DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Repeal and Replace Obama Care

That is because Trump thought he had this in the bag with just Republicans.

There is no way the Conservative are going to turn down a chance to save a trillion dollars in healthcare costs which can then be put towards tax cuts and there is no way the Conservatives are going to turn down a chance to cut funding to Planned Parenthood Abortions.

Surprise surprise, they did stand against those things.

Obama had to reach out to republicans to get some of his stuff done.

Honestly that's how it's suppose to work, right? The presdient cant be the president for just republicans or democrats. He has to be the president for all Americans, which means having to reach out to a party that doesn't view things the same way he does.

Every president has to do it. I actually applaud trump for going "ok, can't just make this happen with the republicans, gotta reach out to the Dems".

That's a huge step in maturing as a president, so let's hope he continues that trend. Really proud of him for doing that. But now that means the Dems actually have to work with him as well.

Trump said he's the best negotiator p, the best deal maker. We need him to be that, bro.

Read my post just above yours for how I see it.

I've said before that all the Rah Rah trump folks shouldn't be surprised when he works to get things done with the Dems. He has his agenda and he's going to go in the direction he needs to to get it done.

He won as a Rep.. but he in no way owes the Rep establishment anything.

Yep. Only one way to move: forward. Single payer for all. Obama let the cat out of the bag, telling everyone that they had a right to healthcare, to their life. Now that they've heard that you can't seriously say that instead Americans only have a right to access healthcare. No one wants to hear that.

This is why I continue to be in the RAH RAH Trump club, he ran against the establishment in both parties and I hope he can make all the changes he wants too.

Oh I'm sure our bio techs will remain #1. You're right about that, btw.

The only counter I have for that is there are a lot of foreign money and foreign nationals that help contribute to that, which -on a side note- is why a lot of companies view those H1B visas as essential to their growth.

But then comes the obvious question that goes into the overall issue in our government: how much money is going toward innovation, and how much money is actually be wasted?

*most* people (I hope) understand that people generally don't do things JUST out of the goodness of their hearts when it comes to this level of innovation. People want to get paid. Period. I get it.

But is it important that we make sure the CEO of a biotech firm gets his yacht in 3 months instead of 5? You kinda get what I'm saying?

I think we can cap drug prices without hindering innovation.

But the big thing will always remain: doing something about the actual insurance companies. And that's a whole different ball game that quite honestly, I have zero idea on how to tackle that.

Yes, the American people now EXPECT their government sponsored healthcare, just like they EXPECT their government sponsored food stamps, Housing and Welfare.

Once the cat is out of the bag, there is no way of putting it back.

A few things.. first of all, Glaxo Smith is a British company that is traded on exchanges all over the world.. and that is something we need to include in this debate... yes, Glaxo needs to make a profit to keep up their R&D, etc... the question is, are we funding a disproportionately large % of it in the US by NOT regulating drug prices? If Glaxo Smith develops a drug and they sell it all over Europe and Asia for $10/pill in a regulated market but in the United States we are paying $40/pill.. then we aren't supporting their R&D, we are subsidizing their ability to sell it for $10/pill everywhere else at the expense of our own healthcare system.

I'll give you a couple more numbers on some of the largest pharmaceutical companies....

Novartis, Switzerland.. $58.8 billion revenue, $9.2 billion profit, 16% profit margin
Roche, Switzerland.. $50.3 billion revenue, $12 billion profit, 24% profit margin
Sanofi, France.. $44.4 billion revenue, $8.5 billion profit, 11% profit margin
AstraZeneca, United Kingdom.. $25.7 billion revenue, $2.6 billion profit, 10% profit margin
Pfizer, USA.. $51.6 billion revenue, $22 billion profit,43% profit margin

Now one of these things is not like the others... **Disclaimer, to be fair, most other USA drug companies like Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Eli Lilly, all much closer... Pfizer really is the outlier.

