Republican family values at work
My husband and I just finished reviewing my mother’s prescription drug “benefit” statement from Humana.
My 70-year-old mother lives on a fixed income, like most seniors her age.
She receives only her Social Security, and some money from her children for providing child care to her grandchildren. In total, her income is just over $17,000 per year.
Because she is a low-income senior, she qualified for a Pfizer Share Card before the Bush administration created the Medicare prescription drug “benefit.” She paid no annual fee, and all of her Pfizer medications were $15 apiece. This was a service that the rich pharmaceuticals used to provide to older Americans, before corporations took over our government.
Thanks to our esteemed president, it appears that the identical medications that used to cost my mother about $540 per year will now cost about $2,250 per year.
Another instance of Republican family values at work!
Anne Smith, Denver
And the people shall see the light.
Now do you all see who this plan "benefited"?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 2, 2007 01:12 AMHowdy Missus Sharon,
Waal, ol Uncle Tom done told us all bout the dangers of guvmint arunnin health care. Leastways I think thets what the letter writer up aways on tha page was sposed to be all about. Shore nuff! Them Republicans done showed us!
Course, ol "KW" says them air tha "true Americans"; an usns what might want change ta truly benefit the people oughtn leave fer parts elsewhar.
Mebbe he's done got it bout half right airyways. They shore nuff are tha "true Americans" o them days when tha old Robber Barons war agettin rich; an tha Greedy Old Politicians o tha Grafting Old Party were arunnin tha likes o Teapot Dome. Mebbe ol Uncle Tom done got it sorta half right too. Let them thar Republicans loose, an thar aint agonna be nothin left fer them as needs it in tha future.
Good ol Republican motto: "I've got mine, so screw you."
Posted by Old Grouch on July 2, 2007 05:56 AMI do love your statement that it was just the Republicans. I be good ole teddy, let her drown in my car, kennedy would be upset thinking that you forgot it was his idea also.
I also remember that the only thing the dummocrats didnt like about it was it need more money to give away.
I guess until every thing is free you wont be happy. Now where will all the dummocrats get their money for all the free services they promise? maybe bill could give back some of his speaking fees and hillary from her book deal. nope that wont happen as that is theirs and as the old grouch says go screw you.
yep government by the dems will equal true socalism and then you will still complain you want more for nothing.
Posted by on July 2, 2007 06:23 AMIs the 06:23 post an indication of the intelligence of the conservative set? It cries for a response. Here is mine:
Note: I've posted this twice before. I'm posting it again. If you don't like it, sue me. Look at the asinine posts by R and unknown. They are the product of absolutely no brain power. While you may reject my argument, it is clearly the product of thought, and it is not the silly crap that so many posters pollute the forum with.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 07:15 AMOops, I mismanaged by Yankee Clipper program. Here is a rerun:
For me, the question is not how good the health care systems are in other countries, but rather how good would they be if they spent as much on health care as we do in the United States?
It goes back to that old adage about trying to compare oranges and baseballs. I think the figures show that these other nations that use socialized medicine get a bigger benefit per dollar spent that we do in the United States. Why? Socialized medicine.
For example, according to the statistics below, the United States has over three times as many doctors per 100,000 people as England. How much faster would the service be in England if it tripled the number of doctors?
The United States spends over 2.5 times as much on medical care per capita as Canada. How much better would health care be in Canada if it increased its expenditures 2.5 times?
I wonder how it would affect the quality of health care in the United States if we reduced our spending on health care by half? Or if we reduced the number of doctors by half?
Here are some statistics from the Human Development Index:
Column A: Private funds as a % of GDP
Column B: Public funds as a % of GDP
Column C: Average amount spent per capita
Column D: Number of doctors per 100,000
I thought I'd see how this will work.
