NuRayZ said:
1.) The government isn’t forcing the pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices. The Companies themselves are saying they can lower the prices. Also, think about all the money wasted on named brand medication. Generic is just as effective any form and a lot cheaper too. These pharmaceutical companies willing to work with the government, to supply more people with cheaper medication, and in turn probably make more money; it’s not like we are sticking a gun in their face.
So if they lower prices how does that make them more money? The people who need them are already getting them, either through insurance, medicaid, partnerships, or out of pocket expense. That just doesn’t make sense.
Also, I like how you assume every drug has a generic alternative. You obviously don’t know how generics work or why there’s a delay before they are released. If they released a cancer cure pill tomorrow there wouldn’t be a generic for years and it has absolutely nothing to do with cost, need, or supply.
Also, Obama has a LOT of behind closed doors meetings. None of us really know why the AARP is sponsoring this and many of the medical “unions” that are have been losing members right and left. Any company or group that has come to the table to make deals on this have done so for their own hides because they know if they oppose this and it does go through they’ll have no say but if they help and if fails they won’t be punished. Opposing Obama is a lose-lose situation, almost reminds me Chicago politics.
NuRayZ said:
2.) Premiums. Why the hell are they being raised so god *edited* much? Part of it has to do with the above statement.
None of it has to do with the statement above. Drug costs aren’t the problem with healthcare costs.
NuRayZ said:
Some insurance companies will only allow people to get named brand medication, because it’s more expensive.
Yeah maybe a very tiny minority. Most prefer you get generics.
NuRayZ said:
When someone has to decide whether to put food on the table or buy medicine for their child, it’s time for *edited*ing reform.
I have yet to met someone in this situation that didn’t own a nice car, or a big screen TV, or a boat, or spend thousands every year on beer and smokes. And I met a LOT of poor people a few summers back.
NuRayZ said:
People in AMERICA should have the assurance that they will be able to work hard, and provide for their family; without getting screwed over by insurance companies.
You are guaranteed life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. That is all. No where does it say you are guaranteed that someone else will pay for your healthcare. If someone that partied in high school, didn’t go to college, and has 3 kids by age 25 can’t afford healthcare, what are we supposed to do? We can’t subsidize EVERYONE’S bad decisions in life. I’m sorry they’re in a bad way, I truely am and feel for them, but the vast majority of people directly cause their situations in life and if yours happens to be bad you can’t expect someone else to dig into the money they want to spend on their family so that you can continue your unsustainable lifestyle.
Even for those who’ve changed, 2 years of responsible living can’t offset 8 years of completely not caring. It’s like that in every country on this planet.
NuRayZ said:
How can you sit there and defend insurance companies, when hundreds of thousands die every year because they were uninsured, OR RATHER kicked off their insurance plan because the insurance companies found them not profitable.
Here’s a better one, how many are saved because their insurance company paid for their care. Before you make outrageous, and completely retarded, statements please at least look things up.
Go find how many are saved and how many are killed by private insurance companies, with LEGIT sources. GL.
NuRayZ said:
4.) Insurance profits. Okay, yes, they are allowed to make a profit. But how much? And at what expense? At the expense of millions who get sick and die every year without health insurance?
Millions don’t die every year over health insurance. Learn2facts.
I’m not going to even both commenting on how much a CEO of a successful company was paid in stock options. Again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding. CEOs are paid in stock options because it gives them an incentive to make the company successful. If the company fails, their stock becomes worthless. If the CEO makes the company succeed then the stock options he’s paid in become even more valuable.
In reality, this is the fairest form of compensation for a CEO. Of course, since he was being successful that makes him a bad guy. Lord knows if you succeed in this country you’re going straight to Hell. No exceptions.