Why do you think Americans can't afford their prescription meds and go to Canada to purchase them?

Hey idiot. No, I've never said or acted like they were free. Here's what I said: those that live in this country and thus have the freedom to diss the various government agencies as terrible, useless, etc., and think these agencies should be done away with, should try living without them.

Pot meet kettle

health care quality = cost of meds? really?

You're right up front there, pal.

We could talk about all the elderly having operations in Mexico, because they can't afford healthcare in the US.

I stopped into a grocery pharmacy to buy some drugs for a friends sick barn cat today. Amoxicillin liquid $4. Amoxicillin-clavalunic acid (Pfizer's Augmentin in human terms, better for patient, been around forever, not much more expensive than amoxi in the animal healthcare arm of Pfizer drugs) was $40.

That's outrageous theft, pure and simple. To give one drug away with one hand, while behind the back with the other hand grabbing far more than both drugs together are worth.

Oh, yes, and that was the "professional discount" price, discounted off the price the client would have had to pay ($46) if the uninsured client purchased it herself.

Yes, I'd like an evil world of socialized medicine, where everyone pays $8 for Amoxi, and $12 for Augmentin.

You are comparing the quality of medical care and the consumer cost of meds?

It's a spectrum of cost, some virtually nil. GIANT pharmacy gives away both Augmentin and Amox for some time now but the cost of meds otherwise in this country is much more complex than this.

so your post calling people dense and ignorant is justified, whereas theirs are not? sorry, riot. if you go back and look, you may see that where you may have felt tired of the debate, you did exactly the same thing.


edit~i just went to the start of the thread, and read thru-and guess who was the first to tossing out those names.

The quality of medical care and the cost of meds are completely interwoven. People who are on hundreds of dollars of meds per month, but cannot take them because they cannot afford to purchase them in the US (even with insurance, Medicare, etc), directly results in poor health care. When they have to leave this country to afford their medical care (their regular drugs) that's a sad, sad state of affairs.

Really? Like where you said what I posted was sanctimonious crap?

Sorry, 'Zig - right back at you.

The headline was: Nancy Pelosi: We Need to Pass Health Care Bill to Find Out What’s In It

Unbelievable. These liberals must be the product of their own failed education system in the public schools...those of them who didn't start out with a silver spoon in their mouth, admittedly few.

This is right up there with Obama's quote during the campaign about "Our individual prosperity depends upon our collective prosperity."

Both quotes are "bass-ackwards", using the clean version to avoid swearing.

Obviously, a bill that is not understandable EVEN BY LEGISLATORS should not be passed. This is an amplification of the fact that a bill that is not understandable in the colloquial language of the people should not be passed.

And to Obama: "Collective prosperity" refers to a collection of what? Individuals. So obviously individuals have to prosper before any "collective" can. That is aside from the fact that all of our rights are based on the individual, and that a conceptual problem with groups of individuals is that they can be defined many ways. "Everybody" or "Legal Citizens vs. Illegals" or "Caucasians vs. Non-Caucasians" or "Residents of New Jersey", whatever. Advertising professionals, statisticians, actuaries and insurance companies do this all the time. But we should not make policy based on arbitrarily defined groups at the expense of individuals.

The Democrats' lack of intellectual fortitude does not mix well with their condescension and contempt for those actually paying the bills.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/bu...nhardt.html?hp


Health Care’s Obstacle: No Will to Cut
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: March 9, 2010

For anyone who cares about medical costs — which is to say anyone who cares about the take-home pay of American families or about the budget deficit — President Obama’s health reform plan is a terribly mixed bag.

It does so much less than the ideal plan would do. It would not come close to eliminating Medicare’s long-term budget deficit. It would reduce that deficit only if a future Congress did not tinker with the various taxes and spending cuts scheduled to be phased in over the next decade.

On the other hand, the plan would make progress in all sorts of areas. Insurance exchanges would create more competition. A Medicare oversight board would gain authority over reimbursement rates. Hospitals that committed certain medical errors — harmful, costly errors — would face financial penalties.

So which matters more: what the plan does, or what it fails to do? It’s a tough call, and the answer depends on what you see as the alternative to the current plan.




So I agree that health reform should do more to reduce spiraling medical costs. But saying so doesn’t qualify as hard-headed fiscal realism. In fact, it’s the easy thing to say. The bigger issue is how policy makers can achieve the goal, given the political realities.

