Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Children’s Hospitals Lose Drug Discounts thanks to Obamacare...

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400

    Children’s Hospitals Lose Drug Discounts thanks to Obamacare...

    but wait- the libs here said it was just the evil insurance companies that didn't care about kids...and doing something was better than doing nothing...blah-blah-blah...

    go job obama- way to not give into special interests or sell out to big pharma- lol
    Children’s Hospitals Lose Some Drug Discounts

    WASHINGTON — In an unintended consequence (comical- once again obama's obedient servants in the media trying to cover his failed ass)of the new health care law, drug companies have begun notifying children’s hospitals around the country that they no longer qualify for large discounts on drugs used to treat rare medical conditions.

    As a result, prices are going up for these specialized “orphan drugs,” some of which are also used to treat more common conditions.

    Over the last 18 years, Congress has required drug manufacturers to provide discounts to a variety of health care providers, including community health centers, AIDS clinics and hospitals that care for large numbers of low-income people.

    Several years ago, Congress broadened the program to include children’s hospitals. But this year Congress, in revising the drug discount program as part of the new health care law, blocked these hospitals from continuing to receive price cuts on orphan drugs intended for treatment of diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.

    The reason behind the change is murky, though some drug makers had opposed expansion of the drug discount program. The discounts typically range from 30 percent to 50 percent, and children’s hospitals say the change is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Under the new law, hundreds of rural hospitals became eligible for discounts for the first time, but the discounts are not available on orphan drugs, which account for a surprisingly large share of their outpatient pharmacy costs. At the same time, children’s hospitals lost access to discounts on the drugs.

    In a typical letter to a children’s hospital, one company, Genentech, said that, because of the new law, it would not offer discounts on certain cancer medicines like Avastin, Herceptin, Rituxan and Tarceva, or on Activase, which is used to dissolve blood clots in heart attack and stroke patients.

    Another drug maker, Allergan, cited the new law as a reason for denying discounts on Botox, which, besides removing wrinkles from the face, is used to reduce spasticity in patients with cerebral palsy and other neurological disorders.

    Joshua D. Greenberg, vice president of Children’s Hospital Boston, said that loss of the discounts “jeopardizes our ability to care for some of the sickest children with the most complex health care needs.”

    Robert A. Nordin, the pharmacy manager at Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare in St. Paul, said his hospital was losing hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of discounts on drugs like Botox and Rituxan.

    Christina M. Barnes, the pharmacy director at Galion Community Hospital in rural Galion, Ohio, said she was excited when her hospital qualified for the discount program earlier his year. But, she said, she was dismayed to learn that many drugs would be excluded.

    “We were given an advantage with one hand, and it was taken away with the other hand,” Ms. Barnes said.

    William A. Sarraille, a lawyer at Sidley Austin in Washington who represents drug makers, said, “The discounts are huge and can have a very significant, very negative impact on the ability of manufacturers to develop new, better products that meet patients’ needs.”

    The Food and Drug Administration classifies more than 350 medicines as orphan drug products. Manufacturers said they could not recover the costs of developing such drugs if they were required to sell them at deeply discounted prices.

    A House Democrat who worked on the health care law said the situation had resulted from “an honest mistake in drafting,” and he added, “No one intended to take away any of the drug discounts that children’s hospitals already had.”

    The discount program is widely known as the 340B program, after the relevant section of the Public Health Service Act.

    Mary K. Wakefield, the administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, the federal agency that manages the program, said she shared the concerns of children’s hospitals. “We support a technical correction by Congress that will preserve access to discounted medications for more vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Wakefield said.

    The House has voted to restore discounts for children’s hospitals. Similar legislation has been bottled up in the Senate, despite support from Republicans like Senator Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts and Democrats like Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. A version of the proposal was included in bipartisan health care legislation unveiled Tuesday by Senate leaders.

    When Congress created the drug discount program in 1992, it said the purpose was to enable clinics and hospitals to “stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services.”

