Healthcare reform

[Texsox]

If anyone said insurance companies don't profit, they're misinformed or lying.

 

They do profit...they just don't profit that much. You know who has higher profits? Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and the like...which will continue to have the same (or higher) profits than they have right now.

 

And I see people spouting these percentages of administrative overhead when it comes to insurance companies, with no evidence to back these claims. From what company? I work for Blue Cross Blue Shield, and I assure you our administrative overhead is nowhere near 30%. That reeks of cherry picking inflated statistics from what is probably the worst run health insurer in the country and using it as a blanket fact applied to all.

 

The bill does a hell of a job curtailing the huge 3% profits from health insurance companies...

 

But does nothing to curtail the even higher profit margins from drug companies, hospitals, etc. In essence, nothing truly changed...we're just going to have raise your premiums even more now. Whether you pay for it or the government/taxpayers help, we're still getting paid. Doesn't sound like much was accomplished in terms of cost savings, which was the key point of this entire thing...

 

Since I own quite a few drug companies (stocks), I just did a quick check of some of the money they make -- oh, and thanks to this bill, I'm banking on those drug companies now.

 

Merck

Revenue: 23,850,000,000

Cost of Revenue: 5,582,000,000

Minus R&D, Admin, and other --

 

5,053,000,000 CLEAR profit.

 

And yes, those are billions, with a B.

 

Bristol-Myers Squibb

Revenue: 18,808,000,000

Cost of Revenue: 5,140,000,000

Minus R&D, Admin and other --

 

5,052,000,000 CLEAR profit.

 

I work for Blue Cross Blue Shield.

 

It would take us 7.5+ YEARS to clear that kind of profit. It's actually considerably longer than that, but I don't have exact numbers so I'm giving an ultra liberal estimation there. In reality, it'd probably take us longer than a decade to turn that.

 

The best part is, part of this reform was made via back room deals with those drug companies -- so those profits you see above, they're about to get a whole lot bigger.

 

Not that I'm complaining, it'll put my kids through college.

 

But the point is, you watched the left hand, when the trick was being done with the right. One TINY area of health care was "fixed", while the larger parts of it were left alone, or actually HELPED. Good job.

 

I do not get too worked up over profit. Their are too many factors that determine profits. Perhaps the drug companies could be less efficient and pay their employees more to match profit percentages. What we should have is a level playing field and then allow companies to profit as they can.

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Hea...pIAGYDut-A.cspx

 

The same day a brick crashed through her Niagara Falls office, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D) says her staff discovered an assassination threat aimed at her family members. The Democratic headquarters in Rochester was also targeted.

 

No one was inside when the brick was hurled through the Democratic Patry Headquarters on University Avenue. Attached was a note quoting conservative Barry Goldwater: “Exremism [sic] in defense of liberty is no vice”.

 

The note was the only clue -- until now.

 

“I’m advocating broken windows. I’m advocating vandalism," says Mike Vanderboegh. We spoke to him by phone from his home in Pinson, Alabama.

 

Vanderboegh is referring to his blog called Sipsey Street Irregulars. He says his invitation to “break windows…break them now” is behind the incident in Rochester and at least two others in Tucson and Kansas. The message to Democrats should be clear.

 

"Wake up and understand what is happening in this country. You need to start listening to people who you think you didn't have to pay any attention to, because sooner or later they will get your attention," he says.

 

Congressman Louise Slaughter has a different take about the violence and anger. “I think it says the misinformation that people were given has worried them to a frenzy. They're worried about their jobs and their health insurance and to have this perpetual whipping up of untruths has been very bad," she said by phone from Washington.

 

Slaughter has been at the center of the push for reform. Last Thursday she received a chilling recorded message at her campaign office. “Assassinate is the word they used…toward the children of lawmakers who voted yes."

[StrangeSox]

Hey remember when conservatives flipped out over Homeland Security raising awareness about nutty fringe conservative groups? Yeah, that was uncalled for.

