Wall Street Protests

[The Progressive]

Scot,

"Do you really think the ACA is the "fix" for Healthcare problems in the US?"

The ACA is just an imperfect compromise that set in place a starting point for the gradual fix of our broken healthcare system.

The real fix would be what ThinkerX have always advocated ...... things like salary cap on physicians, forcing the pharmaceuticals to charge less for drugs, a nation-wide single-payer system, etc.

So the question is do you want the gradual tweakings of the ACA over time, or do you want to be slapped in the face with thinkerx's draconian edicts?

And kudos to the protestors .................. it's nice to see the left re-exerting the right to protest which has been hijacked lately by teabaggers.

[Swift]

No, the mandate is simply there to keep costs from ballooning once you stop discrimination based on pre-existing conditions.

The cost reduction comes from other provisions.

Can you explain what some of these cost sharing provisions are?

[mor2]

The real fix would be what ThinkerX have always advocated ...... things like salary cap on physicians, forcing the pharmaceuticals to charge less for drugs, a nation-wide single-payer system, etc.

How does that work? how can you place salary cap on physicians? or do you mean to place salary cap on physicians in the public sector? what do you think that would that achieve?

how are you planing to forcing the pharmaceuticals to charge less for drugs? it takes years of R&D, testing and approval and there is no guaranty for a pay-off, so if there is no prommise of a big payoff, how would they get investors on board, with promises of risky long-term investment with average pay off?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

And kudos to the protestors .................. it's nice to see the left re-exerting the right to protest which has been hijacked lately by teabaggers.

How can any group, right or left, "hijack" the right to protest (peacefully assemble)? It's a right held by all.

[The Progressive]

Can you explain what some of these cost sharing provisions are?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1006571"So what are the cost-control elements of the ACA? First, some reforms aim to eliminate unnecessary costs to the system; these include measures against fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which the Department of Health and Human Services predicts will return approximately $17 in reduced spending for every dollar invested2 ($7 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO).3 Administrative simplification under the ACA will reduce unnecessary paperwork and create uniform electronic standards and operating rules to be used by all private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid — saving the federal government an estimated $20 billion over 10 years2 and saving insurers, physicians, hospitals, and other providers tens of billions of dollars a year (according to the U.S. Healthcare Efficiency Index). And the ACA ensures a pathway for approval of generic biologic agents that is expected to save the government more than $7 billion, and citizens and insurers additional billions, over 10 years. An estimated $1.1 billion will be saved in Medicare by calculating payment for complex imaging studies under the assumption that the machines will operate not just 50%, but 75%, of the time. And about $135 billion will be saved in the first decade by eliminating unjustified subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans."For the complete CBO's analysis on ACA and cost saving measures, read here:http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf

[Shryke]

How does that work? how can you place salary cap on physicians? or do you mean to place salary cap on physicians in the public sector? what do you think that would that achieve?

how are you planing to forcing the pharmaceuticals to charge less for drugs? it takes years of R&D, testing and approval and there is no guaranty for a pay-off, so if there is no prommise of a big payoff, how would they get investors on board, with promises of risky long-term investment with average pay off?

The same way everyone else in the world does?

[Shryke]

Can you explain what some of these cost sharing provisions are?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the_democrats_have_a_plan_for_controlling_health_care_costs_paul_ryan_doesnt/2011/04/08/AFeF9f1C_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein

Also here:

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf

[The Progressive]

Can you explain what some of these cost sharing provisions are?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1006571"So what are the cost-control elements of the ACA? First, some reforms aim to eliminate unnecessary costs to the system; these include measures against fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which the Department of Health and Human Services predicts will return approximately $17 in reduced spending for every dollar invested2 ($7 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO).3 Administrative simplification under the ACA will reduce unnecessary paperwork and create uniform electronic standards and operating rules to be used by all private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid — saving the federal government an estimated $20 billion over 10 years2 and saving insurers, physicians, hospitals, and other providers tens of billions of dollars a year (according to the U.S. Healthcare Efficiency Index). And the ACA ensures a pathway for approval of generic biologic agents that is expected to save the government more than $7 billion, and citizens and insurers additional billions, over 10 years. An estimated $1.1 billion will be saved in Medicare by calculating payment for complex imaging studies under the assumption that the machines will operate not just 50%, but 75%, of the time. And about $135 billion will be saved in the first decade by eliminating unjustified subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans."For the complete CBO's analysis on ACA and cost saving measures, read here:http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Jeff:

To me, they're saying "You bailed out the rich and greedy. Why are you not helping us?"

Not helping? The net cost of the bank bailout, TARP, has come way down because the vast majority of the funds have been repaid. As of March 2011, the net cost of the TARP bailout was down to only $19B, and still dropping.

http://www.housingwi...t-to-19-billion

By contrast, the Feds spent over $32B on Pell grants alone for 2010-2011 school year. In other words, we spend nearly twice as much in federal educational grants to college students every year than the total net cost of the TARP program. So if they're really complaining that "you help Wall Street but you don't help us", that's just crap.

http://www.heritage....ge-Cost-Problem

Anyway, if their point really is just demanding more money be given to them, I think that really takes some stones. I suspect that the vast majority of those student loan recipients have paid very little in income taxes that fund both the student loan programs and TARP, so bitching that they should have some sort of right to make others pay more in taxes to fund their education doesn't garner much sympathy from me.

