Is trump making medicine great again?

[KGflyboy]

Provide the link where I advocated increasing social programs? Seriously, provide the direct quote where I advocated increasing expenses in this thread. [hint, you won't find it]


Sure... when they don't want to make the tax cut revenue neutral. Again, show the logic in "we're in a deficit with a large debt, so lets cut income more without cutting expenses." You still haven't answered the question about what would happen to your household if your house was spending more than it brought in and you decided to cut your income without cutting expenses.

Mind you, this entire line of discussion started because someone thinks that only "*****s" (his words) believe in a balanced budget and paying down the debt. (This is what a link and citing your sources looks like in cause you're confused on the topic)

Again... You are seriously confused. I never said anything about you wanting to increase expenses. You keep accusing me of saying this stuff that I never said. What the heck are you talking about? Why do you keep asking me to quote something I never even accused you of saying?

Sent from my XT1095 using SDN mobile

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[e30ftw]

Siggy do you need like a snickers bar or something?

 

[Siggy]

You are definitely doing it again

Doing it again?

Do you mean directly quoting your use of "*****" or advocating for fiscal responsibility. Guilty as charged for both.

 

[Siggy]

Again... You are seriously confused. I never said anything about you wanting to increase expenses. You keep accusing me of saying this stuff that I never said. What the heck are you talking about? Why do you keep asking me to quote something I never even accused you of saying?

Sent from my XT1095 using SDN mobile

Ok... we'll take this step by step then. When your post stated:

Your post mentions something about wanting to expand programs and the well being of others.

Who are you suggesting is advocating expanding social programs and the well being of others?

 

[Dre8]

Doing it again?

Do you mean directly quoting your use of "*****" or advocating for fiscal responsibility. Guilty as charged for both.

Lol you are just all over the place so it's challenging to argue with you. You are acting like a balanced budget is sacrosanct when we haven't had one in like 15 years. Most of us probably agree a balanced budget would be great. But I recognize that a significant tax cut would be amazing for me and my family, even if it ultimately increases the national debt by a small percentage. However, you seem to think that since we want the tax cut we are happy to let the country burn (your words) or destroy the country (also your words). If I actually believed the country was teetering on the edge of destruction and this tax plan would actually shove us over, then no I wouldn't support it.

 

[KGflyboy]

Ok... we'll take this step by step then. When your post stated:



Who are you suggesting is advocating expanding social programs and the well being of others?

That was my response to you... Look at your previous post to me. You clearly mentioned something about expanding programs and the well being of others before my post you just quoted.

Sent from my XT1095 using SDN mobile

 

[KGflyboy]

I never mentioned the well being of others. Where have I said that social programs need to be expanded? Argument 404 error, quote not found.

Here it is. This is the quote of you mentioning well being of others and expanding programs. According to your words, it appears as though you think I accused you of saying these things. However, I never said anything like that. You made it up.

Sent from my XT1095 using SDN mobile

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Stop breaking the thread.

 

[Siggy]

Here it is. This is the quote of you mentioning well being of others and expanding programs. According to your words, it appears as though you think I accused you of saying these things. However, I never said anything like that. You made it up.

Sent from my XT1095 using SDN mobile

Except you're the first person who brought up the "well being of others"

I think you are completely missing the points of people who respond to you and taking their words out of context. No one here wants to "let it burn." When you say things like that it indicates your own political bias is preventing you from understanding anyone's point of view. You are twisting the words of everyone else to make it sound like they hate the country and and don't care about the well being of others.

...unless you interpret "Gee, the government really should be solvent" as "being concerned about the well being of others." That's a pretty broad interpretation of "the government needs to be able to pay it's bills before we reduce revenue" that ignores, gee, I don't know... reducing expenses as an option.

 

[Siggy]

Lol you are just all over the place so it's challenging to argue with you. You are acting like a balanced budget is sacrosanct when we haven't had one in like 15 years. Most of us probably agree a balanced budget would be great. But I recognize that a significant tax cut would be amazing for me and my family, even if it ultimately increases the national debt by a small percentage. However, you seem to think that since we want the tax cut we are happy to let the country burn (your words) or destroy the country (also your words). If I actually believed the country was teetering on the edge of destruction and this tax plan would actually shove us over, then no I wouldn't support it.