    In a last-minute change sought by some drug manufacturers, Congress stipulated in the new health care law that rural hospitals, children’s hospitals and certain free-standing cancer centers could not get discounts on orphan drugs through the 340B program. Ms. Barnes, at Galion Hospital in Ohio, said: “The list of orphan drugs is small, but it involves big dollars. Many, perhaps most, of our cancer patients receive at least one orphan drug during their treatment.”

    Leonard M. Gulino of Cape Elizabeth, Me., said the discount program had substantially reduced the cost of Botox treatments for his son, Gregory, who has had multiple strokes and severe tightening of leg muscles because of a rare disease.

    Elimination of the discounts for orphan drugs at children’s hospitals came as a surprise to federal health officials who work on the program. They said they learned of it only after President Obama signed the legislation in March.

    Terence J. Hurley, a spokesman for Genentech, said the company was waiting for guidance from federal officials because “there remains significant lack of clarity regarding the orphan drug provisions” of the new law. Allergan and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members produce many orphan drugs, declined to comment.

    Drug companies said that the discount program was intended to help hospitals care for the uninsured, and that this need would diminish as millions of the uninsured gained coverage under Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul.

    But Ted Slafsky, the executive director of Safety Net Hospitals for Pharmaceutical Access, a nonprofit group, said, “The exemption for orphan drugs undermines the mission and purpose of the drug discount program.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/he...wt&twt=nytimes

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,535
    So are you arguing for MORE government mandated discounts for Children's Hospitals?

    Because this looks to me like the perfect example of why the Federal Government needs to be involved.

    A House Democrat who worked on the health care law said the situation had resulted from “an honest mistake in drafting,” and he added, “No one intended to take away any of the drug discounts that children’s hospitals already had.”
    Obviously incompetence like this is frustrating.

    But you know, it would be cool for those same companies to continue to do the right thing, regardless if they were mandated to or not.

    But since they will not, this is why we need the government to be involved.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    So are you arguing for MORE government mandated discounts for Children's Hospitals?

    Because this looks to me like the perfect example of why the Federal Government needs to be involved.



    Obviously incompetence like this is frustrating.

    But you know, it would be cool for those same companies to continue to do the right thing, regardless if they were mandated to or not.

    But since they will not, this is why we need the government to be involved.
    no- i'm laughing at people like you who actually thought obamacare would make things better, believed in his nonsense of hope and change and continue to believe that more gov't intervention is the way....

    his cute little sellout to big pharma for support of this boondoggle is hurting more than children's hospitals as people who use prescription drugs on a daily basis can no longer save $$$ via mail order purchase from canada...

    and the reason they will not do what was done before is because obama and the dim congress gave them the green light to stop...
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 12-10-2010 at 02:00 PM.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Come Back to NY View Post
    no- i'm laughing at people like you who actually thought obamacare would make things better, believed in his nonsense of hope and change and continue to believe that more gov't intervention is the way....

    his cute little sellout to big pharma for support of this boondoggle is hurting more than children's hospitals and people who use prescription drugs on a daily basis can no longer save $$$ via mail order purchase from canada...


    http://www.laits.utexas.edu/~norman/...ernational.htm

    They all have government intervention. They all spend far less than us.

    Perhaps we can nitpick at a spot where the Democrats left out a good program, like this, while they were trying to fix the situation.

    Good thing the Republicans contributed to the process...

    Good thing the pharmaceutical companies jumped on this "opportunity"...

    I'm not happy with Obamacare because it doesn't go far enough.

    You're not happy with Obamacare because it doesn't go far enough - in this instance, with the hospitals and kids - but think it goes to WAY too far with all that government "involvement".

    Please, provide for me a coherent point so I can beat you in this argument.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,537
    There it is again, the fundamental flaw of liberal thinking: assuming because you have good intentions at heart, that implementing action on this level will have no negative consequences.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post


    http://www.laits.utexas.edu/~norman/...ernational.htm

    They all have government intervention. They all spend far less than us.