In terms of bailing out the rich and greedy, I do share whatever opposition you may have to bailing out or subsidizing businesses. I hate corporate welfare, and prefer that they sink or swim on their own. That includes not only Wall Street banks, but auto companies, energy companies (green or otherwise) etc. So I'm with you on that. Again, though, I'd point out that if you want to talk about bailing out Wall Street, the net cost of TARP was $19B, which you can contrast with the nearly $800B spent in the stimulus bill to supposedly help "Main Street".

In any case, we were told (and I personally still don't know if this is correct or not) that if we didn't have TARP, the entire banking system might have collapsed. So at least in theory, that bailout didn't just bail out the rich, but everyone else. And in reality, if things had gone badly, it would have been the top 5% who would have best been able to weather it because they have the most assets. Sure, they'd have lost a lot, but they also would have been left with the most. It would have been the average person, with little savings or cushion if/when they lose their jobs, who would have suffered the most. So for people to argue that the bailout "just helped the rich and and greedy" misstates the reality, I think. Even though I'm still sort of neutral personally on the whole thing.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

The same way everyone else in the world does?

Six of the top 12 pharmaceutical companies ranked by revenue last year are based in the US. It was even more skewed before. That's not say drug costs can't be reduced, just not by running roughshod without regard to the workings of the free market. The best solution I've seen so far is to reduce the FDA's scope to testing only for safety and not efficacy.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Frankly, I think it's amazing that people still have the balls to go out and protest like this. This is one of the best parts of democracy in action. These people should be commended for exercising their right to free-assembly, and not being apathetic about things. I like seeing people give a fuck, so I have a lot more respect for these people than for the millions of other 'content' individuals who are too busy playing x-box and watching movies to actually give a shit.

Presumably, that extends to tea partiers as well, for getting out there and saying their piece?

[Shryke]

Six of the top 12 pharmaceutical companies ranked by revenue last year are based in the US. It was even more skewed before. That's not say drug costs can't be reduced, just not by running roughshod without regard to the workings of the free market. The best solution I've seen so far is to reduce the FDA's scope to testing only for safety and not efficacy.

What does where they are based have to do with anything?

Also, what does this tangent have to do with this thread at all?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

What does where they are based have to do with anything?

Also, what does this tangent have to do with this thread at all?

You said that they manage to develop drugs somehow in the rest of the world despite Mor's good description of the difficulties inherent in financing drug development when government's cap drug prices. I offered a partial and quick rebuttal of that.

In effect, the rest of the world doesn't since the majority of drug development occurs in the U.S.

[Shryke]

You said that they manage to develop drugs somehow in the rest of the world despite Mor's good description of the difficulties inherent in financing drug development when government's cap drug prices. I offered a partial and quick rebuttal of that.

In effect, the rest of the world doesn't since the majority of drug development occurs in the U.S.

No, I said the rest of the world manages to pay alot less then the US. Which is what we were talking about.

The talk of R&D was only in respect to a suposed drop off in investment in drugs if the US dared to not get riped off. That drugs are developed in the US is utterly irrelevant to the ability to fleece the US for insane drug costs. You don't need to have your development done in the US to do that, as the other 6 top pharma companies amply prove.

The first world is mostly smart enough to negotiate sensibly with drug companies to bargain down prices. The US, on the other hand, has laws like Medicare Part D specifically prohibiting them from bargaining.

[Lord of Oop North]

Presumably, that extends to tea partiers as well, for getting out there and saying their piece?

Of course it does. Whether I agree with them or not is immaterial. I respect anyone who actually gets out there and proves that they give a fuck.

[The Progressive]

You said that they manage to develop drugs somehow in the rest of the world despite Mor's good description of the difficulties inherent in financing drug development when government's cap drug prices. I offered a partial and quick rebuttal of that.

In effect, the rest of the world doesn't since the majority of drug development occurs in the U.S.

I see what you're arguing here, that the US consumers have been subsidizing the cost of drug-development for the rest of the world. Then, it's quite obvious that the smart thing to do for US consumers is to enforce price control in the US and have the rest of the world pay for the difference so that pharmaceuticals could continue to develop drugs, right?

[The Progressive]

Lev,

How can any group, right or left, "hijack" the right to protest (peacefully assemble)?  It's a right held by all.

I mean "high-jack" as in how the teabaggers have been able to present their racist anti-Obama drivels as legitimate concerns shared by the majority of people. I mean they protested against attempts at financial/healthcare reforms and over Obama's birth certificate for godssake.I see this Wal St protest as truly representing the concerns of the majority of the people.By the way, do you have any comment on the other solutions to fix our heathcare summarized earlier?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

They seem focused on reducing cost to the Government rather than overall costs. Which suggests any savings the Government achieves will likely be passed along to private health insurance companies and private consumers.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I see what you're arguing here, that the US consumers have been subsidizing the cost of drug-development for the rest of the world. Then, it's quite obvious that the smart thing to do for US consumers is to enforce price control in the US and have the rest of the world pay for the difference so that pharmaceuticals could continue to develop drugs, right?

That sounds fair, though I'm not sure the rest of the world will pick up the slack and I don't have the time to do thorough research.

[The Progressive]

Lev,

They seem focused on reducing cost to the Government rather than overall costs.  Which suggests any savings the Government achieves will likely be passed along to private health insurance companies and private consumers.

Pardon but I don't think your point above is clear nor convincing at all. Could you elaborate on how salary cap, price control and single-payer system would only reduce public spending on health care but not private spending?