....................A.......B....... ........C.......... D
USA............6.6... 8.0 .............5,274 ....549
Canada ......6.7... 2.9 .............2,931 .....209
Norway ......6.6 ...1.6 .............3,409 .....356
Australia ....6.5 ....3.0 ............2,699..... 249
Sweden .....7.8.....1.4........... 2,512 ......305
Japan ........6.5.....1.4 ...........2,133...... 201
Finland ......5.5.... 1.8........... 1,943...... 311
Denmark ...7.3.... 1.5........... 2,583..... .366
England ....6.4.... 1.3........... 2,160...... 166
France ......7.4.....2.3........... 2,736........329
Germany ...8.6.....2.3........... 2,817 .......362
Spain ........5.4.....2.2 ...........1,640....... 320
We have a bad case of socializephobia in the United States. Much like the communistphobia of the Joe McCarthy period. There are still posters here who are living in the nineteenth century and think the government should not even have a concern about such things as child labor, industrial safety, food and drug safety, etc. If anything is clear, it is that we have socialized capitalism in the United States and have had for many years. That is, the predatory capitalism of the late nineteen and early twentieth century has been socialized, made fit to benefit rather than exploit the people. Capitalism can be likened to a wild horse. With predatory capitalism, there are no reins on the horse and it does great damage. With socialized capitalism, there are reins on the horse and it does great good. The greed that motivates the capitalist model cannot be left to its own devices.
The great and unique beauty of the socialized capitalism we have today is that harnesses that human vice to the advantage of the people. It does not take the wind out of its sails, but rather makes sure that those sails are moving in the right direction, toward the people, not away from them.
Does it work perfectly? Are you kidding? What does? It needs constant vigilance; wild horses don't tame easily.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 07:17 AMAs usual, the anonymous - 06:23 AM, etc., - never bother to deal with the ideas. Rather, they are all fussed up over something extraneous - such as Ted Kennedy and Chappaquidik, - as if that had anything to do with the benefits, of demerits, of social programs, and/or any other major matters of legislative concern.
But, as "Truth" rightly points out, that is both the example and the measure of conservativism, and of the bulk of conservatism's most vocal and vociferous proponents.
And, it's also what makes this forum so much fun.
The mindless slapstick of the clowns in the other rings gives those who want to exchange ideas the opportunity to do so; while at one and the same time it serves to entertain those of like mind (or absense thereof), and keep them occupied as they struggle to figure out what it's all about in the first place.
The old soap-box in Pershing Square lives on. And, we should all be happy it does.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 2, 2007 09:53 AMConveniently forgetting that in the Socialist Utopias of Canada, Cuba and Great Britain, the health care is doled out by waiting.... cancer patients in GB die every year because the 2 year waiting list just ain't cutting it. There is no way to magically conjure up Doctors... They have to be trained and who would want to train for a profession that takes years and then have the government tell you how much or little you can earn. Ever wonder why we have more docs here?
The reason we have Socialism phobia in the US is we see how it works in the rest of the world and how much it blows chunks. Ever wonder why there is a business in Canada that flies wealthy canadians to Buffalo NY for Treatment? Ever wonder why Castro has a physician flown in from Spain to treat him?
As to the OP who stated that Pfizer was giving their drugs to seniors for $15 each... who is stopping them? Did the government tell them to stop the practice? or, did you want the Gov to pay for that last 15 bucks and now that the inneficient get involved, it costs more? How about this? You buy your own health care, and I will buy mine. I have no interest whatsoever in providing you or your mother with "Free" health care. It is not my responsibility.
Posted by Dravur on July 2, 2007 10:00 AMOG - I've never made the statement that concervatives are the "only true Americans." But it's refreshing to now I weigh so heavy on your mind that you bring my name into a thread I hadn't yet posted on.
Do I keep you up nights as well?
Posted by KW on July 2, 2007 10:44 AMDravur,
If your house catches on fire, why should my taxes go to pay for the fire response to save your house? You set your house on fire, it's not my responsibility. I say let it burn.
And don't try to weasel your way out of this analogy and tell me the difference between public works, public benefits etc. etc. yadda yadda. The point is my taxes are paying for something that I do not benefit from... period.
When you "all for me" conservatives take yourselves completely off the public grid, THEN you can talk.
Truth—a very good point made. Unfortunately, the Dravurs of the world have no interest in listening-- too much Limbaugh on the brain.
Posted by Dan on July 2, 2007 10:51 AMLooks like Old Grouch was right on!
OG: Good ol Republican motto: "I've got mine, so screw you."
Dravur: I have no interest whatsoever in providing you or your mother with "Free" health care. It is not my responsibility.
It's like that part of the New Testament where Jesus visits the poor and sick and says "Tough luck, pal. I don't care about you."