    Perhaps we can nitpick at a spot where the Democrats left out a good program, like this, while they were trying to fix the situation.

    Good thing the Republicans contributed to the process...

    Good thing the pharmaceutical companies jumped on this "opportunity"...

    I'm not happy with Obamacare because it doesn't go far enough.

    You're not happy with Obamacare because it doesn't go far enough in this instance, with the hospitals and kid -lol- more liberal delusion, in this case assuming they know what others are thinking...) s - but think it goes to WAY too far with all that government "involvement".

    Please, provide for me a coherent point so I can beat you in this argument.
    a coherent point?? such as obamacare does not go far enough and more government intervention is needed???? lmao....

    you just took your own argument out from below the knees...
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 12-10-2010 at 02:18 PM.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Come Back to NY View Post
    a coherent point?? such as obamacare does not go far enough and more government intervention is needed???? lmao....

    you just took your own argument out from below the knees...
    So you criticize this law because it did not have the Federal Government mandate these children's hospitals their discounts and then turn around and say we need less government involvement in healthcare?

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    So you criticize this law because it did have the Federal Government mandate these children's hospitals their discounts and then turn around and say we need less government involvement in healthcare?
    its' tiresome trying to help you understand but once again-

    i laugh at liberals like you who thought obamacare would improve things- you know the "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" mentality....you know the "it will insure millions more people and lower your health costs" lie...you know- the propaganda you bought into about not giving into special interests while being sold out to big pharma and trial lawyers....

    eventually it may sink in- but I'm not hopefull...

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Come Back to NY View Post
    its' tiresome trying to help you understand but once again-

    i laugh at liberals like you who thought obamacare would improve things- you know the "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" mentality....you know the "it will insure millions more people and lower your health costs" lie...you know- the propaganda you bought into about not giving into special interests while being sold out to big pharma and trial lawyers....

    eventually it may sink in- but I'm not hopefull...
    Reread it again, in all my haste to quickly reply, I left out a "not" there that was crucial to understanding my sentence.

    It does not say "edited" because I edited it immediately after I posted it and read it again.

    My apologies.

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Good thing the Republicans contributed to the process...
    btw- must add; Republicans contributed to the process as much as the dim majority allowed them to contribute; absolutely nothing...

    makes it all the more enjoyable to watch the libs whine like b!tches now that the GOP has laid down the law that nothing will get passed until tax laws are settled....then in Febuary comes the debt limit...

    give the rats a taste of the way they've ruled the past two years and allowed the minority party to "contribute"...

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,535
    Here's some more information that government "involvement" is needed.

    Comparison of Health Care Statistics
    The United States spends almost twice as much of its GDP on health care when compared to the average amount spent by countries from around world making it the leader in GDP spent on health care. Even so, the United States still only ranks 38th in the world with a life expectancy of 78.2 years. Furthermore, the United States ranks 33rd in the world for an infant mortality rate of 6.3 deaths per 1000 births. Based on these statistics alone, the United StatesÕ health care system needs to be improved upon.
    Health Care in the UK, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, and Canada
    The UK, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, and Canada all have different ways of providing health care to all of its citizens. Canada, the UK, and Germany each have a form of a national healthcare system. Both Canada and the UK are funded mainly through taxes, whereas in Germany, a citizenÕs health insurance costs are based on their personal income. Both Japan and Switzerland have programs where everyone has to have private insurance. For those individuals who are unable to afford one, the government provides them one. Thanks to various means these countries are able to keep medical cost down preventing any of them from having to declare medical bankruptcy, demonstrating that healthcare for all individuals is feasible.