And keep in mind, PROFIT means after they have written off all of their R&D investment because that's an expense, that's already accounted for.. they are NOT investing that 43% profit back into R&D, it's being paid out to shareholders..

Pfizer's CEO's salary is $1.75 million a year, that's pretty modest for a guy running a company that big, but he made $18 million last year once stock options and everything is taken into consideration.. why? Because the capital gains tax of being paid in stock options costs him less than what it would cost him in salary...

So you are the CEO of the company, 90% of your income comes, not from salary or any other company metrix, but from stock and stock options.. the only way for you to make all that coin is by driving the stock price by whatever means necessary, no matter who may get screwed in the process...

We have a broken system in more ways than one.

Big Pharma has larger profit margins than the majority of industries. Because they rape american wallets. R&D is written off in tax deductions as a cost of doing business.

The govt needs to cut off their lobbyist hands and say NO MORE BLOOD MONEY FOR YOU.

Thanks for the info. I didn't know a lot of that stuff. Glaxo I just happened to pull as a name for my example.

In regards to your 40-10 comparison...

If they are selling over seas for $10/pill (or whatever the price is) in a regulated market, are they selling it there and making a profit? breaking even? taking a loss?


Price caps may end up being the answer. But there are a number of things that make me very uncomfortable with the concept. First, our gov't is garbage at managing anything with any real sense and very little economic context. The people who would be putting price caps in place are the same people who aren't concerned with how much fraud, waste,and abuse there is in the system, have little interest in making sure those programs operate efficiently, and are more likely to make those decisions based on the mob or political games than they are economics.

Two examples of that: the Housing crisis. No one in their right mind could think that offering home loans to people who had no indication that they could actually pay the mortgage would make good economic sense.

And I already touched on the reduced Medicaid re-imbursement rates. What do you do when you put an arbitrary cap on something and people and businesses simply refuse to participate anymore?

Good stuff man.

I have to question though sometime, are we talking about insurance? Or are we really talking about subsidizing people's bills?

I get home owner's insurance in case my house burns down or I get burglarized. Not likely to happen.

I get car insurance in case I get in a wreck. Still not likely to happen.

Life insurance?

With health insurance, catastrophic plans fall more in line with what we typically get insurance for: just in case

But these days when men are paying for birth control and other things literally only women use or need, I'm no longer paying insurance. No matter what gender I self identify with, DevilDawg can never get a pap smear done. When the expectation is that you will use your "insurance" and are encouraged to often, we get further and further away from just in case.


One of the creative ideas I saw shortly after the ACA was put in to effect was these co-op type deals between patients and family doctor practices. They agreed to pay the doctor something like $2k-4k a year directly. What that got them in return was a near unlimited number of office visits and basic labs and testings. Now, if you are a family of 4, you could already be paying $4k to $8k a year in health insurance premiums PLUS several grand in deductibles for the same services.

I haven;t heard about stuff like that in several years now so I don't know long term how it played out, but I think there's a lot we can do creatively that makes health care more affordable and that has less of a negative impact on so many people.

i feel you, but it works both ways.

Women don't have erectile disfunction problems, yet they are also forced to pay for that. same with other men's health issues.

women only complain about paying for that when men start complaining about paying for women's health.

i get that your argument is basically saying that we need more personalized healthcare options. maybe, maybe not. but with a system that everyone (eh...ok, most) pay into, that's normal. not saying what other countries do is perfect, but that's how it is around the world. every wealthy ass nations have a system where everybody pays into it. except us. yet we seem to have the most money thrown at healthcare, yet have one of the most craptastic systems of 1st world countries.

but that's how insurance works. hell that's how auto insurance works. you can't tell me you never did an accident report, or know some of your colleagues who worked a case where somebody JUST bought a car, and not even a few days later wrecked it.

they certainly didn't pay enough into their insurance, but the company covers it because of all their customers paying into insurance.

at some point, we have to cut it out with the "me" mentality with certain issues.

