The U.S. Health Care Catch-All Thread

garamet · May 2, 2017

Here go all recent updates to the healthcare situation, to be accompanied by the usual “Not With My Tax Dollerz!” laments. (Because Medscape requires a – free – membership, many articles will be quoted in their entirety.)

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/879195?src=wnl_edit_tpal&uac=127342PX

Medicaid coverage is not only substantially better than being uninsured, but it is also as good as or better than private insurance in providing access to care, according to a new survey of 6000 people by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York–based think tank.

The report finds that the large majority of people who have continuous Medicaid coverage are able to get the care they need. On the basis of the survey results, 91% of them have a regular source of care, compared to 93% of privately insured people with continuous coverage, and 77% of people who were uninsured for at least part of the year.

Fifty-seven percent of Medicaid enrollees rated their care as very good or excellent, vs 52% of the privately insured and 40% of the uninsured.

Medicaid enrollees were much more likely than the uninsured to receive preventive care, such as blood pressure checks, cholesterol screenings, and flu shots, the survey shows. They were also more likely to receive cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies.

The survey’s findings arrive amid the controversy over the Republican’s American Health Care Act (AHCA), which would end the expansion of Medicaid begun under the Obama administration and would cap federal Medicaid spending. The AHCA — a would-be replacement for parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) ― has not reached the floor of the House of Representatives because it lacks sufficient support among Republicans. Nevertheless, negotiations on the legislation have continued, and President Trump has demanded a vote on a revised version of the bill.

The authors of the Commonwealth Fund report that some policy makers contend that Medicaid — which covers more than 70 million people — provides much poorer access to care than private insurance or is hardly better than no insurance.

“Significant Cost Protection”
“This research — and a substantial body of research on the effects of Medicaid coverage — doesn’t support that claim,” said Sara Collins, PhD, vice president for healthcare coverage and access at the Commonwealth Fund, in an interview with Medscape Medical News.

Some observers argue that Medicaid enrollees have less access to care than the privately insured because Medicaid payment rates tend to be lower than those of private health plans. Dr Collins doesn’t deny that Medicaid rates are lower. That’s one of the reasons why primary care physicians received a temporary bump in Medicaid payments under the ACA, she noted. But the expiration of that raise in 2015 apparently did not lead to an exodus of primary care physicians from Medicaid, she observed.

“Had this [expiration of the higher rates] reduced healthcare access for Medicaid enrollees, we would have expected to see evidence of that in the survey, and we just don’t see it,” she said. “People are receiving preventive care services in Medicaid at similar rates as people in private coverage.”

According to the survey, Medicaid patients got same-day appointments at a somewhat lower rate than people with private coverage and at a higher rate than uninsured patients did. But there were no significant differences among the three groups in wait times for specialist appointments.

Another Commonwealth Fund study, Dr Collins said, found there were consistent wait times for both primary care and specialty appointments among enrollees in ACA exchange plans, as well as Medicaid enrollees and people with employer-based insurance. Although wait times were longer in underserved rural and urban areas than in other areas, those wait times were consistent across insurance types, she said.

The new research also shows that cost-related problems with access to care are significantly lower among Medicaid enrollees than among the uninsured or people with private insurance. For example, 17% of privately insured adults, but only 7% of Medicaid enrollees, reported skipping a recommended medical treatment, test, or follow-up visit because of the cost. And 35% of those with private coverage reported having problems paying medical bills, vs 12% of Medicaid enrollees.

The study authors suggest that the difference between the financial protection of Medicaid and that of private insurance is “a possible reflection of steady increases in private plan deductibles and copayments in recent years.”

By contrast, Dr Collins noted, “Medicaid has historically provided significant cost protection for enrollees. It has very comprehensive benefits and no premiums in most states.”