    A House Democrat who worked on the health care law said the situation had resulted from “an honest mistake in drafting,” and he added, “No one intended to take away any of the drug discounts that children’s hospitals already had.”
    Simply because one program was left out of a giant bill because of human error and pharmaceutical companies took advantage of it, doesn't mean government cannot be a mechanism to make healthcare more efficient, humane and affordable for the average American.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Here's some more information that government "involvement" is needed.








    lol- how is life expectancy determined??? median or average of the entire population??? what the population of the US compared to those other nations???

    Simply because one program was left out of a giant bill because of human error and pharmaceutical companies took advantage of it, doesn't mean government cannot be a mechanism to make healthcare more efficient, humane and affordable for the average American.
    yup- more government intervention to fix the fuk ups initially caused by giant the bill passed to get government more involved in health care....makes sense...
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 12-10-2010 at 03:16 PM.

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Come Back to NY View Post
    lol- how is life expectancy determined??? median or average of the entire population??? what the population of the US compared to those other nations???
    The first graph I posted was the % GDP spent on healthcare, so the population is irrelevant. The same is true for the second and third graph, which shows infant mortality rate and life expectancy, of which neither has anything to do with the population size.

    How is life expectancy determined?

    You know, that's a good question CBNY.

    I'm not entirely certain.

    But here's the UN and the CIA's lists on life expectancy, apparently they find this information useful.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy

    We are 38th in the world according to the UN, with an average life span of 78.2.

    According to the CIA there are 50 countries with a better average life span than us, as ours is 78.11 in that study.

    Quote Originally Posted by Come Back to NY View Post
    yup- more government intervention to fix the fuk ups initially caused by giant the bill passed to get government more involved in health care....makes sense...
    So because of one mistake in the writing of a bill - I'm still unclear as to whether or not you support giving these children's hospitals government mandated discounts on certain drugs? - you're going to ignore the evidence I've brought here today that illustrates government can be effective in both lowering costs and having better outcomes ?

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    So because of one mistake in the writing of a bill - I'm still unclear as to whether or not you support giving these children's hospitals government mandated discounts on certain drugs? - you're going to ignore the evidence I've brought here today that illustrates government can be effective in both lowering costs and having better outcomes ?
    one mistake???? and you asked me earlier to make a coherent point????? lol

    let's forget about the fact Americans were lied to and told this bill would reduce their health insurance premiums....

    let's start with the fact that insurance companies stopped selling insurance to kids about two months ago because of obamacare:

    Fearing that parents won't buy health insurance coverage for their children until they are sick, many major insurance companies have stopped selling child-only health insurance plans in several states, saying the policies could saddle the companies with enormous expenses.

    The action by Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna and other companies came on the eve of new health care reform mandates that kicked in on Sept. 23. The rules prevent health insurance companies from rejecting children under age 19 with pre-existing medical conditions.

    The insurance companies said these provisions of the new health care reform law remove any incentive on the part of parents to buy health insurance coverage for their children before any serious, expensive-to-treat illnesses are diagnosed. This deprives insurance companies of income from premiums that might help them cover high medical costs later for children who become seriously ill, and would force insurance companies to raise premiums for their other policyholders.
    http://www.insure.com/articles/healt...-policies.html

    but hey- that was just another example of "one mistake" in the writing of the bill, something i'm sure obama's obediant disciples in the media will conclude is yet another "unintended consequence " which is of course the insurance companies fault- lmao...

    i guess pelosi had a point- they really needed to pass this bill to find out what was in it because obviously the fukin morons on your side of the aisle who crafted it then signed it had no fukin clue...

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Come Back to NY View Post
    one mistake???? and you asked me earlier to make a coherent point????? lol

    let's forget about the fact Americans were lied to and told this bill would reduce their health insurance premiums....

    let's start with the fact that insurance companies stopped selling insurance to kids about two months ago because of obamacare:



    http://www.insure.com/articles/healt...-policies.html

    but hey- that was just another example of "one mistake" in the writing of the bill, something i'm sure obama's obediant disciples in the media will conclude is yet another "unintended consequence " which is of course the insurance companies fault- lmao...

    i guess pelosi had a point- they really needed to pass this bill to find out what was in it because obviously the fukin morons on your side of the aisle who crafted it then signed it had no fukin clue...
    Why not post the full article?