If you agree that a balanced budget would be great, why are you working on making the wound larger by arguing that a revenue neutral tax cut would be impossible? How is it not "screw you, as long as I've got mine." By the way, we pay about 432 billion a year in debt servicing. That's about half the deficit. Imagine how much better your children's future would be if instead of sending 432 billion to countries like China, it could stay home in the form of lower taxes? By the way, debt servicing counts for most of the current deficit.

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Budget

 

[Dre8]

If you agree that a balanced budget would be great, why are you working on making the wound larger by arguing that a revenue neutral tax cut would be impossible? How is it not "screw you, as long as I've got mine." By the way, we pay about 432 billion a year in debt servicing. That's about half the deficit. Imagine how much better your children's future would be if instead of sending 432 billion to countries like China, it could stay home in the form of lower taxes? By the way, debt servicing counts for most of the current deficit.

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Budget

This is not a difficult concept to grasp, as I have already explained my position, but since it is such an important side topic to you, I will address it.

The Republicans are not trying to balance the budget. The Democrats are not trying to balance the budget. Trump is not trying to balance the budget. Biden in 2020 is not going to try to balance the budget. There is no leader anywhere on the horizon who is going to try to balance the budget. Surely you understand this?

But now that you are out there using a balanced budget as an argument against me and the tax cuts, I need to ask... Are YOU strongly pushing for a balanced budget? And where do YOU want the money to come from? Because keeping our current tax rates is not going to get us there. You would have to raise taxes on doctors (among others). A lot. And that wouldn't get us there. Neither would raising capital gains taxes. Not even if you increase the estate tax. Cutting Defense on top of that will not get us there. Cutting Medicare on top of those other two won't get us there. So if you want the balanced budget, where are you looking to cut next? I mean, on top of Medicare cuts, Defense cuts, AND HIGHER tax rates.

Or are you just opposed to tax cuts?

 

[deleted109597]

Keep it professional guys.

 

[WilcoWorld]

This is not a difficult concept to grasp, as I have already explained my position, but since it is such an important side topic to you, I will address it.

The Republicans are not trying to balance the budget. The Democrats are not trying to balance the budget. Trump is not trying to balance the budget. Biden in 2020 is not going to try to balance the budget. There is no leader anywhere on the horizon who is going to try to balance the budget. Surely you understand this?

But now that you are out there using a balanced budget as an argument against me and the tax cuts, I need to ask... Are YOU strongly pushing for a balanced budget? And where do YOU want the money to come from? Because keeping our current tax rates is not going to get us there. You would have to raise taxes on doctors (among others). A lot. And that wouldn't get us there. Neither would raising capital gains taxes. Not even if you increase the estate tax. Cutting Defense on top of that will not get us there. Cutting Medicare on top of those other two won't get us there. So if you want the balanced budget, where are you looking to cut next? I mean, on top of Medicare cuts, Defense cuts, AND HIGHER tax rates.

Or are you just opposed to tax cuts?

Just so I understand - are you saying that because it would be difficult to balance a budget we should not consider the budget when evaluating proposed tax cuts?

 

[Dre8]

Just so I understand - are you saying that because it would be difficult to balance a budget we should not consider the budget when evaluating proposed tax cuts?

Heck no. First and foremost, I'm pointing out that balancing the budget is not sacrosanct because it doesn't happen anymore. So doing something that might increase the deficit is not necessarily going to "destroy" the country.

So then I'd look to see what good was coming from the new budgetary shortfall. In this case, this tax relief is amazing for MDs, especially ED MDs or doctors who have the capacity to put in more hours.

Here's a hypothetical example. Let's say I make $419,000 per year as an IC. If I decide I want to make more money, every bit of extra clinical work I put in will be taxed at nearly 50%, after you include state taxes (most states) and payroll taxes (as an IC). That's obnoxious to me. And even then I'm told I'm not paying my "fair share."

With this new to plan, in an S Corp I can pay myself $419,000, get taxed as I normally would, but then work extra and get the rest taxed at 15%! No longer would I feel punished for working harder. It would be the opposite finally. The more I worked the more I would get to keep. If that makes me greedy, by increasing the deficit because of my wanting to keep more money, then so be it. I'm paying plenty in taxes and will continue to do so even in the new plan.

