To me it's not a "probably" yes, it's a definite "yes" as far as Obamacare being a failure.  One example is the topic of this thread.

 

You want to "attack the costs" of health care or medication?  The answer lies in the truth.  The reason why medication is so expensive is because of the cost involved developing it.  Part of that cost is getting by the government restrictions on it, and part of that cost is liability.  Say for example a company develops a drug that cures some illness.  That company not only has to pay for their research and development, but they also have to pay "the almighty government" for approval to release it to the general public.

 

Of course, they can't release this drug for use on the general public without obtaining some kind of insurance.  Should use of said drug contribute or cause a death, then that opens up a lawsuit.  The same is the situation of doctors prescribing said drug.  Again, they open themselves up to litigation regarding the treatment and use of said drugs.

 

It drives the costs of this higher and higher.

 

Single payer is not the answer because there is also going to be "another payer" (taxpayers).

 

Heavier and/or more regulation is not the answer.  That only drives costs higher.

I responded "probably yes" to you saying some points we would agree on.

 

Part of the cost of medications is also pharma making no actual change to drugs but enough change for the broken patent system to give them a new patent keeping generics off the market and their profits through the roof. To attempt to blame the government solely for the issues with the medical system is just plain false. 

---

Because now even more citizens suckle the government's teat?

 

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to catch that.   :thumbsup:

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

What determines it to be a failure? Because for many that now have healthcare, I think they would say it's a success...


So please provide your basis for calling it a failure. Otherwise you are just spouting talking points.


Like everything, the ACA has done good things and has issues that exist. Calling it an "udder" failure seems to mean you either haven't thought it through, or you have a very very narrow basis for judging it.

 

For starters, being forced to purchase something that I don't want/need is a failure of our government system.

 

Next, because of Obamacare, the cost of my health insurance has gone up considerably.

 

How much money has been spent wasted in order to implement this law?

 

Who is being affected the most when it comes to bearing the burden of this law?  I'll give you a couple of hints.  It's not the upper class and it's not the lower class.  It starts with "middle" and ends in "class".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I responded "probably yes" to you saying some points we would agree on.


Part of the cost of medications is also pharma making no actual change to drugs but enough change for the broken patent system to give them a new patent keeping generics off the market and their profits through the roof. To attempt to blame the government solely for the issues with the medical system is just plain false.

On this we agree the pharmaceutical companies have a huge part in the inflated cost of health care

---

On this we agree the pharmaceutical companies have a huge part in the inflated cost of health care

 

However, it should be noted that the regulation/testing/etc. required of pharmaceutical companies adds to the cost, not to mention the liability.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

However, it should be noted that the regulation/testing/etc. required of pharmaceutical companies adds to the cost, not to mention the liability.

Wouldn't stringent testing reduce liability? At least that's how engineering works, I imagine pharma operates the same way. 

---

However, it should be noted that the regulation/testing/etc. required of pharmaceutical companies adds to the cost, not to mention the liability.

 

of course regulations always add to cost but in the case of pharmaceuticals I can't imagine a scenario where you wouldn't have high regulation on medication especially with all the stuff in modern medicine. 

---

of course regulations always add to cost but in the case of pharmaceuticals I can't imagine a scenario where you wouldn't have high regulation on medication especially with all the stuff in modern medicine. 

What's sad is we don't see the same regulation with supplements.  Some of which don't even include the ingredients they claim to have.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

What's sad is we don't see the same regulation with supplements. Some of which don't even include the ingredients they claim to have.

Yea but unregulated supplements won't kill you. Unregulated pharmaceuticals is way more dangerous especially when we get into the chemical adjusting pharmaceuticals.

---

For starters, being forced to purchase something that I don't want/need is a failure of our government system.


Next, because of Obamacare, the cost of my health insurance has gone up considerably.


How much money has been <del>spent</del> wasted in order to implement this law?


Who is being affected the most when it comes to bearing the burden of this law? I'll give you a couple of hints. It's not the upper class and it's not the lower class. It starts with "middle" and ends in "class".

1. You don't need health insurance? Are you superman? Come on man, it sounds like you got co-opted by the propaganda... everyone will eventually need insurance. Healthy people who shirk the buy in increase rates for the entire population. That's how health insurance works. It's also why a public option makes the most sense.


2. While I'm sorry that your rates went up, there are other folks less fortunate than you whose rates went down. There are even other folks that finally have insurance that didn't before. My wife's parents, for instance.


3. Prior to the aca, my insurance rates were increasing yearly at a large rate, and my coverage was decreasing. The aca has slowed down that, and my coverage has actually gone up.


I don't think you're looking at the big picture.


I still think Medicare for all, or a true public option is the best bet for the future. But unless you just woke up in 2010, prior to the aca, you'll remember how out of control the health care situation was. Both parties recognized that reform was needed.


And let's not forget the aca was the solution first put forth by the heritage foundation...

---

At this point in the game the focus has to become cost control. Pandora box is open there's no going back so we've got to curve the rapid increase in the cost of healthcare or the system will bust under the pressure of debt. As much as I hate it I just don't see how we can curve cost without nationalizing massive amounts of the healthcare industry. That's been the problem all along you can't mandate participation and then ignore the markets inability to control cost. Once participation is mandated it's only a matter of time until you have to nationalize the product or the cost will outgrow demand at accelerated rates.


I know lots of people think that's the solution is to nationalize our healthcare I doubt it'll work to well especially with a population our size but we will see. I give it within 10 years the entire system will be forced into nationalization, you can't keep subsidies up forever.

---

Yea but unregulated supplements won't kill you. Unregulated pharmaceuticals is way more dangerous especially when we get into the chemical adjusting pharmaceuticals.

 

Tell that to people who took Ephedra.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Yea but unregulated supplements won't kill you. Unregulated pharmaceuticals is way more dangerous especially when we get into the chemical adjusting pharmaceuticals.

Ephedrin?

---

At this point in the game the focus has to become cost control. Pandora box is open there's no going back so we've got to curve the rapid increase in the cost of healthcare or the system will bust under the pressure of debt. As much as I hate it I just don't see how we can curve cost without nationalizing massive amounts of the healthcare industry. That's been the problem all along you can't mandate participation and then ignore the markets inability to control cost. Once participation is mandated it's only a matter of time until you have to nationalize the product or the cost will outgrow demand at accelerated rates.


I know lots of people think that's the solution is to nationalize our healthcare I doubt it'll work to well especially with a population our size but we will see. I give it within 10 years the entire system will be forced into nationalization, you can't keep subsidies up forever.

I don't think the idea was to use this as a bridge to single payer. I think they wanted single payer, knew there was no way they could push that through so just did something to try to help the lowest of the low. We are seeing that immediate impact for the middle and upper has not been well received. Time will tell whether that remains a trend or is just the immediate impact. I don't think the system will be socialized nearly as soon if ever as you predict. 

 

You are right that something needs to be done about the costs in general. That SHOULD have been the first thing done rather what we got now. 

---

Something should have also been done to protect jobs.  I know a lot of people lost hours.  A friend of mine worked as a waitress, and had her hours cut.  I'm thankful she was able to finally quit that job, because I know she hated it (but needed money to pay for college, rent, food, and everything else).  When her hours were cut, she was really struggling.  And that was with help with tuition from loans she didn't have to pay back (though only $1000/semester)

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

1. You don't need health insurance? Are you superman? Come on man, it sounds like you got co-opted by the propaganda... everyone will eventually need insurance. Healthy people who shirk the buy in increase rates for the entire population. That's how health insurance works. It's also why a public option makes the most sense.

 

Never said that I don't need health insurance.  What I don't need is maternity coverage since my wife and I have stopped having children many years ago.  We don't need birth control coverage either.  Neither one of us uses drugs so we don't need that type of coverage either, yet it has to be included in a "government approved" policy.  It's also discouraged to do things the way that we have always done, that being paying cash for "routine" medical services out of a tax-free medical spending account and carrying a higher deductible policy for emergency cases.


2. While I'm sorry that your rates went up, there are other folks less fortunate than you whose rates went down. There are even other folks that finally have insurance that didn't before. My wife's parents, for instance.

 

Yet I have seen cases where the "less fortunate" around me are stuck paying for insurance that they can't afford.  I have also seen their hours cut at work because of the provisions of Obamacare.  Also the "insurance" that many of these people have is not accepted at many doctor's offices.  Many of the "less fortunate" people that I know are pretty much using medicaid.  Find doctors and/or dentists that accept that at their practice.  The reality is, they don't.




3. Prior to the aca, my insurance rates were increasing yearly at a large rate, and my coverage was decreasing. The aca has slowed down that, and my coverage has actually gone up.

 

Prior to Obamacare my insurance rates were fairly steady with only modest increases.  Since this dreadful law was passed, my rates have gone up way higher than they used to be.  I am by no means "wealthy" and consider myself middle class.




I don't think you're looking at the big picture.

 

Looking at the "big picture" for me is looking at how much more money that I have to put out because of a "government mandate".  Has Obamacare helped certain people?  Perhaps, but at this point I don't see it.




I still think Medicare for all, or a true public option is the best bet for the future. But unless you just woke up in 2010, prior to the aca, you'll remember how out of control the health care situation was. Both parties recognized that reform was needed.

 

Medicare for all or a public option.  That's a good one.  Perhaps it will be run much like the VA.  How has that worked out?  Who pays for this "medicare for all" or "public option"?




And let's not forget the aca was the solution first put forth by the heritage foundation...

 

Link please?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I don't think the idea was to use this as a bridge to single payer. I think they wanted single payer, knew there was no way they could push that through so just did something to try to help the lowest of the low. We are seeing that immediate impact for the middle and upper has not been well received. Time will tell whether that remains a trend or is just the immediate impact. I don't think the system will be socialized nearly as soon if ever as you predict. 

 

You are right that something needs to be done about the costs in general. That SHOULD have been the first thing done rather what we got now. 

 

Part of doing something about costs would be allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines.  That's a free market concept, something that liberals hate.  Another thing to do is limit liability against doctors and hospitals.  People tend to forget that doctors are human and make mistakes.  The price/cost of making a mistake is huge, especially if it ends up fatal.  Therefor, doctors have to have malpractice insurance that is not cheap.

 

People are always down on insurance companies, but what they do is a risky business.  They put money out and assume the risk.  How about consumers assuming some of the risk involved?

 

Finally, people assume that "insurance" is supposed to pay for everything.  That's not the reason for insurance.  The reason for insurance is to protect you in the case of an extreme condition.  Think of it this way, your auto insurance doesn't cover getting an oil change and your home owner's insurance doesn't pay to get a leaky faucet fixed.  Health insurance is the same.  It should not be there for you to get a physical, pap smear, etc. that are "routine checkups".  It should be there in cases of unexpected injury/illness.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Something should have also been done to protect jobs.  I know a lot of people lost hours.  A friend of mine worked as a waitress, and had her hours cut.  I'm thankful she was able to finally quit that job, because I know she hated it (but needed money to pay for college, rent, food, and everything else).  When her hours were cut, she was really struggling.  And that was with help with tuition from loans she didn't have to pay back (though only $1000/semester)

 

Again, that's a flaw with Obamacare that was not thought out prior to passing this disaster of a bill.  Business owners are not going to absorb the costs associated with complying with Obamacare.  Many were forced to either cut hours or just fold up with the passage of this bill.  Once again, this hurts the lower and middle classes more so than the upper class.

 

What could be done now?  Repeal the employer mandate would be a good start.

 

What people don't understand, especially some of the younger people is that health insurance provided by an employer came about back in WWII.  Employers needed to attract workers, and this was an incentive for people to go work at a certain place.  It has since become what it is today where employers are required to provide a health insurance plan.  Next the imperial federal government is going to mandate that employers provide a retirement plan.

 

Gone are the days where people were responsible for their own well being.  It is "expected" that a health insurance plan and a retirement savings plan be provided by an employer rather than a person take it upon themselves to establish and provide these things for themselves.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Part of doing something about costs would be allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines.  That's a free market concept, something that liberals hate.  Another thing to do is limit liability against doctors and hospitals.  People tend to forget that doctors are human and make mistakes.  The price/cost of making a mistake is huge, especially if it ends up fatal.  Therefor, doctors have to have malpractice insurance that is not cheap.

 

People are always down on insurance companies, but what they do is a risky business.  They put money out and assume the risk.  How about consumers assuming some of the risk involved?

 

Finally, people assume that "insurance" is supposed to pay for everything.  That's not the reason for insurance.  The reason for insurance is to protect you in the case of an extreme condition.  Think of it this way, your auto insurance doesn't cover getting an oil change and your home owner's insurance doesn't pay to get a leaky faucet fixed.  Health insurance is the same.  It should not be there for you to get a physical, pap smear, etc. that are "routine checkups".  It should be there in cases of unexpected injury/illness.

You are thinking of how you can protect the insurance companies and the wealth of the entire medical industry along side making healthcare affordable. That is impossible. Those in the business of making money have no interest in anything other than making more money. The free market also would have denied people coverage for pre existing conditions leaving them in the lurch with no way to pay for health care. How do we know this? Because the free market already did this. Just because liberals don't thing the free market should be completely unfettered as conservatives do does not mean they hate capitalism or the free market. They just see that an unregulated free market trends toward monopolies which are never good for a society. 

---

Again, that's a flaw with Obamacare that was not thought out prior to passing this disaster of a bill.  Business owners are not going to absorb the costs associated with complying with Obamacare.  Many were forced to either cut hours or just fold up with the passage of this bill.  Once again, this hurts the lower and middle classes more so than the upper class.

 

What could be done now?  Repeal the employer mandate would be a good start.

 

What people don't understand, especially some of the younger people is that health insurance provided by an employer came about back in WWII.  Employers needed to attract workers, and this was an incentive for people to go work at a certain place.  It has since become what it is today where employers are required to provide a health insurance plan.  Next the imperial federal government is going to mandate that employers provide a retirement plan.

 

Gone are the days where people were responsible for their own well being.  It is "expected" that a health insurance plan and a retirement savings plan be provided by an employer rather than a person take it upon themselves to establish and provide these things for themselves.

I have zero sympathy for the Walmarts of the world cutting hours to avoid providing health care to their already low paid work force. Smaller businesses I do understand though. 

 

Businesses used to have a presence and a bond with not only it's employees but also the community they were in. Those days are long gone. It's all about those extra pennies regardless of who's backs get broken in the process. 

---