Another Commonwealth Fund study, she added, showed that Medicaid patients have lower out-of-pocket costs than do people of equivalent income who enrolled in ACA marketplace plans in states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs. This is despite the fact that the latter group of people, who have incomes from 100% to 138% of the poverty level, received heavy government subsidies for premiums, copayments, and deductibles.

“Medicaid Improves Access”
Health insurers, many of which offer Medicaid managed care plans, are strong supporters of Medicaid. Cathryn Donaldson, a spokeswoman for American’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the trade association for the industry, told Medscape Medical News, “AHIP has long supported the Medicaid program because it works ― it works for beneficiaries and it works for states.

“The key take-away for us from this [Commonwealth Fund] study is that Medicaid improves access to services ― importantly, preventive services ― and reduces costs overall. Through the Medicaid program, beneficiaries are getting healthier, they’re finding doctors, they’re contributing to the economy, and the program itself is a breeding ground for innovative health solutions.”

For more news, join us on Facebook and Twitter
Click to expand...

Dayton Kitchens · May 2, 2017

Aren't people likely to be happier with something they get for free?

That sounds like a largely meaningless statistic.

And it seems to me that you are equating "access" with "quality".

garamet · May 2, 2017

Dayton3 said: ↑

Aren't people likely to be happier with something they get for free?

That sounds like a largely meaningless statistic.

And it seems to me that you are equating "access" with "quality".
Click to expand...

Perhaps you have some information about relative quality? If so, feel free to post it.

garamet · May 2, 2017

Government costs could rise $2.3 billion without Obamacare payments: study

The U.S. government's costs could increase by $2.3 billion in 2018 if Congress and President Donald Trump decide not to fund Obamacare-related payments to health insurers, according to a study released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The payments amount to about $7 billion in fiscal year 2017 and help cover out-of-pocket medical costs for low-income Americans who purchase insurance on the individual insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare.

Trump has threatened to withhold the payments to force Democrats to the negotiating table on a healthcare bill to replace Obamacare.

He has also said he will fund the subsidies if Democrats agree to funding for his proposed border wall with Mexico as part of efforts to pass a government funding bill this week and avert a shutdown. Democrats have rejected the conditional offer.

If no deal is made, parts of the federal government will shut down at 12:01 am on Saturday.

The payments are the subject of a pending Republican lawsuit that was appealed by the Obama administration and put on hold when Trump took office.
Click to expand...

As we know, the government didn't shut down on Saturday (Congress managed to buy itself a week), Donnie didn't get his Wall, but this gives you some idea of how much of a kerfuffle is still ongoing.

garamet · May 2, 2017

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/879349?src=wnl_edit_tpal&uac=127342PX

Medicaid Expansion Did Not Pull From Private Insurance
Click to expand...

Marcia Frellick

May 01, 2017

Data on public and private insurance coverage from 2008 through 2015, the second year of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, show no reductions in private coverage, a new study has found.

That implies that Medicaid enrolment in those states came from low-income adults who would otherwise have been uninsured, not from people who terminated private coverage to receive Medicaid, the researchers conclude.

Sandra Decker, PhD, a senior fellow from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, Maryland, and colleagues did, however, find a larger increase in private, nongroup insurance coverage in states that did not expand Medicaid compared with those that did.

The researchers published their findings in the May issue of Health Affairs.

Dr Decker and colleagues analyzed National Health Interview Survey data for 2008 to 2015. The sample included 97,224 adults. Coverage gains in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) almost doubled in 2015 from the first year of the expansion (7.3% gains in 2014 and 13.9% gains in 2015).

In addition, although uninsured rates fell in both expansion and nonexpansion states, they fell 7.5 percentage points more in expansion states than nonexpansion states from 2013 to 2015, according to the report.

Men, Childless Adults Benefited More

In a subgroup analysis, the authors found that the largest gains were among men and adults without children, which likely means those groups were less likely to be eligible for Medicaid before the expansion, they explain.

The authors also found that a subsample of low-income adults reported significant improvements in the quality of insurance coverage linked to the Medicaid expansion.