 

[GeneralVeers]

It is impossible to balance the budget. To do so would require "cruel" steps, including across the board massive tax increases on the middle class, and cuts to every social program.

Politicians and voters are unable to take emotion out of the equation. They won't vote for anything that is thought to be "cruel" to any group of people. Even if it means we help these people at the expense of the rest of the country, and hasten the collapse of the country.

 

[bravotwozero]

So, budget bill just passed. Does it include the corporate tax cut?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[southerndoc]

So, budget bill just passed. Does it include the corporate tax cut?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that was a temporary spending bill and no tax cuts.

 

[GeneralVeers]

No cuts yet. Just a temporary spending measure for a few weeks. The cycle begins again.

 

[GeneralVeers]

The House just passed Obamacare replacement, so now it goes to Senate.

If this goes through, it will be good for those of us who purchase insurance on the private markets. It allows states to opt out of the "community rating" which has been killing us. Theoretically in states who choose to do this, it should normalize pricing for those of us without high health care costs.

They are hopefully doing what should have been done in the first place. Remove the uninsurable from the insurance population and subsidize them separately. Of course this was not Obamacare's ultimate goal, rather single payer was, hence the need to destroy private insurance first.

 

[bravotwozero]

On the flip side, It will also significantly increase the number of uninsured patients, so I hope for your sake you work at a place with a really good payor mix...

Also, there's a good chance it won't get through the senate. The GOP can't lose more than 2 defectors on the bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Epinephreus]

On the flip side, It will also significantly increase the number of uninsured patients, so I hope for your sake you work at a place with a really good payor mix...

Also, there's a good chance it won't get through the senate. The GOP can't lose more than 2 defectors on the bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's even more difficult then that, it isn't a simple majority. They need > 60%.

 

[Siggy]

The Republicans are not trying to balance the budget. The Democrats are not trying to balance the budget. Trump is not trying to balance the budget. Biden in 2020 is not going to try to balance the budget. There is no leader anywhere on the horizon who is going to try to balance the budget. Surely you understand this?

Maybe we should be electing people who are willing to do tough jobs. I don't have sympathy for people who complain that their job is hard, and we, the people, should be demanding that they balance the budget.

But now that you are out there using a balanced budget as an argument against me and the tax cuts, I need to ask... Are YOU strongly pushing for a balanced budget? And where do YOU want the money to come from? Because keeping our current tax rates is not going to get us there. You would have to raise taxes on doctors (among others). A lot. And that wouldn't get us there. Neither would raising capital gains taxes. Not even if you increase the estate tax. Cutting Defense on top of that will not get us there. Cutting Medicare on top of those other two won't get us there. So if you want the balanced budget, where are you looking to cut next? I mean, on top of Medicare cuts, Defense cuts, AND HIGHER tax rates.

Or are you just opposed to tax cuts?

Ideally, spending cuts. Don't tell me that military spending can't be cut when even the Military is saying, "Stop buying us stuff we don't need!" This doesn't even touch the boondoggles such as the F-35 (the fighter equivalent of trying to marry a CT scanner to an MRI because both are imaging tubes). The Federal budget could force states to, you know, actually fund themselves for a change. I mean, states like North Carolina is getting $8 for every $1 they send to the government. Want a more current one? How about this one? Maybe we can solve part of this by forcing states like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Kentucky to pay their fair share (or we can stop funding their governments for them). Want to make Social Security work? Raise the retirement age (tie it to life expectancy, it wasn't designed for 20+ years of retirement). Maybe we shouldn't be funding Israel's military to the tune of $4 billion/year if we can't even afford our own debt.

...but no... we want to spend billions on an ineffective wall instead.

 

[Siggy]

Heck no. First and foremost, I'm pointing out that balancing the budget is not sacrosanct because it doesn't happen anymore. So doing something that might increase the deficit is not necessarily going to "destroy" the country.

Where's the limit? Why not set the tax rates to zero then if we don't need to actually pay for what we buy?

With this new to plan, in an S Corp I can pay myself $419,000, get taxed as I normally would, but then work extra and get the rest taxed at 15%! No longer would I feel punished for working harder. It would be the opposite finally. The more I worked the more I would get to keep. If that makes me greedy, by increasing the deficit because of my wanting to keep more money, then so be it. I'm paying plenty in taxes and will continue to do so even in the new plan.