[Y2HH]

I do not get too worked up over profit. Their are too many factors that determine profits. Perhaps the drug companies could be less efficient and pay their employees more to match profit percentages. What we should have is a level playing field and then allow companies to profit as they can.

 

Wasn't part of the deal with the drug companies to ban some foreign drug imports or something to that effect? I'd have to look that up because there is a lot of misinformation out there about this, but if that is the case, that's not creating a level playing field, it's slanting it in the American drug companies favor.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Y2HH

[bmags]

props to the stevie wonder title.

[Balta1701]

Wasn't part of the deal with the drug companies to ban some foreign drug imports or something to that effect? I'd have to look that up because there is a lot of misinformation out there about this, but if that is the case, that's not creating a level playing field, it's slanting it in the American drug companies favor.

The deal with the drug companies was that this reform bill and the Obama administration would not push drug re-importation or allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices in exchange for them supporting the bill and cutting their prices over 10 years by the equivalent of $85 billion.

 

There's nothing in that deal that would stop a Congressperson from successfully pushing that in a bill or having Obama's 2012 opponent try to back him into supporting it. However, that would require a Republican who was willing to take on the Drug industry.

[vandy125]

Wasn't part of the deal with the drug companies to ban some foreign drug imports or something to that effect? I'd have to look that up because there is a lot of misinformation out there about this, but if that is the case, that's not creating a level playing field, it's slanting it in the American drug companies favor.

 

Don't forget about the sweet deal with the 12 years that they get on exclusivity with their name-brand drugs. That will make it harder to access the generic, lower costing drugs. We will pay more because of that one.

[Y2HH]

The deal with the drug companies was that this reform bill and the Obama administration would not push drug re-importation or allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices in exchange for them supporting the bill and cutting their prices over 10 years by the equivalent of $85 billion.

 

There's nothing in that deal that would stop a Congressperson from successfully pushing that in a bill or having Obama's 2012 opponent try to back him into supporting it. However, that would require a Republican who was willing to take on the Drug industry.

 

So now a republican has to save the day because of a bad deal the democrats made all the while saying they were saving their people money?

 

Again.

 

Save the bulls*** for someone stupid enough to buy it.

[Balta1701]

So now a republican has to save the day because of a bad deal the democrats made all the while saying they were saving their people money?

Quite frankly, I think eventually it'll be a different Democratic leader who winds up allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, maybe even someone originating it in the Congress. The Republicans had zero interest in doing that in 2003 when it could have saved them a hundred billion or two on their bill, and I see zero reason to think that's changed.

[Y2HH]

Quite frankly, I think eventually it'll be a different Democratic leader who winds up allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, maybe even someone originating it in the Congress. The Republicans had zero interest in doing that in 2003 when it could have saved them a hundred billion or two on their bill, and I see zero reason to think that's changed.

 

Since that won't be happening anytime soon, since Obama basically made it against the law to do so -- we won't have to worry about it for years and years now will we.

 

By then I'm sure we will have forgotten all about this conversation.

 

In the mean time, at least Obama made me some money since I'm heavily invested in Pfizer, Bristol Squibb and Merck.

[bmags]

Y2HH,

 

again, we are dealing with political realities. It's hard enough to take on the insurance industry. Now take on big pharm at the same time.

 

As I've stated numerous times and it hasn't stuck. Early on the bill contained provider level cost controls. And republicans huffed and puffed about how it hurts doctors and would be the end of the world. At the end of the bill, it's THERES NO PROVIDER COST CONTROLS.

 

ANd while the argument before was "oh great now you are going to ruin any advancement in drugs since no technician will go into pharmaceuticals to cure stuff because they won't make any money if you let generics take over earlier" and now it's "Oh now they get a sweet heart deal!"

[Y2HH]

Y2HH,

 

again, we are dealing with political realities. It's hard enough to take on the insurance industry. Now take on big pharm at the same time.