Posted by On the Other Hand on July 2, 2007 11:08 AMSomething I learned from conservatives: It`s not welfare if your names on the check.
Since this forum devolved into insults (surprise, surprise) let me add mine.
Conservs have invented the term Free Health Care and attributed it to us. Shame on you.
In any medical system some people will get sick and die for lack of timely treatment. Does that fact, and that fact along condemn any kind of social medicine program.
No one on the left wants the government to run health care and make medical decisions any more then we want the current system where the ER is the only place for some people. And for profit insurance companies decide "your" health care. Even Bill O`Reilly railed against his insurance denying treatment for him or someone in his family.
Of course we have social programs from the pharm companies where they let folks have meds if they are really poor. We could give subsidies to those companies and help the lower middle class a little.
You folks on the (Oh God hide the children, socialized medicine is coming) are paranoid.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 2, 2007 11:11 AMAnne,
I'm truly sorry your Mom (and many Moms) are being shafted by the policies of this administration. She deserves better.
The republican mantra seems to be " Plenty of money for war, no money for Mom"
And , before you cons get into a hissy fit,
our Constitution clearly calls for "Providing for the common defense" but it also, in the same paragraph, calls for insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare.
And I'm fairly sure our Founding Fathers didn't have the welfare of corporations in mind.
They were refering to "We the People" your Mom included, Anne.
All my best wishes to her, and good luck.
Dravur: "Ever wonder why we have more docs here?"
No, I don't wonder because it is obvious. We put a great deal more money into training doctors that do the European countries. You'd have to be out of your mind to think that there aren't a multitude of people in European countries that would love to study medicine. The problem is that the European countries don't put enough money into educating doctors.
Dravur: "Ever wonder why there is a business in Canada that flies wealthy canadians to Buffalo NY for Treatment? Ever wonder why Castro has a physician flown in from Spain to treat him?"
Ever wonder why more and more people are going to India for medical treatment and saving money over what it would cost in the United States?
Of course, the problem with both statements is that neither of us knows how common the practice is. But we just like to prattle off anecdotes that seem to favor our position. It's not very intelligent but it's fun.
As for Castro, perhaps it is because he thinks he can get better health care in a socialized medicine country like Spain.
Darvur: "You buy your own health care, and I will buy mine. I have no interest whatsoever in providing you or your mother with "Free" health care. It is not my responsibility."
In case you missed it, you are helping to provide many poor people with their health care and have been since for many years. But you don't have to do that. You can always move to a third world country. Don't you just hate the words "compassion" and "community"?
By the way, Mom doesn't need health care where she it at. I hope. But thanks for your interest.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 11:54 AMIt seems the consensus here is that private health care companies are in it for the $$$ and dont care about CARE and funnel $$$ into their own pockets. The Greed of it all.
Question:
Has anyone compared the evil Private/Public Health Care Costs and premiums to those in the NON Profit arena? From the discussions on here it seems that the NON Profits should be overwhelmingly cheaper to aquire.....................
Please explain this to me. Where does this fit into the problem?
sorry above was me
Posted by bwr on July 2, 2007 12:11 PMThe same wonderful drug company is still providing free medications to those who need them. Under government rationing the company would have no incentive to spend millions on the research and development of new drugs so those drugs and treatments would either not be developed or would wait for government financing..
Both sides wanted a prescription benefit for medicare and they got one even though many voices warned it would cause problems just like this.
Go to any VA waiting room and ask someone there what they think of the way the goverment runs health care.
I will tell you because my husband is a disabled vet. He was given a prescription by his VA doctor. Pharmacy denied it because the medication was too expensive. When the doctor made a direct demand for the medication because my husband can'ttake the approved medicine he was given half of the prescribed dose because that was the government maximum. He was given an emergency appointment for a hernia that doubled in size in one month. The appointment was requested by his doctor in January (late January last year) and he was seen in August. Internal medicine doctor told him they couldn't do anything unless he had a high fever or a strangulated bowel.
We used our regular insurance, that we pay for, for the medication and his surgery. Our insurance is a real mess but for a co-pay of 500 dollars the surgery was evaluated, scheduled and performed in three weeks and they used a non-invasive proceedure so his recovery was quick.
