The perfect alternative to the public option...

[Accountable]

I want to ask: what is the value of the SS check anyway? It is inadequate to live off of. There are other safety nets to help poor people. If it were phased out, people would save for retirement or not, however they wished.

Isn't it just a sacred cow and nothing more?

 

[Minor Axis]

am a pessimist because I am a realist

Pessimism and optimism foster very different views of the world and your place in it. BTW, pessimism does equal realism, in excess, it equals defeatism which you display in a sizable portion of your posts. PS, that's no worse than you calling me delusional.

 

[Alien Allen]

Pessimism and optimism foster very different views of the world and your place in it. BTW, pessimism does equal realism, in excess, it equals defeatism which you display in a sizable portion of your posts. PS, that's no worse than you calling me delusional.

Don't take me too seriously.

Nobody else does

Yes I can be pretty pessimistic. Specially when it comes to the govt. It is very inefficient and very bloated.

So it is doomed to be a failure unless we elect people that are not beholden to the all mighty dollar.

Liberals bemoan the greed of corporations. Some of that is legit. But the greed of those in elected office is equally harmful. I wish more liberals would see that rather than to live the dream that who we elect gives a damn about us.

We need a lot of reforms or this country will fall apart. Nobody in DC has any interest in making the effort

 

[catisland]

1. TORT REFORM. Put a lid on the cost of malpractive insurance and dr's & hospital fees will come down!
2. National companies crossing state lines to compete---offer a "Sam's Club" basic health insurance policy at discounted rates.
3. Hold back a portion of entitlement checks being collected by people who can work but are choosing not to and put the money in an insurance fund for them.
4. Reform our already exisitng Medicare/Medicaid system to maximum efficiency and eliminate fraud, put laws into effect that will nail system abusers to the cross if they're caught.

 

[Alien Allen]

1. TORT REFORM. Put a lid on the cost of malpractive insurance and dr's & hospital fees will come down!
2. National companies crossing state lines to compete---offer a "Sam's Club" basic health insurance policy at discounted rates.
3. Hold back a portion of entitlement checks being collected by people who can work but are choosing not to and put the money in an insurance fund for them.
4. Reform our already exisitng Medicare/Medicaid system to maximum efficiency and eliminate fraud, put laws into effect that will nail system abusers to the cross if they're caught.

All great points.

Anybody see them being addressed in Obamacare???

 

[catisland]

Oh, I forgot two more: For consumer protection, a cap on what a hospital can charge for services or drugs...there is no reason that an aspirin should cost $25 if the hospital's costs have come down. Like there are state laws that allow a maximum interest rate on loans, there should also be maximum fees that can be charged.
Pharma. companies have no control over what hospitals charge, so we need to back off of them a bit. Research funding is needed. However, people on the discounted insurance policies could easily use generic drugs and get the same results.

 

[retro]

Oh, I forgot two more: For consumer protection, a cap on what a hospital can charge for services or drugs...there is no reason that an aspirin should cost $25 if the hospital's costs have come down. Like there are state laws that allow a maximum interest rate on loans, there should also be maximum fees that can be charged.
Pharma. companies have no control over what hospitals charge, so we need to back off of them a bit. Research funding is needed. However, people on the discounted insurance policies could easily use generic drugs and get the same results.

A few things that you don't seem to be aware of...

Hospitals and physicians generally charge at or around cost for drugs. I just had a cortisone injection in my shoulder a few weeks back, I was charged about 10% over cost to account for the time spent prepping and injecting me, I've got no problem with that, and it was covered under my insurance. Also, there are already set limits for what can be charged for procedures based on what was involved in the procedure, time spent, supplies used, etc.

Pharmaceutical companies are the ones who set forth the prices to the physicians and hospitals, who then pass that expense along to the patient. The problem is that since there are long-term patents for these drugs and the drug delivery systems, there isn't competition while the drug is in an exclusive situation unless another pharmaceutical company has a similar drug. Only after those patents expire will you see generic versions of drugs for a substantial discount under what the name brand is. So while generic drugs are great and generally give people the same results, there are certain drugs that simply aren't generic yet.

 

[catisland]

A few things that you don't seem to be aware of...

Hospitals and physicians generally charge at or around cost for drugs. I just had a cortisone injection in my shoulder a few weeks back, I was charged about 10% over cost to account for the time spent prepping and injecting me, I've got no problem with that, and it was covered under my insurance. Also, there are already set limits for what can be charged for procedures based on what was involved in the procedure, time spent, supplies used, etc.

Pharmaceutical companies are the ones who set forth the prices to the physicians and hospitals, who then pass that expense along to the patient. The problem is that since there are long-term patents for these drugs and the drug delivery systems, there isn't competition while the drug is in an exclusive situation unless another pharmaceutical company has a similar drug. Only after those patents expire will you see generic versions of drugs for a substantial discount under what the name brand is. So while generic drugs are great and generally give people the same results, there are certain drugs that simply aren't generic yet.

Understood. Thanks!

 

[Alien Allen]

That $25 aspirin also includes labor and paperwork. Labor and overhead is huge.