The subsample of 46,254 respondents answered the question, "In regard to your health insurance or health care coverage, how does it compare to a year ago? Is it better, worse, or about the same?"

The researchers estimated a positive difference-in-differences measurement of about 5 percentage points in 2014 that dropped off to about 2 percentage points in 2015. That decline could be explained by people gaining coverage and finding the insurance better than no insurance the first year, but not reporting significant differences in the second year of coverage.

"The results indicate that the benefits of Medicaid expansion identified in other research, such as improved access to care, quality of care, and self-reported health, are likely to grow substantially over time as enrollment grows," the authors write.

Expansion Did Not Reduce Access for the Already Insured

A related study also published in the May issue of Health Affairs indicated that Medicaid expansion did not diminish access for those who already had insurance in the same local area.

Salam Abdus, PhD, and Steven Hill, PhD, both from AHRQ, used 2008 to 2014 data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey&nndash;Household Component, which measures such factors as insurance coverage, use of preventive services, and healthcare access.

They compared those data against data from the American Community Survey, conducted by the US Census Bureau, which shows percentages in local areas of those who are insured at all or who have public insurance. Their sample included 41,512 adults aged 19 years and older who were continuously insured during the time of their Medical Expenditure Panel Survey participation (2 years) and who did not change counties in that period.

The researchers looked at eight variables during that period, including whether adults had a usual source of care other than an emergency department, been unable to receive necessary care, delays in getting care, a routine checkup in the year before the interview, an influenza vaccine during the previous year, a blood pressure check during the previous year, trouble getting an appointment as soon as desired, or a problem seeing a specialist when it was necessary.

"There was no evidence of a positive association between local-area insurance coverage rate growth and the worsening of access in any of the eight measures," the authors write.

That lack of difference was also seen in two populations that traditionally have bigger access challenges: those who live in healthcare professional shortage areas and those on Medicaid, the authors write.

There were some things their research could not determine, including whether growth of patient-centered medical homes made it easier to accommodate growing demand or whether the shift from fee-for-service toward value-based care made care delivery more efficient.

"However, cost sharing for some preventive services was eliminated — starting in 2010 for private insurance and in 2011 for Medicare and, in some states, Medicaid — which likely increased demand. Our results are even stronger in light of that change," the authors explain.

A coauthor of the Decker article was supported in part by AHRQ. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Health Aff. 2017;36:791-798, 819-825. Decker abstract, Abdus abstract

For more news, join us on Facebook and Twitter

Medscape Medical News © 2017 WebMD, LLC

Send comments and news tips to news@medscape.net.

Cite this article: Medicaid Expansion Did Not Pull From Private Insurance - Medscape - May 01, 2017.
Click to expand...

The Flashlight · May 2, 2017

Who cares?

garamet · May 2, 2017

The Flashlight said: ↑

Who cares?
Click to expand...

You cared enough to bump the thread.

The Flashlight · May 2, 2017

garamet said: ↑

The Flashlight said: ↑

Who cares?
Click to expand...

You cared enough to bump the thread.
Click to expand...

I was simply highlighting that you have no discernible point to make with this thread.

Dayton Kitchens · May 2, 2017

garamet said: ↑

The Flashlight said: ↑

Who cares?
Click to expand...

You cared enough to bump the thread.
Click to expand...

How is posting in a thread started less than one third of a day ago " bumping it?