Here's a better one. My husband was diagnosed as a diabetic by a non-VA doctor under our insruance. He was given a prescription for a meter and told to track his blood surgar and watch his diet. They gave him a handfull of information on nutrition and a book on how to track diabetes. (Since I have been a diabetic for 20 years I took over all his meals except for when he gets too close to a McDonalds) They also suggested a common diabetic medication that has been used for the last five years for those just on the cusp of diabetes because it delays and sometimes actually, combined with diet and lifestyle changes, prevent full blown diabetes. He told his VA doctor and they refused to fill either prescription (meter or meds) because they give insulin for diabetes.
We bought the meter and strips, no benefit here from insurance, and filled the prescription. (He is still not a full blown diabetic two years later.)
When we notified the VA of this they demanded that he use their meter and strips, which they supplied. We told them that we already had a meter and strips but, again, policy demanded only their meter as their computers could read the history. Our explanation that our meter would print them out for VA use fell on deaf ears. They still refuse to provide the medication. He got their meter and strips but the number of strips was only enough to test his blood sugar 2 or 3t imes a week. Policy. "That's how many strips we provide."
That is what government run health care IS in the United States right now. There is no reason to think or believe that there would be any improvement if it expanded to the entire country.
More facts to combat the fantasy:
"The high price of prescription drugs has put -- and kept -- U.S. pharmaceutical companies in the news recently, but Dr. Marcia Angell argues that problems with the industry run even deeper. In her new book, The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine contends that the industry has become a marketing machine that produces few innovative drugs and is dependent on monopoly rights and public-sponsored research.
Angell disputes the industry’s reputation as an “engine of innovation,” arguing that the top U.S. drug makers spend 2.5 times as much on marketing and administration as they do on research. At least a third of the drugs marketed by industry leaders were discovered by universities or small biotech companies, writes Angell, but they’re sold to the public at inflated prices. She cites Taxol, the cancer drug discovered by the National Institutes of Health, but sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb for $20,000 a year, reportedly 20 times the manufacturing cost. The company agreed to pay the NIH only 0.5 percent in royalties for the drug.
The majority of the new products the industry puts out, says Angell, are “me-too” drugs, which are almost identical to current treatments but “no better than drugs already on the market to treat the same condition.” Around 75 percent of new drugs approved by the FDA are me-too drugs. They can be less effective than current drugs, but as long as they’re more effective than a placebo, they can get the regulatory green light.
Finally, Angell attacks major pharmaceutical industry -- whose top ten companies make more in profits than the rest of the Fortune 500 combined -- for using “free market” rhetoric while opposing competition at all costs. She discusses Prilosec maker Astra-Zeneca, which filed multiple lawsuits against generic drug makers to prevent them from entering the market when the company’s exclusive marketing rights expired. The company “obtained a patent on the idea of combining Prilosec with antibiotics, then argued that a generic drug would infringe on that patent because doctors might prescribe it with an antibiotic.”
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 01:48 PMDrug companies and the wonders of TV advertising
"Television drug ads engage in such blatant deceptions and exaggerations that even the medical journals are starting to condemn the practice. This week, the Annals of Family Medicine published an analysis of popular drug advertisements that concluded the ads essentially lie to the public about the benefits of pharmaceuticals while utterly ignoring alternative health strategies like dietary or lifestyle changes.
The advertising practices of drug companies are so outrageous that even David Kessler, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, penned an editorial condemning them. In fact, Kessler says television ads never should have been allowed by the FDA in the first place (the FDA legalized drug ads in late 1997, after Kessler left his position there). Today, the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world to allow drug ads on television."
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 01:51 PM"New 2001 Data Show Big Drug Companies Spent Almost Two-and-a-Half Times as Much on Marketing, Advertising and Administration as They Spent on Research and Development
Drug Company Profits Exceeded R&D Spending by 60 Percent; Executive Compensation and Deferred Stock Options Were Huge"
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 01:53 PMTruth I agree some of the Drug companies have gone too far. 1 industry of many in the Health Care arena.
Why do they spend so much in advertising? My simple guess is that it works. Why does it work? Because we are by some a gullable nation. If this is the case then that is most likely why we have sooo many Political TV ads correct?