Fortunately, they still have an opportunity to do better.


---obama has tried his all or nothing for nine months-perhaps they should work more on getting it right then getting it passed.

[quote=joeydb]The headline was: Nancy Pelosi: We Need to Pass Health Care Bill to Find Out What’s In It

Take a deep breath, Joey. It doesn't mean what you say, above.

It just means the obvious - that we won't know exactly what's in the final bill, until it's gone through all the reconciliation between House and Senate. There is still push for a public option in the House, etc.

It doesn't mean the House and Senate bills are "not understandable".

Nobody is starting from scratch at this point. They will get it passed. About time. And hopefully it will contain the more "liberal" (and cost-cutting) stuff such as the public option versus only exchanges (the stuff that will cut our budget by billions over the next 10 years).

If not, the House has already said that no matter what comes out of reconciliation, they will start amending the law to booster it up and provide what's needed. The GOP had said they are running this fall on repealing it. Good luck with that.

Polls do show that people don't like "healthcare reform" - until it is explained what it encompasses (no death panels, no 'government-run' healthcare), then the polls show that acceptance rises alot.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ealth-car.html

And Newsweek:

Especially this fall.

who said start over from scratch? i still think obama should have listened more to rahm emanual, and taken small steps, a change here, a change there-with the end result being a good overall reformation. but no one believes that the govt can A-do it better than private, and B-save money. we have economists on one hand saying a growing deficit will kill our economy, and on the other we have the CBO already saying that obama's current budget plan has our deficit growing by leaps and bounds.

you'd think tho, in the nine months of battling, someone could have changed these numbers of doubters even a little, but that hasn't happened. and people might still approve more of obama, but they don't approve at all of congress, which is why this is all floundering.

A - The government isn't replacing private health care, they are regulating it. There is no single payer, although that does have some support.

BTW, I believe in and strongly support single payer at this point. So yes, there are quite a few that believe the government can do it better. Medicare and Medicaid is a godsend to millions.

The worse people in the world to be in charge of healthcare are those that don't have any financial interest in paying for healthcare to sick people, who only make money by not paying for healthcare for people - and that would be private insurance companies. That is why we are in such an awful state for healthcare in this country.

B - The CBO has said that the House plan would save billions over 10 years, cut tons from our deficit. Are you talking about the Senate bill unamended?

It has, and I just posted stories regarding polls that show it has.

I agree, people don't approve of Congress.

The only people who believe the government can do anything better than the private sector are people who live with their heads in the sand. or politicians. I'm sure they feel they know best and are as arrogant as you.

I think they broke the mold with you Riot.

Yes, I am the one calling people names here. Not our 'moderators'. ;)

cry me a river. I'd stop calling you names if you kept your idiotic opinions to yourself. but noooooo you are the queen know it all on every single topic under the sun!

You are actually blaming me, for 'making you' call me names?

What are you, five years old?

yes I am thank you very much.

You post dumb opinions/thoughts routinely.. and in return you should expect to be called names. no such thing as a free lunch or something along those lines. You're like the gales of the Politics section.. he gets called out when hes posting dumb things too...

Actually you are more like Gales and Booth Operator rolled into one.

Then many of us have been far too generous regarding your posts :D

Honestly it is more fun to sit on the sidelines and continue to watch you make a fool of yourself (and then calling you out) than actually chiming in with opinions. And I only comment on things I feel like I understand a little. Obviously you seem to feel like you understand EVERYTHING!! It's good you have confidence at least!

No, please - continue to dart out and call names at those who hold differing opinions than yours.

It's your duty as a Libertarian not to tolerate differences of opinion, other than your own :tro:

if you've noticed the only people that get names thrown at them are you, Booth Operator, and Timmi.

You can draw your own conclusions!! lol (no offense Timmi)

My conclusion is that if it makes you feel better about yourself to call other people names, have at it :tro:

Thanks buddy!!!! And feel free to keep on posting crap opinions!!! :cool:

The below is what Obama wants included in the Healthcare Reform act (what he wants in there during reconciliation):

Children with pre-existing conditions will no longer be denied insurance coverage (starts this year)
Lifetime coverage limits will be removed.
You will be covered for preventive care.
You can no longer be denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
You can no longer have your rates jacked up or be dropped when you get sick.

