right?

Right.

[Angel]

Yeah, but again....I don't care how you divy it up...if a script costs $80...who cares if Ins pays $60, and the insured pays $20....the cost is still $80....the company gets FULL PRICE.

Yes, that's correct. Although, once a drug goes generic the brand name drug price usually drops dramatically as well. The moral of the story is, always choose generic.

[RossValoryRocks]

Reality is that Drug companies need to recoup the R&D money....you think they are gonna take the reach around on that? I think there needs to be a law on just how long a pharma can recoup money before they have to make the drug affordable. But that's just my line of thinking. Money before life, right?

They do....7 years. Then a generic can be made and often times the brand name drug price will drop as well to compete with the generic, but since the generic is the SAME thing most people just get the generic anyway.

Hmmm....I think that is true, but if a person has good coverage they get the brand name, and the drug company gets the full price....if the person is under-insured, or it's out of pocket - they get generic, no?

Ok...so how do ofset the cost of researching the drug? It IS VERY expensive to bring a drug to market.

Not being a smart ass here...asking a serious question...the US drug companies do something on the order of 75% of the worlds research precisely because they CAN make the money back...what happens when they can't anymore because some liberal thinks it is "immoral"?

The fact you must always get in a "Liberal" shot, further discredits anything you say. You prove you are a repetitive right wing zealot, Hell bent on spreading the Hannity sermon. it's ridiculous. But I am the idiot, right?

What like you and your "con" shots?

I merely operate as you do...you talked all about being a kinder gentler Deano...and we see where that leads...

I am no right wing zealot...I have moderate to liberal on many issues...but fiscally I am a tried and true conservative...I don't have NEARLY as rigid a stance as you do on my political leanings.

And once again, when you can't refute someone with a fact, you make a personal attack. Face it you got owned tonight precisely because you won't challenge your own beliefs...must be great to be as infallible as you are.

[S2M]

Reality is that Drug companies need to recoup the R&D money....you think they are gonna take the reach around on that? I think there needs to be a law on just how long a pharma can recoup money before they have to make the drug affordable. But that's just my line of thinking. Money before life, right?

They do....7 years. Then a generic can be made and often times the brand name drug price will drop as well to compete with the generic, but since the generic is the SAME thing most people just get the generic anyway.

Hmmm....I think that is true, but if a person has good coverage they get the brand name, and the drug company gets the full price....if the person is under-insured, or it's out of pocket - they get generic, no?

Ok...so how do ofset the cost of researching the drug? It IS VERY expensive to bring a drug to market.

Not being a smart ass here...asking a serious question...the US drug companies do something on the order of 75% of the worlds research precisely because they CAN make the money back...what happens when they can't anymore because some liberal thinks it is "immoral"?

Ok...along those same lines. Just because a hospital owns a 3 million dollar(i don't know how much a machine really costs) MRI machine....does that mean they can charge whatever they want per MRI? At what point does it become egregious?

[Angel]

Ok...along those same lines. Just because a hospital owns a 3 million dollar(i don't know how much a machine really costs) MRI machine....does that mean they can charge whatever they want per MRI? At what point does it become egregious?

Well, actually, yes. Now, if they charge too much people will go somewhere else for their MRI, insurance companies or government programs will say how much they will pay so the hospital needs to find the balance-how much can they charge to cover the cost and still get patients to come use their service. Now of course if the is only one MRI machine in the whole country then yes, the hospital will probably charge lots more than if there's one in every hospital in the world.

AND if the hospital had to pay for millions of dollars in research before they could bill for the use of the machine then they would charge more to recoup those costs as well.

[RossValoryRocks]

Reality is that Drug companies need to recoup the R&D money....you think they are gonna take the reach around on that? I think there needs to be a law on just how long a pharma can recoup money before they have to make the drug affordable. But that's just my line of thinking. Money before life, right?

They do....7 years. Then a generic can be made and often times the brand name drug price will drop as well to compete with the generic, but since the generic is the SAME thing most people just get the generic anyway.

Hmmm....I think that is true, but if a person has good coverage they get the brand name, and the drug company gets the full price....if the person is under-insured, or it's out of pocket - they get generic, no?

Ok...so how do ofset the cost of researching the drug? It IS VERY expensive to bring a drug to market.

Not being a smart ass here...asking a serious question...the US drug companies do something on the order of 75% of the worlds research precisely because they CAN make the money back...what happens when they can't anymore because some liberal thinks it is "immoral"?

Ok...along those same lines. Just because a hospital owns a 3 million dollar(i don't know how much a machine really costs) MRI machine....does that mean they can charge whatever they want per MRI? At what point does it become egregious?

Most, if not all, hospitals are not-for-profit or non-profit if you prefer and as such the costs are kept pretty much in check. The hospital figured out what its cost is to provide a MRI and charges that.

[S2M]

Things cost astronomical amounts because there are insurance companies...I'm like Dean, I LOATHE insurance companies. If there were no IC - prices would either be affordable, or we'd have 1000s of people dying every day.....

"jeesh Mr. Jones. You got this pain in your left thoracic quadrant? Here's 10 tests we need to run....good thing you got insurance....<<wink>>" THAT'S why healthcare is so expensive.