To restrict the Drug ads says to me that we as a nation are not intelligent enough to decipher what the ads are and how to interpret them. If that is the case then we must be consistant and say that we can not decipher the political ads
If we can not trust the citizens or depend on them to make correct decisions, what is the use of Govt Healthcare?
--We can not trust the citizens to make the correct decisions, but at the same time we then trust them to vote in the Govt that will dispense our Healthcare?
I completely understand that this is a bit flippant at the surface but truly what is the answer?
Yes our Healthcare Industry needs help. Desperately so, but again, If our Private/Public Healthcare companies (health insurance) are sooo greedy, then why are the NON Profit Healtcare companies(health insurance) not beating the pants off of the private companies in their rates???
Posted by bwr on July 2, 2007 02:19 PMWell, for one thing, nobody ever died as a result of reading a political ad, although many may have regurgitated.
I don't suppose anybody denies that we are a very gullible nation where advertising is concerned. That is why I like the idea of government regulations against deceptive advertising and consumer protection. But not the only reason. The other is that consumers are simply in no position to judge the reliability of ads, particularly medical ads, no matter how "ungullible" they are. When is the last time you tested the efficacy of Vioxx?
Of course the government is no panacea, but it doesn't have as strong a motive, the profit motive, to lie about the products it dispenses as do private drug companies. I don't suppose anyone, well, there are a few exceptions among the posters here, would deny the necessity or desirability of the food and drug laws. I'd much rather take the government's word for it than the drug companies.
But the debate is largely about costs and quality. I continue to argue that to compare health care systems in different countries with ours we need to take into consideration how much more we spend than they do, and how many more doctors per capita we have then they do. This forum is bloated with posts criticizing those other countries while not paying a bit of attention to that essential factor.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 02:58 PMTruth agreed for the most part. But please tell me why there is little to no difference between a NON Profit Health Insurance rate and a Private/Public Health Insurance company? We can compare costs between countries, fine, but you have to add what other Healthcare items are missing or lacking in those countries also. It is but 1 piece of the Healthcare puzzle.
I am not in the habit of standing up for the healthcare industry, but this is a bit more complicated than just cost.
Also how much does the Govt add to the current cost of our healthcare? Not saying good or bad but there is a definate cost associated already via the govt. HIPAA and SOX are just 2 of many.
Posted by bwr on July 2, 2007 03:05 PMAlso I will be waiting for someone to put the political ad not killing anyone to the test. Just an observation, not trying to divert the conversation at hand.
Posted by bwr on July 2, 2007 03:08 PMI agree, bwr, that this is very complicated. There are not many posts that recognize that, but that is understandable since we don't get paid for our work. I have no idea about the differences between "for profit" and "not for profit" companies, and I sure don't have the time or the inclination to spend a few hours trying to find out. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there are not some posters who also don't know the difference but who are willing to tell us what those differences are.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 04:05 PMTruth, get out a calendar. I agree with you about drug advertising and development.
Drug companies will have fifteen drugs in development for weight loss and two for heart disease. I dislike that but don't want the government to add any further silliness to that part.
There should be heavy penalties for any advertised drug whose ad did not disclose any danger later discovered. I would put down a flat percentage of the advertising budget along with a definate cash amount. My suggestion on amounts would be a minimum of 50% of the companies ENTIRE advertising budget on the grounds that if they were sloppy on one drug they might be endangering people with false or misleading claims on others. Also a one million dollar minimum fine.
In capitalism the best punishment is one that grabs by the wallet.
Truth, although I disagree with your stand on how this country should deliver healthcare, I do agree on big pharma and then some! They have essentially bought the FDA lock, stock and barrel. They really have the pharmaceutical industry's interests in mind more than your safety as a consumer.
Big pharma is a great investment for your portfolio due to their business tactics and huge profits. They are not so great for your health, however.
Many of their drugs have dangerous side effects that they don't tell you about until many people die from them and they get sued.
Big pharma does their utmost to squash alternative medicine substances which have been used effectively for thousands of years to treat and CURE diseases. Big pharma is not interested in cures. They want you to stay sick so they can treat the symptoms for the rest of your life due to the sales you will generate. The FDA is their club to keep the public from knowing about these things. Big pharma by law can't patent natural substances and therefore make huge profits from them. Therefore they must bury any mention of them and threaten those researchers and doctors that prescribe them and they do this through the heavy hand of the FDA.
