Repealing the ACA under Trump

[Nebfanatic]

Probably in a big comfortable bed with Egyptian cotton sheets

[NM11046]

If you took away the financial benefit of having no cure maybe they would find a cure for cancer

And without the profits of existing medications available to citizens there would be no monies to reinvest in research to find a cure.

[Nebfanatic]

 

If you took away the financial benefit of having no cure maybe they would find a cure for cancer

And without the profits of existing medications available to citizens there would be no monies to reinvest in research to find a cure.

Not my point and also untrue. Cancer research funds itself it definitely doesn't need medication revenue. Billions are put towards "finding a cure" every year. While I am sure there are people out there working very hard to find a cure, there are others who I am sure would not want it known if a cure was found, because a heathy revenue stream would vanish.

 

One example. The National Cancer Institute received over 5 billion dollars last year from the US government. Why would they do something to make that stop?

[NM11046]

There are more diseases (in addition to cancer) that warrant research. Investigative work is broad reaching and not cheap.

 

The government doesnt contribute as greatly to all causes. Industry and medical schools fund work in addition and to compliment what is federally funded.

 

And to answer your question - so they could move on and tackle other horrid diseases.

[Nebfanatic]

There are more diseases (in addition to cancer) that warrant research. Investigative work is broad reaching and not cheap.

 

The government doesnt contribute as greatly to all causes. Industry and medical schools fund work in addition and to compliment what is federally funded.

 

And to answer your question - so they could move on and tackle other horrid diseases.

Look, there are people out there that want to see this stuff cured and are working very hard to do so. But research is an industry, people with terminal illness is an industry. Certain people would like any end all be all cure to these things kept secret. If such thing existed, which I really think something very effective does exist, the people with the power would not want everyone knowing about it. If cancer was an easy fix these people would lose out on billions annually. There is alot of incentive in keeping people sick plain and simple.

 

It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I do not think it is as far fetched as you might think.

[zoogs]

It does sound like a conspiracy theory, and it does sound completely far-fetched

[JJ Husker]

Sorry but if the expense of new research is current drugs single month costs need to $4,000 to $25,000+, then we cannot afford those research and development fees. It may be expensive but it does not have to be THAT expensive. It's pretty telling that many of these new expensive drugs are the ones with the never ending prime time tv commercials and ridiculously lavish mailings. I think "research is expensive" is a euphemism for excessive profits being churned into even more profit. Just do the math on a single monthly dose that costs $10,000 for one person and then figure it for 50k or 100k people. And then get the FDA to protect that revenue stream for you for multiple years. Research is expensive is a narrative we are being fed.

[zoogs]

Of course research is expensive. Medical care is expensive. These things aren't related (entirely) to the question of cost. Not having the power to negotiate prices in a single market is responsible for costs. This truth shouldn't be accepted as a reason to maintain the status quo.

[RedDenver]

 

Frankly I find it heartening how openly amenable to socialism some of our board's more conservative members seem to be. It shows we're politically open-minded.

Trust me, I wouldn't be for it if the free market hadn't totally f'd it up. Unfortunately they've proven it's beyond their capability, or more fairly, they got too damn greedy gouging us for drugs and services we have no choice but to buy. I still don't like the idea of it but it seems to be the only remaining solution.

 

I agree, and I also think healthcare in general cannot be a "free market". There's the problem of distribution - I can't choose any hospital, especially if I'm experiencing a time-critical problem. But even non-emergencies, I can't really just go anywhere to get care. Also the price is unbounded. What I mean is that I'd pay any amount of money to save my child's life (or insert your own scenario here), so there's no mechanism to cap the costs.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

Frankly I find it heartening how openly amenable to socialism some of our board's more conservative members seem to be. It shows we're politically open-minded.

 

Trust me, I wouldn't be for it if the free market hadn't totally f'd it up. Unfortunately they've proven it's beyond their capability, or more fairly, they got too damn greedy gouging us for drugs and services we have no choice but to buy. I still don't like the idea of it but it seems to be the only remaining solution.

I agree, and I also think healthcare in general cannot be a "free market". There's the problem of distribution - I can't choose any hospital, especially if I'm experiencing a time-critical problem. But even non-emergencies, I can't really just go anywhere to get care. Also the price is unbounded. What I mean is that I'd pay any amount of money to save my child's life (or insert your own scenario here), so there's no mechanism to cap the costs.

