So where to begin. Bionicarm has posted so much wrong information and double speak this is going to be hard. But here we go.
You watch too much Hannity.
I don't watch Hannity. But regardless this has no bearing on the discussion. It is just your way to discredit someone's information without truly discrediting.
My wife's insurance is cheaper because they have over 15,000 employees nationwide paying into the same insurance system. When you have that many individuals paying into a plan, the provider is going to give them significant cost incentives.
Really? Then doing some simple math because the corporation picks up 70% of your wifes premium and you guys only pay 30%, we quickly see your entire premium's true cost per month is near 1200 dollars. Should we compare your plans true cost to other plans on the market? Does the 15,000 employee pool make a dent in that compared to private insurance?
As far as the hospitals getting tax breaks? Of course they do. But they also pay a significant price for providing those benefits to their employees. Why do you think it's the norm now to hire contract workers as opposed to hiring individuals to work directly for the company? A corporation can save at least 30% in overhead costs by hiring contractors because they don't have to provide them benefits. When a corporation hires someone directly for $20/hr, they are actually paying that individual $45/hr when you roll in all the benefits. On the flip side, they can hire a contractor for the same job for $35/hr flat rate and come out ahead.
I never said the tax break was a bad thing. Just pointed out this is why they provide and pay for so much of your medical insurance. The rest of the paragraph has no correlation with ACA or the health insurance industry, so you may as well have Typed about pink donkeys licking rainbows.
Private insurance was never intended to be affordable. It's always been that lonely alternative for those who don't work for large corporations or employers that provide benefits like health insurance, 401k's, vacation time, sick leave, etc.
Interesting...So what was the point of ACA? Wasn't it supposed to make private insurance affordable for those that dont have access to to corporate funded health insurance? You are contradicting yourself here and making no sense.
However, there are millions of individuals that aren't in our financial positions that have an alternative. Prior to ACA being implemented, if those individuals were to quit their corporate jobs that provide those types of benefits, they'd be homeless or destitute by the time they reached retirement if they had to go to the ridiculous private insurance route you apparently have chosen to use. Unless they are on medicaid, they still have to go the private insurance route. Sure they might get a small subsidy...but when the cheapest plan for a family of three starts at almost 500 a month.......The average middle class family forced to use private insurance can not afford that even with a subsidy.
If the idiot Tea Baggers would've given the full plan a chance to work, and kept the lawsuits out of the Supreme Court, we would've been able to find out if it was flawed or not. Now that option is off the table? Who knows how to fix it to get the overall costs down with the exception of more individuals joining the program to get the overall costs reduced.
So it is the fault of the Tea Baggers that the democrats wrote a law that was not legal to write? That is the job of the congress, to write proper legal laws. Or do you believe the supreme court should weigh in on issues such as Roe VS. Wade only. I dont see you complaining about that over stepping of power by states trying to ban abortion.
Half the doctors in Texas don't take Medicaid because they can't get paid.
They get paid, they just get paid significantly less and have higher administration costs to do so. Why accept something that pays you half and costs you double to perform, when there are other alternatives. Regardless, until Texas Doctors accept medicaid on a larger scale, Texas can't sustain the medicaid increase of patients from a logistics stance. This is not the Fault of the governor...nor the state.
The Feds offered Rick Perry millions in Medicaid aide and he refused it. He claims "Texans can take care of their own people", yet children of lower income families can't get low-cost medical care because of it.
Now that is an outright lie meant to tear at heart strings and try to make your viewpoint more defesable. Poor children are covered in Texas by Medicaid if enrolled. It is the adults that the expansion is not happening for.
Senior citizens are getting their benefits reduced to the point that they can't afford to stay in their nursing homes because their SS benefits don't cover all the bill. Link please. I did several google searchs concerning senior citizens having benefits reduced in Texas and nothing turned up.
Patent laws for drugs are a joke. You know why drug companies have to file those patents in the first place, and play those ridiculous rules? The FDA. You know how many of the drugs you use every day that you say these companies deserved to charge these ridiculous prices are readily available in Europe and in other foreign countries for half the cost? Because they aren't shouldered by the antiquated laws set forth by the FDA to get a new drug approved to even get a patent or go on the market in the first place.
Finally, a semi Valid complaint about cost. This we can discuss.Reducing the cost of prescriptions Is a valid topic. But to truly discuss I must give you a quick lesson on a number of things, that explain why the cost is the way it is outside of the Patent reason.
1. The U.S. accounts for over 50% of the R&D in the medical field for the entire world. Some is funded by government, But half is funded by private entities.
2. While I do find it comical in another thread you were praising the FDA for keeping things safe for consumers in this country which once again shows a conflicting logic within your arguement. Either the FDA does a good job keeping people safe enforcing things, or they are corrupt and only out for money?
However, Your FDA point is valid...to an extent. For a longtime the FDA did not allow foreign Purchases of prescriptions. Now with the invention of the internet a good many prescription drugs can be ordered from other countries for as much as a 50% cost reduction. However this is only for select drugs that have been on the market for a long time and minimal risk of counterfeitting because of this. However the drugs still covered under patent do no apply, since they are still being monitored for potential lawsuits...as well as counterfeiting new drugs can pose a serious health risk to many U.S. citizens. The same FDA laws are not followed by other countries and thus counterfeits have shown up. Lipito was the most recent, before their patent ran out there was counterfeit lipitor invading the U.S. market at half the cost...but none of the benefits and several deadly side effects.
3. Since the ACA bill was only written and passed by democrats one would think, since they are the party that "cares" they could have put in a stipulation that the federal government buys all prescriptions from the companies and negotiates price....this is how most other countries do it. Thus why most prescriptions are 75% less compared to our cost.....a true cost reducing measure....Probably because they agree with the U.S. citizens unintentionally subsidizing Europe's prescriptions...this way they can keep pointing at Europes healthcare as ideal for cost reduction.
There is so much more information I could impart concern Prescription drug laws implemented by the FDA but it would probably cloud the discussion further than it already has.
My sister-in-law used to fly to Paris three times a year to obtain an "experimental drug" to fight her ovarian cancer that the FDA wasn't planning to approve for another 10 - 15 years. It saved her life. There are countless other drugs available overseas that are known to save lives and cure diseases that aren't available in the US because of stupid FDA regulations.
This sounds good when spoken. And many might agree with you. But I have to ask, if this is truly the case....how come European men have only a 47.3 percent five-year survival rate, compared to a 66.3 percent in the U.S. concerning all forms of cancer. European women have a 55.8 percent chance of being alive five years after being diagnosed with any type of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent of American women. In the U.S. breast, Thyroid, Prostate and skin cancer are higher than 90 percent, Europe can't match that. Yet they have all these miracle unapproved prescriptions we don't have.....Should their survival rate atleast equal ours if not surpass it?
I agree completely about dealing with the costs. Problem is, the Republicans are deep in bed with the medical providers and drug makers, they'd never create any laws that would regulate the prices.
Yet ACA is a PURE democrat written and passed bill. Not one single republican signed on or contributed. All of the republican input was thrown out and ignored. So since ACA did not deal with any aspects of costs in the medical field, your statement should read " Problem is, the Democrats are deep in bed with the medical providers and drug makers, they'd never create any laws that would regulate the prices."
How many millions over the age of 65 sit at home getting Medicare on the taxpayer's dime?
Everyone pays in to medicare the same percentage based off how much they make. They are getting back their taxes they paid in.
Editted to add...an price regulations placed on the medical industry will reduce medical research and development considerably. I am unsure if the trade out is worth it. I would have to see more indepth numbers and think on this further.