Good points about Viagara.

The thing with auto insurance is that (and it's been over ten years since I heard this stat, so I don't know how much if at all it's changed since) but only 1 out of 250 drivers will ever file a claim for damages in their lifetime.

Now let's say you drive for 50yrs. You've paid hundreds of thousands in premiums for something you've never used.
And even if you do wreck that brand new car, over the course of your driving life you will give that insurance company the equivalent of several new cars worth of money.

The money is pulled in the near term to help pay out claims clearly, but the long term aspect ensures that pool exists for years to come. So I personally don't see auto insurance as a subsidy. A subsidy to me would be more like I went out and bought a brand new jeep, now everyone on DT pays in to a system that helps me make the monthly payment.

And I do get the sentiment about the every man for himself philosophy. The world could do with a little more self introspection as to how our actions impact others.

But the moral and ethical high ground gets lost when one supports policies that force to be that altruistic, especially when they are hurt by it. Case in point is the mandates in the ACA. I'm sorry but if I'm paying north of $400/mo for crap coverage for my family, no one has the standing to criticize me for not caring about someone else. When a small business wants to expand but can't because they then end up having to provide all sorts of things that would bankrupt them.

The problem I have with people like Bernie is that when he hears the word "business", he only thinks Big ____. He doesn't recognize there is a vast difference between a company as large as say Disney and the corner store you buy rolling papers at. If you are a business owner, you are automatically thrust in to the evil 1% and can afford anything he proposes.

Republicans had a big meeting this morning and came out to announce they will repeal and replace ObamaCare, of this they all are in agreement.
They will discuss and continue meeting until they get this done and get it done right.

In the meantime, they will concentrate on getting all the other work done on their agenda and get it to Trumps desk.

It is time to step it up and actually lead the Nation!

As the insurance companies here have proven lately, if you set up the system where they are taking a loss, they will just back out and refuse to participate..

So maybe if the US, one of the largest consumers, says, "Look, this $40/pill is ridiculous when others are paying $10/pill. We will pay you $20/pill." Negotiate that and if they can show they can't cover costs with that, then let them renegotiate with Europe and Asia to get $15/pill to offset the difference. I don't care but it's well documented that we are paying 2x, 3x, sometimes 4x or more what others are paying for the same stuff.


I fully understand your concerns with our governments ability to negotiate anything or even get out of its own way... We will start a $200 billion/year agency to save $500 million in healthcare costs... that's how we roll.

Also, lost in the debate is that our government drops $400 billion +/- into pharma research every year.... if it yields nothing, the pharma companies that got it pay nothing.. if it yields the next great drug, the pharma company makes a fortune and the government gets nothing back for funding the research.. It's very similar to the banking industry, we privatize profits and subsidize losses.. it's a great business to be in.


But the economy was booming, Presidents were getting credit for putting low income and minority families in homes.. all was good and it was never going to change because who could predict that the economy would be cyclical or anything?

Customized health insurance would be a zero-sum-game... if 300 million people are paying into insurance and they all have prenatal care covered, even if half of them are men.. and you get that removed.. a woman is going to have to pay twice as much for prenatal care in her insurance because the cost of prenatal care won't change but now you only half the people paying for it.. so the cost to women will have to double.

The same applies to men's plans and things like testicular cancer or Viagara... or anything else that women don't want/need.

And if you open up health insurance to customized options then the insurance companies will make it more like life insurance.. oh, you are overweight, you pay more... oh you have risky habits like sky diving or you ride a motorcycle, then you pay more.. etc.

I want to know when the GOP officially changed "We the people" to "Me the people"... It really doesn't matter who doesn't want to pay for specific things if having coverage for all means we all have to contribute our share.

This line of thinking is great if we are shopping for individualized al le carte insurance. That's what we had before the ACA and it excluded coverage for many due to loss of profits!