    Major health insurance companies stop selling child-only policies
    By Jim Sloan, Insure.com
    Last updated Sept. 30, 2010

    Fearing that parents won't buy health insurance coverage for their children until they are sick, many major insurance companies have stopped selling child-only health insurance plans in several states, saying the policies could saddle the companies with enormous expenses.
    The action by Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna and other companies came on the eve of new health care reform mandates that kicked in on Sept. 23. The rules prevent health insurance companies from rejecting children under age 19 with pre-existing medical conditions.
    The insurance companies said these provisions of the new health care reform law remove any incentive on the part of parents to buy health insurance coverage for their children before any serious, expensive-to-treat illnesses are diagnosed. This deprives insurance companies of income from premiums that might help them cover high medical costs later for children who become seriously ill, and would force insurance companies to raise premiums for their other policyholders.
    Insurance companies halting sales of child-only health insurance and states affected by those decisions
    Aetna: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, , Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Wyoming
    Anthem Blue Cross: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada
    Assurant: Colorado
    Cigna: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Connecticut, Tennessee and Texas
    CoventryOne: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Florida and Missouri
    Humana: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida and Illinois
    Regence BlueShield: Oregon, Utah and Washington
    UnitedHealth Group: Colorado and Florida
    Sources: State departments of insurance and news reports
    The decision by such companies as Cigna, Humana, CoventryOne, Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross and UnitedHealth Group affects only certain states and doesn't apply to existing child-only health insurance coverage, family policies or group health insurance coverage provided to children through their parents' employers. (See sidebar.)
    Adverse selection strikes fear into insurers’ hearts
    Insurance regulators in California, where 1.5 million children don't have health insurance coverage, said the problem stems from the fact that the federal “individual mandate” that requires all citizens to carry health insurance coverage doesn't begin for another four years. Without that requirement -- and the larger risk pool and premium income it brings -- insurers are facing what California Department of Insurance spokesman Ioannis Kazanis calls "the most acute example of adverse selection."
    "If insurers have to sell policies to children without underwriting, parents won't try to get coverage until their child is sick, and then the insurer would have to sell to them," Kazanis says. "Thus, the only people who would buy a child-only policy would be the parents of sick children. The mandate to buy insurance … is the antidote to this problem [but] doesn't kick in until 2014."

    The requirement that insurance companies accept children with pre-existing conditions is one of the most controversial mandates set out in the new health care reform law passed in the spring of 2010. By 2014, all health insurers will be required to cover all individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.
    Kazanis says child-only policies appeal to three groups:
    Families where the parents' employers don't contribute to dependent health insurance
    Parents who can't afford to insure themselves
    Parents who can't buy their own coverage due to health conditions but want to cover their children.
    Other provisions of the health care reform law that went into effect along with the child pre-existing condition regulation include:
    Young adults can now stay on their parents' health insurance until they are age 26.
    Lifetime and annual caps on medical benefits are now eliminated.
    Coverage without deductibles or co-payments is now required for some preventive services.
    Public backlash
    The move by insurance companies to stop selling child-only policies, which they admit is a very small part of their business, drew criticism from health care advocates, state officials and the Obama administration.
    Officials in some states were negotiating with insurance companies to try to get them to change their minds. In Colorado, the state’s Division of Insurance set up a mandatory open-enrollment period for child-only policies, effectively removing parents' freedom to wait until their child is sick before getting medical insurance for them.
    Meanwhile, insurance regulators in California, noting that their laws don't require companies to sell child-only policies, were turning to the federal government for help.
    "We're in regular contact with the federal Department of Health and Human Services, urging them to weigh in on the matter and clarify any confusion that may exist on child-only policies," Kazanis says.
    The Obama administration believes that the health insurance industry had signed off on this provision, citing a letter from the insurance industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). However, a spokesperson for that trade group says it had been referring to allowing children with pre-existing conditions to join their family's health plan.
    "Health plans are committed to keeping families' coverage as affordable as possible," says AHIP spokesperson Robert Zirkelbach. "While well-intended, the current regulation provides a powerful incentive for parents to wait to purchase coverage until after their children become sick, which will drive up the cost for those who are currently insured."
    Quote Originally Posted by Come Back to NY View Post
    one mistake???? and you asked me earlier to make a coherent point????? lol