[RossValoryRocks]

Things cost astronomical amounts because there are insurance companies...I'm like Dean, I LOATHE insurance companies. If there were no IC - prices would either be affordable, or we'd have 1000s of people dying every day.....

"jeesh Mr. Jones. You got this pain in your left thoracic quadrant? Here's 10 tests we need to run....good thing you got insurance....<<wink>>" THAT'S why healthcare is so expensive.

NO...it is expensive because if doctors DIDN'T run all those tests and people died because they skipped one they would be sued into oblivion.

LAYWERS are worse than insurance companies.

In fact doctors that over use testing can get in trouble with the insurance companies.

[RedWingFan]

Things cost astronomical amounts because there are insurance companies...I'm like Dean, I LOATHE insurance companies. If there were no IC - prices would either be affordable, or we'd have 1000s of people dying every day.....

"jeesh Mr. Jones. You got this pain in your left thoracic quadrant? Here's 10 tests we need to run....good thing you got insurance....<<wink>>" THAT'S why healthcare is so expensive.

Exactly, and what Obamacare will do is dwarf what IC's do now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI

[Angel]

Things cost astronomical amounts because there are insurance companies...I'm like Dean, I LOATHE insurance companies. If there were no IC - prices would either be affordable, or we'd have 1000s of people dying every day.....

"jeesh Mr. Jones. You got this pain in your left thoracic quadrant? Here's 10 tests we need to run....good thing you got insurance....<<wink>>" THAT'S why healthcare is so expensive.

You assume A LOT!

I AM a healthcare provider-I order tests, I order medications, I order procedures and I can promise you that I NEVER order a test that isn't needed. There are some tests that are optional and I discuss these with patients extensively so they can decide if they want the test done or not. At the same time I have to cover my own ass. If a patient has symptoms I have to fully investigate it so I may order a test that comes back totally normal and some may percieve that as unnecessary since it was normal but I have to check it because if there's a problem and I DIDN'Tcheck it then I put my license, my career and my lifestyle on the line. The bottom line is that it offends me greatly when people suggest that I order tests, procedures, etc just to make money.

[S2M]

Things cost astronomical amounts because there are insurance companies...I'm like Dean, I LOATHE insurance companies. If there were no IC - prices would either be affordable, or we'd have 1000s of people dying every day.....

"jeesh Mr. Jones. You got this pain in your left thoracic quadrant? Here's 10 tests we need to run....good thing you got insurance....<<wink>>" THAT'S why healthcare is so expensive.

NO...it is expensive because if doctors DIDN'T run all those tests and people died because they skipped one they would be sued into oblivion.

LAYWERS are worse than insurance companies.

In fact doctors that over use testing can get in trouble with the insurance companies.

Please, Stu....don't get me started on attorneys.....

Is what morality is it ok for a lawfirm to get 40,000,000 for winning a class-action suit for plaintiffs who have died from some drug's side effects, while each co-plaintiff only gets 50,000?

[Angel]

In fact doctors that over use testing can get in trouble with the insurance companies.

Exactly! And every test that's ordered has to be justified. I can't just run a battery of tests for the hell of it-I have to give a diagnosis or a symptom to justify EVERY test I order.

[Angel]

Is what morality is it ok for a lawfirm to get 40,000,000 for winning a class-action suit for plaintiffs who have died from some drug's side effects, while each co-plaintiff only gets 50,000?

Oh good! We agree on something!

[S2M]

In fact doctors that over use testing can get in trouble with the insurance companies.

Exactly! And every test that's ordered has to be justified. I can't just run a battery of tests for the hell of it-I have to give a diagnosis or a symptom to justify EVERY test I order.

Then why do I get billed $80 for 2 Tylenol?

[RossValoryRocks]

Things cost astronomical amounts because there are insurance companies...I'm like Dean, I LOATHE insurance companies. If there were no IC - prices would either be affordable, or we'd have 1000s of people dying every day.....

"jeesh Mr. Jones. You got this pain in your left thoracic quadrant? Here's 10 tests we need to run....good thing you got insurance....<<wink>>" THAT'S why healthcare is so expensive.

NO...it is expensive because if doctors DIDN'T run all those tests and people died because they skipped one they would be sued into oblivion.

LAYWERS are worse than insurance companies.

In fact doctors that over use testing can get in trouble with the insurance companies.

Please, Stu....don't get me started on attorneys.....

Is what morality is it ok for a lawfirm to get 40,000,000 for winning a class-action suit for plaintiffs who have died from some drug's side effects, while each co-plaintiff only gets 50,000?

It isnt...lawyers though are a necessary evil...but their take in lawsuits should be capped to something reasonable.

Fortunately I have 3 of them in my family that charge me nothing for my legal needs.

[RossValoryRocks]

In fact doctors that over use testing can get in trouble with the insurance companies.

Exactly! And every test that's ordered has to be justified. I can't just run a battery of tests for the hell of it-I have to give a diagnosis or a symptom to justify EVERY test I order.

Then why do I get billed $80 for 2 Tylenol?

To pay for the nursing, the doctor and equipment used to treat you while you are in the hospital.