 

[Alien Allen]

another thing is the lack of common sense. My wife and daughters have asthma and take inhalers. A year ago or so the govt in its wisdom said the propellant was dangerous to the atmosphere. As a result they banned it from being used and that meant a new patent. What was a drug that cost less than $10 now cost $75. All because of the change of the propellant. Am I the only one who thinks the enviro nuts are taking things to extremes.

 

[catisland]

We need a Common Sense Czar.

 

[Minor Axis]

another thing is the lack of common sense. My wife and daughters have asthma and take inhalers. A year ago or so the govt in its wisdom said the propellant was dangerous to the atmosphere. As a result they banned it from being used and that meant a new patent. What was a drug that cost less than $10 now cost $75. All because of the change of the propellant. Am I the only one who thinks the enviro nuts are taking things to extremes.

Are they? What if it costs you $5 to pay someone to dump your waste oil in the river, or you can pay $100 to have it recycled? The latter is more expensive but is it the better choice? Now regarding medicines, I think from a consumer standpoint, what you are describing sucks no doubt. The question becomes for health reasons as for industrial waste, what is a reasonable expense, how much money should be made from it, and who should shoulder the expense? The answers come in grays, not necessarily black and whites.

 

[Alien Allen]

Are they? What if it costs you $5 to pay someone to dump your waste oil in the river, or you can pay $100 to have it recycled? The latter is more expensive but is it the better choice? Now regarding medicines, I think from a consumer standpoint, what you are describing sucks no doubt. The question becomes for health reasons as for industrial waste, what is a reasonable expense, how much money should be made from it, and who should shoulder the expense? The answers come in grays, not necessarily black and whites.

Your analogy sucks

You really think the ozone is gonna be ruined by friggin inhalers?? :willy_nilly:

 

[retro]

Your analogy sucks

You really think the ozone is gonna be ruined by friggin inhalers?? :willy_nilly:

especially when there isn't any scientific proof that propellants actually do any damage to begin with... at least none that I'm aware of.

 

[Tim]

especially when there isn't any scientific proof that propellants actually do any damage to begin with... at least none that I'm aware of.

Are you freaking kidding me?

It takes 50-100 years for CFC's to breakdown in the stratosphere. And when it does break down chlorine is a byproduct which destroys ozone. One Chlorine molecule will destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules, and for every 1% drop in our ozone level there is a 2% increase in skin cancer. The science is extremely strong when it comes to CFC's and what it does to the ozone layer. You just need to take a few minutes and read some of the scientific papers on it.

 

[Codrus]

Are you freaking kidding me?

It takes 50-100 years for CFC's to breakdown in the stratosphere. And when it does break down chlorine is a byproduct which destroys ozone. One Chlorine molecule will destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules, and for every 1% drop in our ozone level there is a 2% increase in skin cancer. The science is extremely strong when it comes to CFC's and what it does to the ozone layer. You just need to take a few minutes and read some of the scientific papers on it.

CFC's for the use as aerosol propellants have been banned since 1978 in the US.

But they are still in use as refrigerants, and other industrial uses. There is a phase out in process for these uses (starting with the Montreal Protocol in 1987), but the phase out has been changed over the years.

 

[Alien Allen]

CFC's for the use as aerosol propellants have been banned since 1978 in the US.

But they are still in use as refrigerants, and other industrial uses. There is a phase out in process for these uses (starting with the Montreal Protocol in 1987), but the phase out has been changed over the years.

They still were used in the inhalers until 2008.

At least the inhalers my wife and daughter used.

 

[Tim]

CFC's for the use as aerosol propellants have been banned since 1978 in the US.

But they are still in use as refrigerants, and other industrial uses. There is a phase out in process for these uses (starting with the Montreal Protocol in 1987), but the phase out has been changed over the years.

I am fully aware that they have been banned. But they made provisions for inhalers so they had the time to find a suitable replacement.
I'm not aware of any legal use of CFC's as refrigerants or for industrial purposes still going on today.

 

[Minor Axis]

Minor's right, from what I recall about politicians stealing from SS. I think it would be solvent now. But it's not an investment, it is a ponzi scheme by any definition.
I disagree. If not for SS, most of these people would have taken responsibility for their own retirement and built a nest egg ... like people used to. Or they would stay in a nuclear family where children take care of the people who used to take care of them ... like people used to. SS damaged or destroyed the best of American culture.

Using the term "ponzi scheme" is just a way to falsely undermine it. You can take a Savings and Loan and if the officers are stealing from the saver accounts, it's most likely going to fail. It does not mean that Savings and Loans are ponzi schemes or are doomed to failure. As to the second part, did average people have nest eggs prior to SS? My understanding is that SS came about because business-men took the country down during the Great Depression, kind of like they did recently! That the New Deal was created to give the working class a chance. Why would they need a chance? Because Capitalism when left to its own devices, becomes completely unbalanced enriching the few, and abusing the many. When overall society if considered, raw unregulated Capitalism is inequitable.

My impression is that average people did not make that much prior, so what part of American culture was destroyed? And gee, the New Deal promoted labor unions. Why on earth would they do that? The work of a bunch of commie-socialists?

 

[Alien Allen]

Minor you act like SS can be sustained. There is absolutely nothing but blind faith to support that. If that was not a public govt program it would be shut down and those in charge jailed.