    let's forget about the fact Americans were lied to and told this bill would reduce their health insurance premiums....

    let's start with the fact that insurance companies stopped selling insurance to kids about two months ago because of obamacare
    I'm sorry the world hasn't changed overnight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Come Back to NY View Post
    http://www.insure.com/articles/healt...-policies.html

    but hey- that was just another example of "one mistake" in the writing of the bill, something i'm sure obama's obediant disciples in the media will conclude is yet another "unintended consequence " which is of course the insurance companies fault- lmao...

    i guess pelosi had a point- they really needed to pass this bill to find out what was in it because obviously the fukin morons on your side of the aisle who crafted it then signed it had no fukin clue...
    The people who wrote the bill bear responsibility for leaving out the drug discount for children's hospitals. I'm not disputing that.

    Just as the pharmaceutical companies that stopped the discount simply because they weren't mandated to anymore also bear some responsibility. Perhaps you disagree with me on this, though I don't know how if you're a Christian, but I digress...

    Nor do I like Pelosi or the democratic congress that passed this. Nor do I even support this type of half-asssed legislation.

    We are talking about government's role in healthcare... And I know this because you said this right here:

    no- i'm laughing at people like you who actually thought obamacare would make things better, believed in his nonsense of hope and change and continue to believe that more gov't intervention is the way....
    Half of that criticizes this law, and the other half goes on a rant about government intervention in healthcare.

    But what I don't understand is, I have brought facts to you that illustrate that government intervention in the healthcare industry can be tremendously positive - lower costs + better outcomes.

    So why are you disputing this evidence?

    And as to Obamacare, when was it passed? WHen should you expect to see the results?

    And as to the point of this thread, you have yet to answer this question:

    Do you think the government should mandate the drug discounts that you're criticizing this law for leaving out?

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,179
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Do you think the government should mandate the drug discounts that you're criticizing this law for leaving out?
    Price controls on drugs....... brilliant.

    Best way to ensure shortages, black markets and less innovation.

    Ever take Macro economics?

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,535
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    Price controls on drugs....... brilliant.

    Best way to ensure shortages, black markets and less innovation.

    Ever take Macro economics?
    Can anyone answer a direct question?

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,179
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Can anyone answer a direct question?
    ask one...don't masqerade around.

    Obama care will NOT work. It is the public housing for health care. Looks on paper OK but will NEVER work as long as 1/3 the country (unions and civil servants) do NOT feel the issue.

    I would have supported a system that gives us ALL the same but then the rich would buy out so here we are.

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,535
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    ask one...don't masqerade around.

    Obama care will NOT work. It is the public housing for health care. Looks on paper OK but will NEVER work as long as 1/3 the country (unions and civil servants) do NOT feel the issue.

    I would have supported a system that gives us ALL the same but then the rich would buy out so here we are.
    ummm... what?


    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post

    Do you think the government should mandate the drug discounts that you're criticizing this law for leaving out?
    Price controls on drugs....... brilliant.

    Best way to ensure shortages, black markets and less innovation.

    Ever take Macro economics?
    I've also taken micro!

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Why not post the full article?
    there was a link- i understand most liberals are to lazy to educate themselves...btw- what do you think about the part you bolded??