Very good point. It can't very well be a free market decision if the choice is pay this amount or death/pain/suffering.

[knapplc]

Why American Drug Prices Are So High

The “most important factor” that drives prescription drug prices higher in the United States than anywhere else in the world is the existence of government-protected “monopoly” rights for drug manufacturers, researchers at Harvard Medical School report today.

The researchers reviewed thousands of studies published from January 2005 through July 2016 in an attempt to simplify and explain what has caused America’s drug price crisis and how to solve it. They found that the problem has deep and complicated roots and published their findings in JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association. The study was funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation with additional support provided by the Engelberg Foundation.

“I continue to be impressed at what a complex and nuanced problem it is and how there are no easy solutions either,” said lead study author Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, a professor who runs the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics and Law at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “As I was writing, the enormity of the problem continued to shine through.”

Five key findings in the JAMA review:

Drug manufacturers in the U.S. set their own prices, and that’s not the norm elsewhere in the world.

We allow “government-protected monopolies” for certain drugs, preventing generics from coming to market to reduce prices.

The FDA takes a long time to approve generic drugs.

Sometimes, state laws and other “well-intentioned” federal policies limit generics’ abilities to keep costs down.

Drug prices aren’t really justified by R&D.

In general, fixing America’s drug price problems won’t be easy, the study authors concluded. Congressional gridlock and the power of the pharmaceutical lobby make allowing Medicare to negotiate Part D prices an unlikely possibility. And leaving that aside, policymakers must find a way to tighten rules and strengthen oversight surrounding patent protections and exclusivity without chilling innovation, Kesselheim said.

 

[knapplc]

[Danny Bateman]

I just want to say it's nice to see two opposing voices actually have a long dialogue about something this important without getting upset or defensive. Kudos zoogs and JJ.

 

In my best "Super Friends" announcer voice: "Meanwhile, at the White House..."

 

 

Perhaps I am too close to the issue. But I just don't understand how Trump's read on the situation is correct. Now that he's president with full control of Congress, how can he blame an ACA failure on anyone else?

A majority of the American people like and support the ACA. That's not to say everyone, but most. They also realize it's not failing, or else they wouldn't have showed up en masse to defend it from their first attempt to upend it.

So again Trump goes back to the drawing board, trying to use loaded phrases like"it's in big trouble" to foist upon us as a people a false reality that doesn't exist. Most of us realize that. So if he deliberately withholds ACA subsidy payments to attempt to strongarm people into funding his wall, won't people ultimately blame him?

[funhusker]

I just want to say it's nice to see two opposing voices actually have a long dialogue about something this important without getting upset or defensive. Kudos zoogs and JJ.

 

In my best "Super Friends" announcer voice: "Meanwhile, at the White House..."

 

 

Perhaps I am too close to the issue. But I just don't understand how Trump's read on the situation is correct. Now that he's president with full control of Congress, how can he blame an ACA failure on anyone else?

 

A majority of the American people like and support the ACA. That's not to say everyone, but most. They also realize it's not failing, or else they wouldn't have showed up en masse to defend it from their first attempt to upend it.

 

So again Trump goes back to the drawing board, trying to use loaded phrases like"it's in big trouble" to foist upon us as a people a false reality that doesn't exist. Most of us realize that. So if he deliberately withholds ACA subsidy payments to attempt to strongarm people into funding his wall, won't people ultimately blame him?

Assuming you mean Americans in general: Are you sure?

[Danny Bateman]

Assuming you mean Americans in general: Are you sure?

 

Affordable Care Act Gains Majority Approval for First Time

 

 

 

• 55% approve, up from 42% right after 2016 election
• 40% want to keep law but make significant changes
• 30% want to repeal; 26% want to keep law as it is

 

That's a full 66% who want to keep or improve the ACA vs. 30% who want a repeal.

 

 

I think Americans have by and large clear eyes when talking about current healthcare law. A majority like it. We, for the most part, realize that it's not perfect and there are still people who are hurting, and we have to now help those people. There's also too large a swath of us that aren't yet covered.

 

There will always be people who believe everything Trump says wholeheartedly... hook, line, and sinker. But don't like him fool you into thinking that's a majority. Though he can bamboozle folks more easily on certain very complex topics by dumbing them down, this doesn't seem to be one of them. One of the positives of a Trump presidency is how much more literate people have become regarding their healthcare.