One good thing - the FDA just turned down a sister drug to the deadly Vioxx by a 20 - 1 vote. Maybe they are learning from their mistakes.
Posted by RU Serious on July 2, 2007 04:32 PMTruth was not wanting you to do any research on the differences. Would not do that to you.
My point is there is little difference in the Profit v. the Non Profit Healthcare Insurance premiums to the average citizen. There may be some cost v. service items for different levels of coverage, but I am not an insurance contract writer... If there were a big difference, the Non Profits would run away with all of the business and leave non to the private companies. This is definately not the case. It is a very competitive business.
This partially destroys the myth about Private/Public insurance companies in it only for the $$$ and robbing the public.
Are they all good guys? Hell no but people need to put a bit more thought into some of this stuff.
I’ve never seen so many sick people in my life, everybody is on some kind of medication. Turn on the TV and every second commercial is about pills to pop, between the motorized wheel chair and tampons. What the hell? No wonder the health care industry is like trillions of $$$$.
Posted by Uno on July 2, 2007 07:46 PMUno, you aren't far wrong there.
They even invented a few ailments in order to create extra market segments.
bwr,
Profit making companies exist to make profits. In one way, it's just that simple. On the other hand, it's one of the real complications, and knottiest problems, when attempting to deal with any idea of improved health care, and any idea of "universal coverage".
Having had some experience in insurance, along the way through my life, maybe I can shed a little bit of light here. I'll try, anyway.
XYZ Company sells health insurance. For a premium of $100 a month - lets keep it in round figures for simplicity's sake - you, your wife, and your 2 children are "covered". This contract entitles you to pick your physician, and with a co-payment use his services. In case of need for ambulance, hospitalization, special needs - prosthetic devices, elective surgery, etc., - the company will pay a percentage of the bill, with you co-paying a fixed amount for the service. (Short list; but there for basics.)
When you buy your insurance - and every month thereafter when you pay your $100 premium - your Agent is paid 12% commission for selling you the policy. (Again, a low figure; but useful.) That's $12 a month that DOES NOT go for "health care" as such.
Every company has fixed overhead expenses. These include salary for office staff, claims people, and all the other necessaries and incidentals, including rental of space, etc., etc. An average (low average, but usable here) cost estimate for office expense is 40%. So, every month, $40.00 of your $100 premium goes into the company's pocket. Sales commission = $12.00; Office expenses = $40.00; total per month BEFORE any application to "health care" = $52.00, or 52%, slightly over ONE HALF the premium already NOT used for "health care".
Most States require a contingency reserve before a company is licensed to do business. While it varies from State to State, the usual contingency reserve is not less than 25% of expected claims. (This is worked out over time, of course; but use the figure for base.) Now out of the remaining $48.00 of your $100.00 premium, the insurance company must reserve $25.00; leaving $23.00 of your $100.00 premium unused so far.
But, the insurance company is in business for profit. And it is also engaged in investing portions of its intake, to add to the profit potential. It buys buildings, for rental income, stocks, bonds, etc., for additional income, and sets aside such internal expense and contingency funds as cover items like litigation and other odds and ends of doing business and taking the "risks" of covering for "care needs".
Again, these items work out over years; but to begin with, one can figure about 10% of your premium, or $10.00. Now, you have a total of $13.00 - out of $100.00 - actually put to paying for "health care" - or available for "health care". In a year, you have paid in a total of $1,200.00. The amount actually available for "health care" - were you to be on a "get back only what you put in" basis - is $130.00. The rest is insurance company intake - or sometimes called "gross profit".
The net profit - and/or that part which is paid to the stock-holders (owners) - is calculated from the difference between cost/expense in running the company; together with cost of claims over contingency reserve; and income from investments. When costs - both at the Doctor's office and throughout the hospital-special-need-etc., part of actual "health care" go up; so goes your premium. But, the actual percentage of your payment allocated for "health care" as such remains very much the same.
A Non-Profit organization has many places for saving on the outgo, thereby allowing the actual monies available for "health care" as such to accumulate, and premiums to remain relatively stable, and lower than those of profit making companies.