Medicare benefits will not be cut.
Medicare holders will get more preventive benefits (like cancer screenings) at no cost
Donut hole gap will be closed for prescription meds

People will keep their own doctors and current coverage in plans they have now (nothing affects or changes that)
No business will be required to provide insurance to their employees.

Businesses who provide insurance to their employees will be protected against arbitrary high rate hikes because one employee gets sick.

Insurance companies cannot charge businesses for coverage based upon individual employee health status

People who do not get insurance through work, and small businesses who do not have insurance for their employees, will be able to purchase the same type of excellent insurance marketplace Government employees & Congress has.

People and companies who still cannot afford this lowered price pool will get some tax cuts to help pay for it (expected to be the largest middle class tax cut in history)

The CBO says people buying health plans in the individual market now will retain the exact same plan, but see their premiums go down 10-14%

Insurance company studies on workplace insurance plans have shown this could reduce premiums for employer-paid work plans by $3000 per employee per year.

CBO says the above plan in total will reduce deficit by one trillion dollars. The Medicare Trust Fund life will be extended 9 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...siness/economy


Deficits higher than Obama forecast: CBO

By Doug Palmer
Reuters
Friday, March 5, 2010; 11:49 PM

President Barack Obama's budget plans would rack up $9.8 trillion more debt by 2020, or $1.2 trillion more than the White House has forecast, the Congressional Budget Office said on Friday.



But working with staff of the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, it made a preliminary estimate that Obama's proposals would boost the budget deficit in fiscal 2010 to $1.5 trillion, or 10.3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product.

"Measured relative to the size of the economy, the deficit under the President's proposals would fall to about 4 percent of GDP by 2014 but would rise steadily thereafter," CBO said


"Under the President's budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020," CBO said.

you mean, like this:

i mean, if you want to call names and bash folks with a different opinion, go for it. but the part where you complain when people do the same to you-well, that gets old. it's almost, dare i say (dare, dare!) hypocritical. you justify doing it( you once said "he started it"---but anti-trust is five?!), but whine when others do it.

Yeah, 'Zig. That was after you called one of my posts, "sanctimonious crap", right?

Calling someone sanctimonious doesn't count as name-calling or insult when you do it?

But if I respond after your post in kind, I'm suddenly the bad one?

So I guess you missed the part where Lori called me an idiot? Then she said I made her call me names? And that is why I asked if she were five? And you are getting after me about calling Lori five, but that's okay for her to call me an idiot in your book?

Thanks, 'Zig, that's good to know about you <vbg>

So I guess it's not offensive to you for some down here to hurl insults at people (idiot, ****, stupid, etc) - it's just not right when the recipients start returning the fire? <vbg>

I no longer feel compelled to always ignore the rude crap some of the bullies down here fling around on a regular basis. Sorry. If you can't debate politics "like an adult", as Simon likes to say, and have to resort to discussing the poster and their intelligence, etc, expect to get it back in one's face. Judging by my private messages today and yesterday, that isn't a minority opinion at all <g>

please point out where i said you made me call you names?

this was my quote "I'd stop calling you names if you kept your idiotic opinions to yourself"

but you are the Queen at making stuff up thats for sure.. or pulling it out of your ass.

congrats on your private messages, you are still an idiot.

actually, here is the deal, if you stop coming off as such an arrogant jerk in all your posts, maybe people will be nice to you back.

Apparently not as much as you.

You are an idiot, too ;) We can start a club!

Actually, I don't make "deals" with people who are nasty to me.

You are free to think I am an arrogant jerk, and I have an awfully lot of people that are already very nice to me, thanks :)

Even on Derby Trail, where I dare to have voted for Obama, and refuse to be the least bit ashamed of it ;)

ok, like i said, i don't care if you call people names, or if anyone else does-if anyone chooses to do that, it's their business. what i was trying to explain to you was that as soon as you think someone has insulted YOU, you go on and on about it. but when you return the favor, you find a way to justify it. that's why i said you're a hypocrite about it.

as for pm's, i'm sure they're sent that way for a reason. it's why i don't bother bringing them up, since they have nothing to do with a public discussion. if people don't wish to post here, that's their choice.

and as for me saying something you posted was sanctimonious crap, i was talking about the comment itself, not the poster. you can take that as you will, i don't care. people have taken me to task in the past for things i said, generally i consider what they say-as they may just have a point.

:tro: :tro: :tro: :tro: