Bernie Sanders ad with Moran Tugs

Professional Mariner Forum
95

[QUOTE=+A465B;178096]Medical care costs in US are sky high out of control. If one takes the time to understand that medical care EATS about 17% of US GDP — the scale of the problem is evident. ALL federal spending for everything is only about 21-23% of GDP, and a lot of that is recycled into roadworks, infrastructure, defense, parks and indeed social support.

So medical costs are a serious big problem. Maybe not for you today, but yes, for all of us at some point in time. 25% of senior citizens bankrupted by medical costs? What a tragedy for good upstanding people. What a national disgrace. Premiums don’t go up because there is Obamacare. Premiums go up - even with an actuarially sound population group enrolled - because medical costs go up. Just the facts. Our insurance in the USA would not even be available to us except for Obamacare, since on a commercial, medically underwritten basis, no one would want the risk. Maybe a past cancer? A little diabetes? You’re 50 years old with a touch of high blood pressure? Sorry, move along there matey, we’ll not have you in our group… why not pay $4,000 a night for a hospital room on your own tab. Then you’ll feel the part about harming a segment of the population.

Thimk about it.[/QUOTE]

What I want to know is if the medical care industry in say France or Denmark made up of “FOR PROFIT” commercial businesses or socialized “NOT FOR PROFIT” government owned enterprise? I believe one of the very worst factors that makes the medical care in the USA so high priced is that so many businesses is allowed to extract high profits. Hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies. insurers, medical device makers all have no regulation which says their services which is a vital one to a populace and thus that their profits be limited to keep costs reasonable for the PEOPLE!

PROFIT MAKING HEALTHCARE LIKE IN THE USA IS THE REAL DISGRACE!

[B]Pharmaceutical Company CEO Defends 5,000% Price Hike of Drug on Twitter[/B]

By Olivia Becker

September 21, 2015

The 32-year-old CEO and founder of a pharmaceutical startup took to Twitter to staunchly defend himself from a barrage of criticism after it was revealed that his company had raised the price of a common medication by 5,000 percent.

Immediately after Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired the rights to the drug Daraprim, a common anti-parasitic drug that is used to prevent malaria and fight infections like toxoplasmosis that can arise from AIDS and cancer, the company hiked the price up from $13.50 to $750 per pill. The company and its CEO Martin Shkreli quickly became the subject of a furious backlash.

Shkreli not only seemed unbothered by the outcry, he appears to be actively enjoying the attention online. Take his reply to one exchange in which he was asked how he manages to sleep at night:

In another response, Shkreli said it was not his fault if people who needed the drug could no longer afford it. He also quoted a lyric from the rapper Eminem about his feelings toward the media. He tweeted more than 125 responses to people calling him out online on Monday after the price increase gained traction over the weekend, noted Tech Crunch, but later deleted many of them.

Shkreli also defended his company’s price hike on Bloomberg TV on Monday, insisting that his company “needed to turn a profit on the drug” despite the pill costing less than a dollar to manufacture.

“Its still underpriced compared to its peers,” Shkreli added.

A former hedge-fund manager, Shkreli has come under scrutiny in the past for accusations that he attempted to illegally manipulate the prices of drugs made by companies whose stock he was shorting.

96
97

[QUOTE=lm1883;178068]You are mentioning people covered by the ACA. They have an option for health care, how many are using it? And you can pontificate all you want, at present these programs are neither sustainable, nor affordable.

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that you are not using a state / federal-exchange for insurance and have no plans to do so. If the system was socialized I would also suggest you would have a supplemental to insure “prompt” service. If your income taxes went up 15% tomorrow you would be dishonest if you said you would not be investigating how diffuse the the hit. Your lucky to have those options, because the median family income is $50k and they won’t have them.

When 7-11 lays that kid off or closes how happy will he be? As a reminder there are 93 million permanently unemployed in the U.S.

Unless your willing to ride with the masses, you need to get over yourself[/QUOTE]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, long term unemployed is 2.1 million. Tell ya what. Let’s triple it and just call it 7.5 million. You owe me another 85 million… And no counting kids under 16, medically unfit and retired folk. Just sayin, while we’re all here thinkin’

As for ridin with the herd, sure. You’re right, I’m only pullin my frieght with a health insurance payment in the USA that is bigger than any mortgage we’ve had in 35 years.

But if that access is equal to that provided in Canada, UK, Germany or France, no problem at all. Might even buy that supplement you suggest. But I’m not going to sentence the part of the US population that does not have access to (employer paid insurance / govt paid insurance) to 1. bankruptcy or 2. no access to “the best healthcare in the world” due to economic reasons alone.

Last time I looked around in the countries I’ve visited or lived in, people still lived, loved and had work. Maybe not in full blown A’murcin style with a 3500 sq ft house, 3 cars, a boat and some toys, but you know what, we all got by.

99

It is a matter of priorities.
Your points are not off in respect to recognition of costs.

[I][I]Do we want all American citizens to have access to health care ?[/I] (Yes / No)
Recognizing the staggering costs for that, if answered (Yes), how do we wish to manage / pay the costs?
If answered (No), on what basis shall access to health care be denied?[/I] Please specify.

[I]Can we as a nation afford to do what every other major economy has done in either controlling costs or providing access? [/I]
[I]Can we afford to not do this, and keep shifting the costs on to the middle class as uninsured medical costs ?[/I] (Ref: my $150k savings spent on uninsured medical care. I mean even that well is gonna run dry soon - I figure on working until the day I drop, no choice.)

Or perhaps we can just take the simple solution.

They aren’t like me, Let Him / Her Die… Looks a little brown around the edges. Probably was lazy anyway.

100

Shikreli is under inditment for securities fraud. He has been a crook for a long time.

The very nice administrator of our small town non-profit hospital gets a salary of $2 million a year. There are a bunch of $500,000 Vice Presidents. The terms ‘for profit’ and ‘non-profit’ don’t mean anything anymore.

It’s true that healthcare is about one fifth of our national economy, about the same as federal income tax. We all end up paying for part of everyone else’s healthcare one way or another.

Yes. My health insurance costs more than my mortgage.

102

Now that actually has more to do with how we decide who is going to get access to health care, regardless of single payer or not.

So if “we” are going to decide that some +10 million person “small segment” [U]must[/U] be losers in the health care access game because the taxpayers cannot afford it, maybe we should agree a criteria to exclude them.

What will it be?

Who shall we exclude?

My family? No - I don’t like that answer.
How about your family?
No, Okay, lets pick the subsea department guys, or those DPO guys, after all, I hear no one likes them…

The lazy?
The poor ones ?
The foreign sounding names?
The people in a certain zip code?
By national lottery?
Hispanics?
White people?

So the issue comes around again. What is really fair ?

What will the national priority be ?

Do we need to reset the national priorities toward thinking about everyone in the American lifeboat?

Because like it or not, pure economics of obscene medical care costs are going to push you and me out of that boat pretty soon.

And that IS the way it will be unless we start coming up with [U]real[/U] answers.

103

Originally Posted by +A465B
Yes - in Europe income taxes are killer high (think 35% after deductions) and that VAT at over 18% sucks. Period, no way around it. But - ALL the people somehow benefit.

35% tax on income is the same as the tax paid by US businesses (Those not big enough to have their HQ somewhere nice)
The average income tax for all Americans is about 10.1% according to Bloomberg: How Much Americans Really Pay in Taxes - Bloomberg

The VAT in Europe varies and is highest in Scandinavia at >25%, but this is a tax on consumption so it hits the high spenders the most. (Maybe the low income earners the hardest though)

But then you have to look at what you get back for your buck in Europe and in the US the picture may be different.

In Europe your medical expenses, education, pension, sick leave and unemployment benefits, holiday pay and a whole host of other benefits are covered in that tax bill.

In the US you have to pay some corporation or another for health insurance, either directly or through lower wages, as your employer has to count that cost into his costs for your labour.
You have to save up for the cost of education for your children, or for re-education for yourself.
You have to save up, or buy insurance (much the same), to ensure you get a livable pension when you can no longer work.
Your paid leave is the shortest in the industrial world and you have to save up to afford to take it. (Unless you are rich, or in upper management)

What else??, Somebody want to add whatever other expenses I don’t know about, or forgot??

Me think that if you add all the above to your tax bill you will probably find that your defacto cost is higher than in Europe.

For the disabled and other deserving people with low, or no, income, there are little hope of being able to pay for all of the above, once their day to day living expenses have been cover.

Denmark has one of the highest tax rates in the world, yet they have been deemed the happiest and best country in the world to live in. (Just saying)

105

Have you looked at the prices for the ACA? Sure anyone can enroll, but can they afford it?

106

Obamacare would be more expensive for me. Obamacare is a wonderful gift for everyone who makes less than $40,000.

Obamacare was based on Romneycare in Massachusetts, which was based on the Swiss healthcare system. Everyone hated Romneycare, but after a few years they grew to love it. As the economy and people adapt everyone will come to love their Obamacare too. Already everyone loves that Obamacare prohibits the insurance companies from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions. Obamacare is a half ass political compromise, but it’s the first step toward single payer national healthcare which we will have within another 10 years. National healthcare will be able to negotiate costs down.

The drug companies charge two to 10 times as much for drugs in the US than they do elsewhere in the world. Same with doctors and hospitals. We cannot allow this kind of profiteering. We are subsidizing the entire world.

The reason health insurance got so expensive was that it was ineffectively regulated by 50 different states instead of the federal government. And we were prohibited from buying insurance across state lines. Small states have less size and bargaining power than larger insurance companies. Obamacare sets some national standards for the first time. It will get much better over time. Like it or not, Obamacare is here to stay.

107

[QUOTE=injunear;178049]Just think about it. Employer provided health care started during WW2 to balance out a competitive wage package. Enter the malpractice barristers…[/QUOTE]

And while the Kaiser Permanente shipyards and steel mills are history, their employee health care system is still rocking on the West Coast…

109

[QUOTE=lm1883;178142]You won’t escape the cost in a single payer system, it will just be spread out as taxes on just about everything imaginable. Wait until the loonie is back on par (or close) with the USD then make a trip to Canada. After you take the wife and kids to dinner tell me what you think.[/QUOTE]

Give it up lm1883. All you’re doing is repeating right wing bogus talking points & which are not backed up by hard facts.

When you think of Canada, how many major cities come to your mind? Toronto (Pop: 2,600,000), Montreal (Pop: 1,600,000), Vancouver (Pop: 600,000)? Maybe, Ottawa (Pop: 812,129)? Total population of these 4 major cities: 5,612,129. Versus that to USA - How many major cities & their population/city? The fingers and toes are not enough to count. NYC’s population itself is 8.5million. How many physicians in the state of NY? 89,947. Which works to 345 doctors/100,000. How many total physicians in Canada? 77,000. Which works to 220/100,000 for the entire country. Now, compare the geographical breadth of NY to that of Canada and it’s spread of population. If there is a wait in the Canadian system, it’s not cause of their medical system, but due to the lack of physicians, especially in the specialty field.

Here’s a breakdown as per the 2015 census.

[ATTACH]4370[/ATTACH]

Happy reading and do stop scare mongering. Obamacare is not good. In fact, it’s downright expensive. It’s only good if 1. Somebody’s paying for you on your behalf and/or 2. You are getting it for free. But, it’s a start. And, an another expensive start at that :slight_smile:

110

[QUOTE=lm1883;178142]You won’t escape the cost in a single payer system, it will just be spread out as taxes on just about everything imaginable. Wait until the loonie is back on par (or close) with the USD then make a trip to Canada. After you take the wife and kids to dinner tell me what you think.[/QUOTE]

We cannot escape the cost of healthcare for everyone in any system. Half the US population was on some form of national healthcare BEFORE Obamacare (VA, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, WIC, government employees and retirees, and people who can’t/don’t pay for urgent treatment so the rest of us pay higher prices to make up the losses). We could not avoid the cost for providing healthcare to everyone ten years ago, today, or ten years from now. We have to pay one way or the other.

The only question is: Are we going to have organized national healthcare that can negotiate lower prices, or are going to let big pharma, big insurance, and the medical mafia continue to overcharge us?

111

Here’s the fix: outlaw cigarettes, liquor, already illegal illicit drugs and%90 of the food sold, sports (concussions), cars (accident injuries) etc etc. Massive percentages of healthcare costs gone.

But fuck that, I want to wash down my cheeseburger with a beer and maybe take a few perks for the fun of it.

112

[QUOTE=tugsailor;178172]Half the US population was on some form of national healthcare BEFORE Obamacare (VA, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, WIC, government employees and retirees, and people who can’t/don’t pay for urgent treatment so the rest of us pay higher prices to make up the losses).[/QUOTE]

How are federal employees on “national health care”, especially single payer. The federal government paying premiums on a private insurance plan (like a normal employer) doesn’t count.

113

exactly, it’s not universal healthcare in those cases but regular jeaux-boss healthcare, jeaux-boss just happens to be Uncle Sam.

114

[QUOTE=z-drive;178176]exactly, it’s not universal healthcare in those cases but regular jeaux-boss healthcare, jeaux-boss just happens to be Uncle Sam.[/QUOTE]

When the national government takes money out of my paycheck to pay for the healthcare of government employees, that is taxpayer funded national healthcare.

When Jeaux Boss takes money out of your paycheck to pay for your health insurance, that is privately funded healthcare. However, when Jeaux Boss takes a tax deduction for your health insurance, and you get this benefit as tax fee income, then it becomes taxpayer subsidized healthcare.