Have a heart attack at 25 years old when completely healthy and fit like I did, then try to buy insurance... lol. I could not buy insurance on my own, but I could buy in a large employee pool. And I was thankful for that, but insurance was making me work for other instead of my own business.

As a small business owner, buying insurance for myself and employees, I was again penalized for health history causing the entire groups rates to increase.

This has been a pet peeve of mine forever. Don't you just like people telling you how much YOUR fair share is? Who gets to decide that? Why not the One who has to pay? If I say no, I'm not giving, then I'm not giving. You want to give? Fine. Give it all away.
Thats why were in the trouble were in, too many takers with out asking.

The Lord only asks for 10 percent for crying out loud!

Well he wasn't billing people when he healed them. Jesus was a socialist.

False.

Jesus is not about government at all.

No he wasn't LOL I can't think of one instance where Jesus forced people to take care of others.

Agreed. Economically, he was a communist though

False.

Jesus is not about Economics at all.

I disagree. Even if you equate promoting tithing with a 10% tax, that rate is still between 50 and 70% shy of an acceptable rate for communists. Keeping 90% of your income promotes too much individual liberty and empowerment.

This conversation is funny.

Especially since the church came up with the tax.

They collected tax back in the day, sometimes violently.

And then they come to the new world, and surprise: they are now tax exempt.

Interesting.

False.

Old Testament

Deuteronomy 14:22
22 Make an offering of ten percent, a tithe, of all the produce which grows in your fields year after year.

Yep. People used to have to pay for blessings or burn in hell. The GOP still believes in that.

Why does an omnipotent being need your money and WHY are you okay with that but not okay with helping those less fortunate? Trying to buy your way into heaven? It's easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven... remember that one?

Well I'm not telling you what to pay for anything. I'm talking about OUR country as a whole trying to deal with a health care crisis. If letting people who can not afford to pay just die is good for you, why don't you just say that?

You can't pass the buck to others every time you don't like the facts. Letting States deal with it seems like a solution to you? Where do you think the states will have to get the money? Asking charities to step up when you are not willing to do the same, where will that money come from?

At the end of the day, all of the arguments against universal health care are based in pure greed. Pretty sure there is an original sin there somewhere.

The money was not for God. The money was not to buy your way to Heaven. God does not have need of money.

I don't trust our government to organize and run a game of kickball, so I don't trust them to organize and run our healthcare system... how is that greed?

What good reason is there for asking for 10% of your money then? Seems like a voluntary tax to me.

Back in the day, the cash went to the Vatican for armies and to build churches and expand the Christian empire. I know many churches do good with their funds (which IS socialism), but if YOU can justify 10% for this you should be able to justify helping the less fortunate in other places.

You don't get to make statements about religion in defense of your arguments if you are not willing to see both sides.

It is His good reason and that in itself is enough unless you place yourself above Him.

But you agree there is a health care crisis that we as individuals can not solve on our own right? How else do we solve that problem?

Not trusting the government to run a kickball game... Yet you are okay with the HUGE military budget and trusting them to keep you safe? GMAB.

At the end of the day, all of the arguments against universal health care are based in pure greed. Repeated for TRUTH.

The most important word in your whole post is "voluntary"..

We already have voluntary socialism.. you can give as much as you want to the government or to the poor or to anybody you wish..

And how a church operates is socialism, provided you don't know what socialism means.

Acts 4:23-36 to give context. I hate when people post scripture by line. You never know the context.

The Believers Pray
23 On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25 You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:

“‘Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26 The kings of the earth rise up
and the rulers band together
against the Lord
and against his anointed one.[b]’[c]
27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. 29 Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30 Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

The Believers Share Their Possessions
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Nice try, but you've already admitted that GOD doesn't need your money. The bible was not written by God, but by men. You don't think that just maybe that little tithe thing came from greed of the OLD church state? GMAB.

You always go over the cliff when confronted with real logic.

Yes I have to repeat again, at the end of the day, all of the arguments against universal health care are based in pure greed.