Captain X · May 2, 2017

Both the Democrats and Republicans seem to have missed the point in that it isn't about insurance, but rather that medical costs are so outrageously high that one needs insurance just to keep from going into bankruptcy should they actually need medical care for something.

oldfella1962 · May 2, 2017

Captain X said: ↑

Both the Democrats and Republicans seem to have missed the point in that it isn't about insurance, but rather that medical costs are so outrageously high that one needs insurance just to keep from going into bankruptcy should they actually need medical care for something.
Click to expand...

good point - instead of who can provide better band-aids for your "boo boo" why not figure out how to stop you from getting cut in the first place? Let's get down to the nitty-gritty as to why costs are so high and how we can lower them while keeping the same (or better) standard of care.

garamet · May 3, 2017

oldfella1962 said: ↑

Captain X said: ↑

Both the Democrats and Republicans seem to have missed the point in that it isn't about insurance, but rather that medical costs are so outrageously high that one needs insurance just to keep from going into bankruptcy should they actually need medical care for something.
Click to expand...

good point - instead of who can provide better band-aids for your "boo boo" why not figure out how to stop you from getting cut in the first place? Let's get down to the nitty-gritty as to why costs are so high and how we can lower them while keeping the same (or better) standard of care.
Click to expand...

Ever since for-profit insurers were let into the market by deregulation, there’s been a “gentlemen’s agreement” between the insurers and pharma. One raises prices, the other raises prices, rinse, repeat. Doctors - particularly specialists - jumped on the bandwagon and raised their fees as well, figuring insurance would cover them.

Medicaid for all would cut out the middleman and force pharma to provide rational pricing, which is exactly why they fight against any kind of change in the market. For decades the insurers went along by simply refusing to cover high-priced drugs and procedures. The PPACA forced them to cover preexisting conditions, but that wasn’t sufficient to get them to strong-arm pharma into lowering their prices. Medicaid for all would do that.

Of course surgical procedures will always be costly, but that’s a whole ‘nother conversation.

garamet · May 3, 2017

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/879458?src=wnl_edit_tpal&uac=127342PX

www.medscape.com

5 Ways GOP Healthcare Bill Tug-of-War May Play Out
Julie Rovner

May 03, 2017

The House may pass its bill to repeal and replace parts of the Affordable Care Act. But Republicans' pathway to fulfilling their seven-year effort to undo the federal health law is getting narrower by the day.

"As of now, they still don't have the votes," said Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) as he was leaving a meeting of GOP members Tuesday. King has been a target for those pushing both for and against the bill.

The latest snag is over whether people with preexisting health conditions should have guaranteed access to affordable coverage, as the ACA mandates. An amendment that would let states waive some of those requirements has garnered the votes of reluctant conservatives but left more moderate Republicans concerned.

"I've supported the practice of not allowing preexisting conditions to be discriminated against from the very get-go," Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), a former chairman of the House committee that handles most health issues, told a Michigan radio station Tuesday in explaining his decision not to support the bill. "This amendment torpedoes that."

House leaders stressed that they are still working to muster a majority to pass the bill, which was originally scheduled for a full floor vote in March.

Here are some possible ways the effort could play out.

1. The House passes its bill soon.
Approval in the House would send the measure to the Senate, where the fight will be very different. Congress is using a special budget procedure that allows the bill to pass with 51 votes. There are only 52 Republicans in the Senate, so they can't afford to lose more than two GOP votes, assuming every Democrat opposes the measure. In that case, Vice President Mike Pence would be needed to break a tie.

While this special procedure makes the bill easier for Republicans to pass, the Senate's budget "reconciliation" process must follow a series of specific rules that exclude provisions that don't directly affect the federal budget.

Various parts of the House bill, including a recent change to let states waive some coverage rules that has ignited concerns about preexisting conditions, have been mentioned as possible violations of those Senate rules and would have to be taken out in order to qualify for the protections of reconciliation.

The Senate may also amend the bill and the House would have to approve those changes, which could again break the delicate coalition of House GOP support.

2. The House walks away from the debate.
In theory, the House could just leave health care for another day — or another year. That would be a huge setback for President Donald Trump, who campaigned on a pledge to "repeal and replace" the health law, as well as for congressional Republicans, who have been promising to do the same since the bill became law in 2010.

But if the law truly implodes for 2018, meaning insurers drop out of so many areas that millions of people have no insurance options, it could trigger an entirely different health debate.

