Doesn't every drug become generic brand at some point when a patent expires? That's part of competition amongst pharma companies and we, the consumer, see the cost savings once the patents expire, don't we?
Edited to add... Yes, a branded drug is protected for x number of years with the patent. Once expired other companies can manufacture the same drug under a generic name, and they sell it much cheaper than brand. Is this an example of competition lowering consumer costs? Posted via Mobile Device
Patents could be up to 17 years. Then what patent holders are allowed to do is refile ancillary patents on the components and process. Even when all that expires, the patent holder is allowed to grant exclusive rights to a designated party for up to 18 months.
^^^ I don't know, I just did a quick search and that was what was explained on the fda site.... If I has some time, I might give myself a crash course in patents. Posted via Mobile Device
Isn't Obamacare very similar to what Romney has already implemented in Massachusetts? I saw a documentary on the effects of Mass healthcare policy on the middle class. It wasn't pretty as they were forced to carry health insurance but at a rate deemed appropriate by their state government. Families profiled were making aprox. $75k and were forced to pay a minimum of $800 per month for their health insurance if they did not have other health insurance policies in play via work or otherwise.
I believe health insurance came into play years ago as a way to regulate the flaring costs of healthcare. They were supposed to be an equalizer to prevent doctors/hospitals from inflating prices to a point where citizens could not longer afford to be treated. I find this really ironic!
Years ago I worked for an OBGYN. I handled his health insurance claims. The process was so unbelievable to me that I would hold meetings with insurance rep's and the doctor to try and get them to explain the logic to their system. The doctor I worked for looked at patients as plastic cards and what was written on that card had a real effect on his enthusiasm for treating that patient.
At the time I worked there, Medicaid only paid $3k for an entire pregnancy and birth with the Carpenter's Union special green and white card paying out a nice $7k (remember this was years ago). If you walked in with a green and white card you got the red carpet treatment. The doctor knew that your insurance would pay up when it was supposed to, would allow him the freedom to do tests he thought were necessary and that he was getting paid a reasonable rate for 9 months of work. I can still remember which insurance companies did what and which paid out easily and which made me and the doctor jump through insane hoops to get paid a less than ideal amount.
Bottom line, the problem at this point is insurance companies. Any plan put into place that doesn't address this will be an injustice to our nation's health.
So what do you do? Does an ordinary citizen have to take a case all the way up to the supreme court and claim that their civil rights as citizens are being infringed on by insurance companies? What is the likelihood of this?
Now put into play that corporations have the same rights as citizens and you're in a pretty sticky situation. If this weren't the case, I would suggest a cap on the amount of money insurance companies can make (this is in fact what insurance companies do to doctors) with any excess going back into the insurance company's policy holders to lower deductibles.
How about awards for policy holders that do not use the full cost of their deductible for care during the year? If I pay out $7k per year (which is what my family currently pays with my husband's company matching that amount) for healthcare but only spend $2k on healthcare, how come I can't be rewarded as car insurance awards safe drivers and the like?
Either way, the costs of our nations' health is absorbed into the system as anyone can walk into an emergency room and receive treatment without being able to pay. Many without insurance use that system to get all healthcare they receive or, even worse, they use clinics where good records and oversight of their history is near impossible to be maintained...costing greater dollars in the end.
I'm of the mind set that our nation's health is important and something does need to be done. Unfortunately, I'm at a loss as to what it is that needs to be done and what it is that can actually be done.
Isn't Obamacare very similar to what Romney has already implemented in Massachusetts? I saw a documentary on the effects of Mass healthcare policy on the middle class. It wasn't pretty as they were forced to carry health insurance but at a rate deemed appropriate by their state government. Families profiled were making aprox. $75k and were forced to pay a minimum of $800 per month for their health insurance if they did not have other health insurance policies in play via work or otherwise.
.
I never stop being surprised when the politicians keep bringing this up, and don't seem to listen to Romney's explanation (the one he devised when he changed his stance on the whole issue). I think this is a very central discussion point. The Massachusetts plan was generally considered constitutional, because it followed the Tenth amendment principle of powers that belong to the states. The Tenth amendment, if you didn't have a commerce clause, would outlaw Obamacare. This is a really big deal for many independants, who want to see the federal government reigned in. The argument by the chief justices seemed to imply that the commerce clause might allow the federal government to open up commerce in health care, but there could be fifty distinct state plans developing their own solutions to utilize this new open border market.
Based on how the chief justices decided upon recent rulings, especially with campaign financing, I find it hard to believe that they will let political pundits and less qualified judicial activists sway their decision, since that is more or less in their job description to be apolitical.
I don't believe that leaving it up to each State will solve the problem, but make it must worse in the long run.