Rough arithmetic, and rough outline. But I hope it helps to shed some light on the ways in which improvements might be possible.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 2, 2007 10:11 PM"I’ve never seen so many sick people in my life, everybody is on some kind of medication. Turn on the TV and every second commercial is about pills to pop, between the motorized wheel chair and tampons. What the hell? No wonder the health care industry is like trillions of $$$$.
Posted by Uno on July 2, 2007 07:46 PM"
Many people don't realize they are sick till the drug companies convince them they are. Private health care is a for profit enterprise, The more sick people there are, the more money you make. That's why drug companies spend much more on advertising than on research. That's why drug companies are sometimes dishonest about the safety of their medicines, they don't want to kill the golden goose, but it's okay if people die.
Old Grouch,
Thanks and I have a bit of Insurance experience also. I understand Private/Public Insurance companies are in it for profit. Understand it very well. So why arent Non Profit Insurance companies wiping the floors with the private sector? Profits are not as high in the insurance area as some believe, that or wastes are extreme. (There are plenty of waste to go around) Care and services seem to get hard in this battle of keeping overhead down. As you have demonstrated there are many Hogs at the trough.
I am not standing up for these companies, just trying to put a bit of discussion on the complexities of this problem.
Posted by bwr on July 3, 2007 09:44 AMOG - well done. One of your best posts in terms of being informative.
Posted by RU Serious on July 3, 2007 02:59 PMswof zdac sfta veghrjto etkisxgz tmyznujhb inpvj
Posted by opqs cvsr on July 12, 2007 02:20 PMswof zdac sfta veghrjto etkisxgz tmyznujhb inpvj
Posted by opqs cvsr on July 12, 2007 02:21 PMswof zdac sfta veghrjto etkisxgz tmyznujhb inpvj
Posted by opqs cvsr on July 12, 2007 02:22 PMCigarette ads do influence, don't influence starting to smoke
My mind is like a complete blank, but so it goes. Basically nothing seems important, but I guess it doesn't bother me. I've just been letting everything wash over me , but pfft. I haven't been up to anything. Such is life. I can't be bothered with anything.
Spam e-mails should be, should not be outlawed - Or: can, can not be outlawed, are examples of persuasive speech topic variants
Peace in the Middle East is obtainable with US and The European Union intervention
meu site... queria que avaliassem e dessem opinioes!
Babysitters younger than 16 years should be forbidden
Live with your lover before getting married
Posted by designer kid bedroom on August 19, 2007 04:28 AMLive with your lover before getting married
Posted by designer kid bedroom on August 19, 2007 05:12 AMAmericans owe, doesn't owe Vietnam veterans an apology
Posted by college ellis online on August 20, 2007 08:06 AMMales should be allowed to go shirtless at home only - Or vary with places for another persuasive speech topic
Posted by homer simpsons dad on August 21, 2007 09:42 AMWe are killing the rainforest
Posted by ford detroit locker on August 22, 2007 08:06 AMBlame the parents of a murderer parents for the crime
Posted by archive florida lottery on August 23, 2007 12:15 PMBlame the parents of a murderer parents for the crime
Posted by archive florida lottery on August 23, 2007 12:50 PMAn integrated, segregated society is better
Posted by dealer discount tire on August 26, 2007 09:35 PMAn integrated, segregated society is better
Posted by dealer discount tire on August 26, 2007 10:08 PMGenetic testing on unborn children is, is not ethical
My mind is like a fog. I've just been sitting around doing nothing. Today was a loss.
My mind is like a fog. I've just been sitting around doing nothing. Today was a loss.
I've just been letting everything wash over me. I just don't have much to say right now, but what can I say? I can't be bothered with anything these days. Such is life. I haven't been up to much lately.
Women are not, are fairly portrayed in the media
Teachers must be paid based on performance
I haven't been up to much recently, but whatever. I just don't have much to say lately. Basically nothing happening to speak of. So it goes. My mind is like a complete blank. Such is life.
O governo estuda a proposta de criacao da idade minima de 67 anos para homens e mulheres se aposentarem pelo INSS
Cousin dating is, is not okay
More or less nothing seems important. It's not important. Shrug. Whatever. I've just been hanging out doing nothing, but eh. I can't be bothered with anything lately.
Americans owe, doesn't owe Vietnam veterans an apology
Buyers of guns must take gun-safety courses