3. The House decides to switch gears to tax reform.
Health care is not the Republicans' only high priority. So is an overhaul of the federal tax code.

But Republicans want to use the same budget reconciliation procedure to pass their tax plan. That's a problem.

In order to make sweeping tax changes under expedited budget rules, the House and Senate would have to move on to a fiscal 2018 budget resolution, which would override the 2017 budget blueprint. But as soon as it does, the protections for the health bill would expire.

There is another option. Each budget resolution can allow one spending bill and one tax bill to be protected by reconciliation rules. So Congress could simply start the process over in a 2018 budget resolution that would allow it to move on tax reform and changes to the health law simultaneously.

4. Congress tries to overhaul health law incrementally.
The House could abandon the budget process and simply pass bills without regard to whether they have an effect on the budget. The first step, though, would likely be for the House to repeal the ACA wholesale — giving Republicans political cover. Then they could take up smaller pieces of legislation, such as a bill that would allow health insurance to be purchased across state lines, a favorite idea of Trump's. Those bills, however, would require 60 votes in the Senate, which seems unlikely given Democratic opposition.

If the GOP efforts to bring wholesale change to the ACA are exhausted, though, it may be possible for some moderate Republicans to craft legislation with Democrats to fix some of the issues that both parties see in the law.

5. The Senate gets rid of the legislative filibuster.
The Senate earlier this year abolished the need for 60 votes to fill a Supreme Court seat, which got Trump's nominee, Neil Gorsuch, approved. Trump has been calling for Republicans to also get rid of the filibuster for legislation. "Either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%," he tweeted on Tuesday.

But the legislative filibuster is the last protection for a Senate minority party, and Republicans know they will someday be that minority again. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said repeatedly he has no intention of taking this step, telling reporters Tuesday it "would fundamentally change the way the Senate has worked for a very long time." And even if he changed his mind, he might have trouble persuading some of his Republican colleagues to go along.

Kaiser Health News © 2017

Cite this article: 5 Ways GOP Healthcare Bill Tug-of-War May Play Out - Medscape - May 03, 2017.
Click to expand...

Diacanu · May 3, 2017

I read a thing about how the amygdala gives the same threat response when beliefs are threatened as if your body is threatened with violence.
That's how some conservatives can with a straight face say stupid crazy shit like "Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery".
Conservatism goes right for the amygdala.
I'm a thinking junkie, I'd rather die than operate that way.
But, there you go...

Bickendan · May 3, 2017

Diacanu said: ↑

I read a thing about how the amygdala gives the same threat response when beliefs are threatened as if your body is threatened with violence.
That's how some conservatives can with a straight face say stupid crazy shit like "Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery".
Conservatism goes right for the amygdala.
I'm a thinking junkie, I'd rather die than operate that way.
But, there you go...
Click to expand...

You read the oatmeal comic too?

Fisherman's Worf · May 3, 2017

“We have enough votes,” Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House majority leader, said Wednesday night. “It’ll pass.’”

House Republicans to their constituents: "we are literally going to let you all die."

I hope voters remember this in 2018, but I don't have confidence.

tafkats · May 3, 2017

Re: Medicare -- this is what Republicans are absolutely terrified of: that if people have the option of buying into Medicare, they WILL, thus showing their ideological insistence that The Private Sector Is Always Better Than Government to be the horse hockey that it is.

Diacanu · May 3, 2017

tafkats said: ↑

Re: Medicare -- this is what Republicans are absolutely terrified of: that if people have the option of buying into Medicare, they WILL, thus showing their ideological insistence that The Private Sector Is Always Better Than Government to be the horse hockey that it is.
Click to expand...

And then the private insurance industry bribes will stop pouring in...

Diacanu · May 4, 2017

Ope, news just broke in, the Repugs are trying to repeal ACA again.
Their new shitty plan just passed the house, now it's off to the senate.
Kiss your sick loved ones goodbye.