    Insurance regulators in California, where 1.5 million children don't have health insurance coverage, said the problem stems from the fact that the federal “individual mandate” that requires all citizens to carry health insurance coverage doesn't begin for another four years. Without that requirement -- and the larger risk pool and premium income it brings -- insurers are facing what California Department of Insurance spokesman Ioannis Kazanis calls "the most acute example of adverse selection."

    "If insurers have to sell policies to children without underwriting, parents won't try to get coverage until their child is sick, and then the insurer would have to sell to them," Kazanis says. "Thus, the only people who would buy a child-only policy would be the parents of sick children. The mandate to buy insurance … is the antidote to this problem [but] doesn't kick in until 2014."

    The requirement that insurance companies accept children with pre-existing conditions is one of the most controversial mandates set out in the new health care reform law passed in the spring of 2010. By 2014, all health insurers will be required to cover all individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.
    I'm sorry the world hasn't changed overnight.
    oh- but it has....almost overnight premiums for people's health insurance have gone up 10%-40% despite the promise they would not....people who had access to cheap drugs no longer have it...kids who had access to kids only policies no longer have the access, etc, etc, etc...

    The people who wrote the bill bear responsibility for leaving out the drug discount for children's hospitals. I'm not disputing that.
    right- had to pass the bill to see what was in it...

    Just as the pharmaceutical companies that stopped the discount simply because they weren't mandated to anymore also bear some responsibility. Perhaps you disagree with me on this, though I don't know how if you're a Christian, but I digress...
    they bear no responsibility- they gave obozo $155 mill to promo his healthcare bill and he sold out to them and promised to stop the flow of cheap prescription drugs in this country by disallowing people to get them in other countries...

    as far as being a Christian- you voted for someone who refused to protect live infants and stands on the side of live birth abortion- or was it more willful ignorance on your behalf not understanding the views and votes on issues for your candidate of choice?? I'm sure since you are a Christian you never voted for any pro-abortion candidate- but i digres....

    Nor do I like Pelosi or the democratic congress that passed this. Nor do I even support this type of half-asssed legislation.
    so are you stating you are aginst obamacare???

    We are talking about government's role in healthcare... And I know this because you said this right here:

    Half of that criticizes this law, and the other half goes on a rant about government intervention in healthcare.
    um- they are basically one and the same- pretty simple to understand but you get a pass...

    But what I don't understand is, I have brought facts to you that illustrate that government intervention in the healthcare industry can be tremendously positive - lower costs + better outcomes.
    So why are you disputing this evidence?
    lol- remember coherent points?? where's the evidence?? a bunch of charts you can't even explain when challenged??? lmao

    as far as gov't intervention...where's the tort reform?? where the ability to buy health insurance across state lines??? where is the availability of people to start MSA and self-insure??? oh wait- that's right.....the rats are beholden to the trial lawyers, so no tort reform, they want to control commerce so no insurance sales across state lines and they want as many people dependent on the gov't as possible, so no MSA's...

    And as to Obamacare, when was it passed? WHen should you expect to see the results?
    we are already seeing results- and they suck...then again that was the point of the thread, to further prove how everything obozo touches turns to sh!t and laugh at the libs who defend he and his policies, as you've done all day on this topic...

    And as to the point of this thread, you have yet to answer this question:

    Do you think the government should mandate the drug discounts that you're criticizing this law for leaving out?
    [/QUOTE]

    another ignorant liberal who feels he has to be loud to get his point across nevermind can't keep things straight in his head- first we are talking about gov't heatlcare and now the point of the thread is gov't mandating drug discounts...and now she's going to dictate the point of a thread she didn't author...lol

    of course they should not mandate drug discounts- but what your boy the ayatollah did in selling out to big pharma was dissallow people who purchased their drugs mail order oversees to save money- congratualtions!!! another result from obamacare!!! Congratulations
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 12-10-2010 at 09:30 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us