Take my state, Texas. In 2011 we had the highest rate of any
state in the nation with 24.6% of the people without any health insurance.
Everything in Texas is controlled by the Republicans.
They even were one of the first states to pass a law on tort reform and medical malpractice.
.
I agree that a program by the federal government might address the problem. I was only pointing out the problem of constitutionality that has begun to concern many people, but it is more of a far reaching concern than the constitutionality of health care. Its concerns over the federal government's self-apppointed belief in being a world police, an agent to erase the financial problems of other countries, and the way we surrendered our individual rights in order to police potential terrorists who may live among us. Not to mention that another legacy that we are leaving for our children is a debt that is so staggering that they cannot realistically hope to pay the social security debt of our generation, or the staggering debt that has already been incurred.
$900 from RDU to Charlotte Douglas. SOME tickets on heavily trafficked routes are cheaper. Most are not. Walmart $4 applies to 30 day supply of some generics only. Retail price of branded drugs is several multiples of that. For instance Lipitor is about $3 a pill.
I don't believe that leaving it up to each State will solve the problem, but make it must worse in the long run.
Take my state, Texas. In 2011 we had the highest rate of any
state in the nation with 24.6% of the people without any health insurance.
Everything in Texas is controlled by the Republicans.
They even were one of the first states to pass a law on tort reform and medical malpractice.
I agree with both these two actions but it hasn't helped keep health costs down or
greatly improve the number of people getting insurance.
Lots of people are not looking at the real world.
Global competition is forcing all companies to lower costs.
20 years ago using temps in the work force wasn't done.
All most everything was done in house, no outsourcing.
Many companies had a good retirement plan.
This tend to greatly lower costs is accelerating.
People working at very large good, very profitable companies
will be expected to pay more in health care costs.
Companies will not absorb it all. Cities and States will pass these
increased costs on to their workers. Retirement plans are changing.
Yes we live in a free country but what type of system are we building for our children.
The gap between the haves and have nots will continue to grow and many people in
their 30's today will not be able to retire or afford health insurance.
Many will be poor, in poor health and live with pain.
If government involvement in these things made things better, I'd be all for it.
There is scant evidence that it does.
What government involvement usually means is a nice payday for well-connected friends of those in government.
That is why, "We The People" need to hold both parties accountable and not let them go into their spin and talking points which poll well.
"We The People" do have power to make things better and do what's right.
We The People Posted via Mobile Device
Dean: It's largely been my contention that our elected officials need to stringently adhere to working with one another to attempt to forge a compromise that is, while not 100% palatable to both ends of the political spectrum, is as close to center as one can reasonably expect. That is far more preferable to the "gridlock" that members of both major parties seem to have openly embraced. I truly wish that there were a provision in place that would make it an impeachable offense for them to not try to do their job; much the same way that if an employee doesn't try to do their prescribed job the way it was intended, that they would lose their job as well!
I never stop being surprised when the politicians keep bringing this up, and don't seem to listen to Romney's explanation (the one he devised when he changed his stance on the whole issue). I think this is a very central discussion point. The Massachusetts plan was generally considered constitutional, because it followed the Tenth amendment principle of powers that belong to the states. The Tenth amendment, if you didn't have a commerce clause, would outlaw Obamacare. This is a really big deal for many independants, who want to see the federal government reigned in. The argument by the chief justices seemed to imply that the commerce clause might allow the federal government to open up commerce in health care, but there could be fifty distinct state plans developing their own solutions to utilize this new open border market.
Its politics. The problem with Romney's argument is that it requires more than a 30 second sound bit fit for a commercial. It also requires an audience to have a basic understanding of the Constitution. Since so many have difficulties naming the three branches of government, I think it is easy to ignore.
Quote:
Based on how the chief justices decided upon recent rulings, especially with campaign financing, I find it hard to believe that they will let political pundits and less qualified judicial activists sway their decision, since that is more or less in their job description to be apolitical.
It ignores reality to pretend that the justices do not have their own bias. I think it is impossible for someone who has survived the confirmation process to be apolitical.
That is why, "We The People" need to hold both parties accountable and not let them go into their spin and talking points which poll well.
"We The People" do have power to make things better and do what's right.
We The People Posted via Mobile Device
This is kind of a side note.
Ideally, the press should be involved with oversight of the powerful. They're the most efficient way to keep "we the people" informed.
They don't do a good job.
In fact, they allow their own prejudices to sway their coverage - all the while insisting they're "unbiased".
They have this nasty habit of only holding one party accountable. The other guys get a free pass.
I suppose I could understand such a double standard if the outcome of the policies the major parties pursued was the slightest bit different. In the end, it isn't.
That's one way you go from the wealthiest nation in history to the brokest.
32Likes
Re: Any thoughts on the health care crisis? 