Dinner · May 4, 2017

The Flashlight said: ↑

Who cares?
Click to expand...

Who cares that the government will be spending more yet fewer people will have coverage? Everyone should care about making the government run efficiently and this is the opposite of that.

Ten Lubak · May 4, 2017

I'm curious as to how people that want to get Obamacare repealed feel that Congress and their staffers aren't switching to the new plan and keeping Obamacare for themselves.

Dayton Kitchens · May 4, 2017

garamet said: ↑

.
Click to expand...

.

Medicaid for all would cut out the middleman and force pharma to provide rational pricing,
.[/quote]

And what if instead the evil "Big Pharma" instead of being "forced" to provide "rational pricing" instead discontinued the production of massive numbers of drugs they were being forced to sell for a "rational price"?

What then?

One thing proto socialists have never understood is that in a country that at least considers itself semi free is that you cannot force businesses and industries to operate and produce if they won't want to.

Order2Chaos · May 4, 2017

Does anyone have any rational analysis of what's actually in the bill that the House passed? Headlines like "Congress exempts itself from ACA repeal" when Congress was not subject to the ACA in the first place, or "Rape will now be a preexisting condition" as if it wasn't prior to the ACA (or isn't now for that matter, just not discriminable on like it was before the ACA) are spectacularly unhelpful bits of partisan politics remarkably devoid of substance, and that's saying something in the Trump era.

Diacanu · May 4, 2017

Dayton3 said: ↑

garamet said: ↑

oldfella1962 said: ↑

Captain X said: ↑

Both the Democrats and Republicans seem to have missed the point in that it isn't about insurance, but rather that medical costs are so outrageously high that one needs insurance just to keep from going into bankruptcy should they actually need medical care for something.
Click to expand...

.

Medicaid for all would cut out the middleman and force pharma to provide rational pricing, which is exactly why they fight against any kind of change in the market. For decades the insurers went along by simply refusing to cover high-priced drugs and procedures. The PPACA forced them to cover preexisting conditions, but that wasn’t sufficient to get them to strong-arm pharma into lowering their prices. Medicaid for all would do that.
.
Click to expand...

And what if instead the evil "Big Pharma" instead of being "forced" to provide "rational pricing" instead discontinued the production of massive numbers of drugs they were being forced to sell for a "rational price"?

What then?

One thing proto socialists have never understood is that in a country that at least considers itself semi free is that you cannot force businesses and industries to operate and produce if they won't want to.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You're never going to figure out tags, are you?
It's like teaching a toddler calculus, it's just not going to happen, is it?

garamet · May 4, 2017

Dayton3 said:

And what if instead the evil "Big Pharma" instead of being "forced" to provide "rational pricing" instead discontinued the production of massive numbers of drugs they were being forced to sell for a "rational price"?
Click to expand...

What eludes you (aside from quote tags) is the fact that pharma companies, unlike any other corporate entity, set their own prices because they can. Q.v. Martin Shkreli, the recent attempt to raise the price of an EpiPen astronomically, etc.

Order2Chaos said: ↑

Does anyone have any rational analysis of what's actually in the bill that the House passed? Headlines like "Congress exempts itself from ACA repeal" when Congress was not subject to the ACA in the first place, or "Rape will now be a preexisting condition" as if it wasn't prior to the ACA (or isn't now for that matter, just not discriminable on like it was before the ACA) are spectacularly unhelpful bits of partisan politics remarkably devoid of substance, and that's saying something in the Trump era.
Click to expand...

The official site: https://trumpcare.com/

Diacanu · May 4, 2017

News cut in again, Trump's coming out to brag.

garamet · May 4, 2017

Diacanu said: ↑

News cut in again, Trump's coming out to brag.

Click to expand...

It still has to pass the Senate.