No matter we called it, we taxpayers are already paying for taxpayer funded and taxpayer subsidized healthcare for just about everyone.

I dont mind paying for federal healthcare programs for others. My complaint is when I have to pay for it, but do not get to use it myself.

116

[QUOTE=lm1883;178142]You won’t escape the cost in a single payer system, it will just be spread out as taxes on just about everything imaginable. Wait until the loonie is back on par (or close) with the USD then make a trip to Canada. After you take the wife and kids to dinner tell me what you think.[/QUOTE]

Now I actually agree with this. The COST is the first thing that needs to be controlled. That is, the basic charges. As I mentioned, a procedure in Germany $460, in USA $9800. Same thing. And no it is not all malpractice premiums, because in many states, medical malpractice suits are strictly limited already. Look up your own state and see. Only prices didn’t go down after we lost the right to sue.

But we’ve had a good discussion here. The government subsidization of employer paid premiums and outright payment for 108 million others is interesting. The effect of increased taxation needed to truly cover the COSTS is fearsome, for sure. But if the healthcare is no longer paid by direct premium, everyone saves that cost. Employer and employee. We need to have the largest possible group, covered in the best manner, to ensure the best bargaining power is available. To actually reset the prices - because no one can tell me the same procedure must be 20 times more expensive here than in Germany. It is just price gouging. Pharma companies charging 100,000 for a course of treatment, and then admitting, well, we only wanted to see what the market would bear before the insurers and others complained too much. We want to set the prices as high as possible to set, “The Floor” high. Immoral pigs.

And also to cut the profit out of non-profit medicine. I traveled to Jax and stayed across from Blue Cross of Florida HQ. A HUGE campus. I returned to the hotel, say 9pm, and every light in every office in every multistory building at Blue Cross was blazing. It was staggering to see because no one does that nowadays. But they do.

And so we pay for it with our $1550 a month premiums. This type of stuff has to stop. And the salaries - in my town here the head of the non-profit hospital is a $1MM man, probably with more in paid bennies not even seen.

So there is a lot of work to be done. We, as a nation, have to start with the [U]moral[/U] premise that everyone should have access to basic healthcare (preventive, checkup and illness) [U]without[/U] financial qualification. Period. No one should be losing the house or life savings or going bankrupt due to medical bills - ever, ever. We can do better. Further, the insurance / uninsured medical cost spiral is really hurting even the best savers and good working people… to the extent it simply cannot be borne and people have to do without healthcare — due to COST.

ACA is not the cause of the COSTS, it is only a reflection of what premiums are needed to cover the COSTS.

ACA didn’t get us to a solution and don’t forget that the poorest in many states actually do not have access to ACA insurance, because they are too poor for the subsidies, and were actually supposed to have been covered by Medicare. And “The States” decided they didn’t want the responsibility for, you guessed it, the COST. And the poorest there simply cannot pay even for the cheapest policy at say $450 a month. So they are economically excluded due to the COSTS they cannot bear.

So we really need to decide some tough issues.

Rant ends …

117

[QUOTE=tugsailor;178172]The only question is: Are we going to have organized national healthcare that can negotiate lower prices, or are going to let big pharma, big insurance, and the medical mafia continue to overcharge us?[/QUOTE]

ORGANIZED!..GODDAMNED IT, how I love that word!

118

[QUOTE=+A465B;178184]So we really need to decide some tough issues.[/QUOTE]

some very tough decisions indeed, but for the collective populace to make them we need a leadership with the power to unite people behind a choice…seriously doubt I will see that in the few decades I have left.

but my sincere thanks for one of the most prescient posts on gCaptain ever!

.

119

[QUOTE=tugsailor;178179]When the national government takes money out of my paycheck to pay for the healthcare of government employees, that is taxpayer funded national healthcare.

When Jeaux Boss takes money out of your paycheck to pay for your health insurance, that is privately funded healthcare. However, when Jeaux Boss takes a tax deduction for your health insurance, and you get this benefit as tax fee income, then it becomes taxpayer subsidized healthcare.

No matter we called it, we taxpayers are already paying for taxpayer funded and taxpayer subsidized healthcare for just about everyone.

I dont mind paying for federal healthcare programs for others. My complaint is when I have to pay for it, but do not get to use it myself.[/QUOTE]

What about all the shipyard workers at general dynamics building nothing but naval vessels, does that fall under the same thing as taxpayer-funded? I just need to know where the line gets drawn. It maybe taxpayer funded in one way or another but it’s far from “national healthcare.”