 

As I've stated numerous times and it hasn't stuck. Early on the bill contained provider level cost controls. And republicans huffed and puffed about how it hurts doctors and would be the end of the world. At the end of the bill, it's THERES NO PROVIDER COST CONTROLS.

 

ANd while the argument before was "oh great now you are going to ruin any advancement in drugs since no technician will go into pharmaceuticals to cure stuff because they won't make any money if you let generics take over earlier" and now it's "Oh now they get a sweet heart deal!"

 

Who cares what the republicans huffed and puffed about -- you didn't need a SINGLE vote from them.

[bmags]

you did because it provided cover for a lot of the 55-60 dem. sen votes.

 

If those were in, those 5 sens. wouldn't have voted for it, and it couldn't have passed. Political realities.

[Balta1701]

you did because it provided cover for a lot of the 55-60 dem. sen votes.

 

If those were in, those 5 sens. wouldn't have voted for it, and it couldn't have passed. Political realities.

Great example would be Evan Bayh. Getting him to vote Yes on the Senate Bill Filibuster was a very narrow thing as it is. And Eli Lilly happens to be a huge employer in his state.

[Y2HH]

you did because it provided cover for a lot of the 55-60 dem. sen votes.

 

If those were in, those 5 sens. wouldn't have voted for it, and it couldn't have passed. Political realities.

 

Oh I understand the political realities -- I know they're part of the game.

 

I still have a problem with it.

[bmags]

I do too. I don't like Landreiu, Bayh, Nelsonx2, Lieberman, etc. At all. On the other hand, the alternatives would be even more obstructive than these 5, imo. So not much i can do.

[NorthSideSox72]

There are now at least 13 states planning to sue to have the bill rendered unconstitutional.

 

While I don't know if its really unconstitutional, I must say it seems against the spirit of the document to force the purchase of a service.

 

[bmags]

i thought they were pissed about medicaid.

 

Either way, they won't win. Unless they can convince the courts that 200 years of judicial precedent has not happened, and it's just post marbury v. madison.

[Balta1701]

i thought they were pissed about medicaid.

 

Either way, they won't win. Unless they can convince the courts that 200 years of judicial precedent has not happened, and it's just post marbury v. madison.

The specific thing that they'd challenge is the existence of the "individual mandate" which they could say the federal government can't do, that only a state could do that (i.e. mandating car insurance).

 

Normally, I'd say that between the several hundred years of precedent about how wide Congress's power in the interstate commerce clause is and how deeply Congress has previously been involved in health care, I wouldn't worry. Except, this is the Roberts court. I think deep down, a whole lot of people could see justice Roberts deciding that everything in the past 150 years of regulation of business was actually illegal and tossing out every regulation Congress has ever written.

[southsider2k5]

The specific thing that they'd challenge is the existence of the "individual mandate" which they could say the federal government can't do, that only a state could do that (i.e. mandating car insurance).

 

Normally, I'd say that between the several hundred years of precedent about how wide Congress's power in the interstate commerce clause is and how deeply Congress has previously been involved in health care, I wouldn't worry. Except, this is the Roberts court. I think deep down, a whole lot of people could see justice Roberts deciding that everything in the past 150 years of regulation of business was actually illegal and tossing out every regulation Congress has ever written.

 

So what president is there for forcing people to buy something exactly?

[Harry Chappas]

So what president is there for forcing people to buy something exactly?

 

president or precedent

[NorthSideSox72]

So what president is there for forcing people to buy something exactly?

Obama, apparently.

 

[whitesoxfan101]

With the exception of those who legitimately can't afford it, I'm not sure I understand why people wouldn't want to buy healthcare if they could. I do see the point on how forcing people to buy it is constitutionally questionable at best though.

[Balta1701]

Obama, apparently.

Here's an intro discussion of some of the constitutional type opinions. It's a blog, so beware 2k5, but it's informed and on subject.

[whitesoxfan101]

If this bill ever made it to the Supreme Court, I think it's pretty clear this group with the makeup it has would overturn it. I just don't see how it ever gets that far though.