Dayton Kitchens · May 4, 2017

Diacanu said: ↑

Dayton3 said: ↑

garamet said: ↑

oldfella1962 said: ↑

.

Medicaid for all would cut out the middleman and force pharma to provide rational pricing, which is exactly why they fight against any kind of change in the market. For decades the insurers went along by simply refusing to cover high-priced drugs and procedures. The PPACA forced them to cover preexisting conditions, but that wasn’t sufficient to get them to strong-arm pharma into lowering their prices. Medicaid for all would do that.
.
Click to expand...

And what if instead the evil "Big Pharma" instead of being "forced" to provide "rational pricing" instead discontinued the production of massive numbers of drugs they were being forced to sell for a "rational price"?

What then?

One thing proto socialists have never understood is that in a country that at least considers itself semi free is that you cannot force businesses and industries to operate and produce if they won't want to.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You're never going to figure out tags, are you?
It's like teaching a toddler calculus, it's just not going to happen, is it?

Click to expand...

I have no problems with quote tags.

garamet · May 4, 2017

Dayton3 said: ↑

Diacanu said: ↑

Dayton3 said: ↑

garamet said: ↑

And what if instead the evil "Big Pharma" instead of being "forced" to provide "rational pricing" instead discontinued the production of massive numbers of drugs they were being forced to sell for a "rational price"?

What then?

One thing proto socialists have never understood is that in a country that at least considers itself semi free is that you cannot force businesses and industries to operate and produce if they won't want to.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You're never going to figure out tags, are you?
It's like teaching a toddler calculus, it's just not going to happen, is it?

Click to expand...

I have no problems with quote tags.
Click to expand...

So you deliberately hide your responses in other people's posts?

Dayton Kitchens · May 4, 2017

garamet said: ↑

Dayton3 said:

And what if instead the evil "Big Pharma" instead of being "forced" to provide "rational pricing" instead discontinued the production of massive numbers of drugs they were being forced to sell for a "rational price"?
Click to expand...

What eludes you (aside from quote tags) is the fact that pharma companies, unlike any other corporate entity, set their own prices because they can. Q.v. Martin Shkreli, the recent attempt to raise the price of an EpiPen astronomically, etc.
Click to expand...

Just because Martin Shkreli is an ass doesn't mean all pharmaceutical companies or their executives are.

Seems to me that if the companies set their own prices "because they can" the better solution would be more competition and not a government run health care system.

Log in or Sign up

The U.S. Health Care Catch-All Thread

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Dayton Kitchens Banned

garamet "The whole world is watching."

garamet "The whole world is watching."

garamet "The whole world is watching."

The Flashlight Contributes nothing worthwhile Cunt Git

garamet "The whole world is watching."

The Flashlight Contributes nothing worthwhile Cunt Git

Dayton Kitchens Banned

Captain X Responsible cookie control

oldfella1962 the only real finish line

garamet "The whole world is watching."

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

Bickendan Custom Title Administrator Faceless Mook Writer

Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

tafkats scream not working because space make deaf Moderator

Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

Ten Lubak Salty Dog

Dayton Kitchens Banned

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Dayton Kitchens Banned

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Dayton Kitchens Banned

Log in or Sign up

The U.S. Health Care Catch-All Thread

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Dayton Kitchens Banned

garamet "The whole world is watching."

garamet "The whole world is watching."

garamet "The whole world is watching."

The Flashlight Contributes nothing worthwhile Cunt Git

garamet "The whole world is watching."

The Flashlight Contributes nothing worthwhile Cunt Git

Dayton Kitchens Banned

Captain X Responsible cookie control

oldfella1962 the only real finish line

garamet "The whole world is watching."

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

Bickendan Custom Title Administrator Faceless Mook Writer

Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

tafkats scream not working because space make deaf Moderator

Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

Ten Lubak Salty Dog

Dayton Kitchens Banned

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Dayton Kitchens Banned

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Dayton Kitchens Banned

Useful Searches