...but asking you what services you would like the government to stop providing is impossible...

 

[Siggy]

The House just passed Obamacare replacement, so now it goes to Senate.

If this goes through, it will be good for those of us who purchase insurance on the private markets. It allows states to opt out of the "community rating" which has been killing us. Theoretically in states who choose to do this, it should normalize pricing for those of us without high health care costs.

They are hopefully doing what should have been done in the first place. Remove the uninsurable from the insurance population and subsidize them separately. Of course this was not Obamacare's ultimate goal, rather single payer was, hence the need to destroy private insurance first.

I don't understand the logic. "Single payer for those who require expensive care. Those that are cheap to insure... let private insurances skim off the top."

The only logical alternative to single payer, in reality, is to repeal EMTALA. As long as physicians and hospitals are required to provide uncompensated care via an unfunded Federal mandate, the end result is that those that can pay subsidize those who can't. The only difference between single payer and private insurance is the number of people skimming off money that could have gone to reimburse providers.

 

[GeneralVeers]

I don't understand the logic. "Single payer for those who require expensive care. Those that are cheap to insure... let private insurances skim off the top."

The only logical alternative to single payer, in reality, is to repeal EMTALA. As long as physicians and hospitals are required to provide uncompensated care via an unfunded Federal mandate, the end result is that those that can pay subsidize those who can't. The only difference between single payer and private insurance is the number of people skimming off money that could have gone to reimburse providers.

Exactly. I'm not for free care for anyone unless it's provided by a charitable organization.

 

[KGflyboy]

On the flip side, It will also significantly increase the number of uninsured patients, so I hope for your sake you work at a place with a really good payor mix...

Also, there's a good chance it won't get through the senate. The GOP can't lose more than 2 defectors on the bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I keep reading this in the news, but can you clarify who will be uninsured? Is this belief based on a presumption that those with preexisting conditions will opt out of the subsidized high risk pools?

 

[GeneralVeers]

I keep reading this in the news, but can you clarify who will be uninsured? Is this belief based on a presumption that those with preexisting conditions will opt out of the subsidized high risk pools?

Well theoretically a complete repeal would return us to pre-Obamacare levels. That would mean about 30 million people without coverage. I'm not including the 12 million illegals in there who shouldn't be eligible for anything. 30 million sounds like a lot, but it really amounts to < 10% of the U.S. population. That certainly is a problem that could be addressed without blowing up coverage for the other 90%.

 

[Siggy]

Exactly. I'm not for free care for anyone unless it's provided by a charitable organization.

So you would be for repealing EMTALA? How would you handle someone who was legitimately sick, but uninsured, knowing that you would likely be uncompensated for the care you provided?

 

[Siggy]

I keep reading this in the news, but can you clarify who will be uninsured? Is this belief based on a presumption that those with preexisting conditions will opt out of the subsidized high risk pools?

I think the assumption has been that high risk pools are either novel or have been shown to work. They are, in fact, neither.

The Republican healthcare bill still has a massive problem

 

[KGflyboy]

I think the assumption has been that high risk pools are either novel or have been shown to work. They are, in fact, neither.

The Republican healthcare bill still has a massive problem

So according to that link high risk pools are typically way undrfunded, leaving many to opt out due to high costs. Seems like the high risk pools certainly won't provide coverage for everyone who loses it, but it also doesn't seem like we will go back to ACA levels of uninsured overnight. Some unknown amount of people will continue to get insured through state exchanges and high risk pools. I agree this is not an ideal solution though. I don't want to see people who can't afford insurance left without any viable options.

 

[Siggy]

So according to that link high risk pools are typically way undrfunded, leaving many to opt out due to high costs. Seems like the high risk pools certainly won't provide coverage for everyone who loses it, but it also doesn't seem like we will go back to ACA levels of uninsured overnight. Some unknown amount of people will continue to get insured through state exchanges and high risk pools. I agree this is not an ideal solution though. I don't want to see people who can't afford insurance left without any viable options.

The problem is that there's essentially three options.

1. You accept that some people will be uninsured and/or uninsurable (including those through no fault of their own. For example, 2 of my friends from college married each other, their first kid has recurrent seizures (Dravet syndrome). He will always be uninsurable if insurance companies are given the choice). These people will receive emergent/urgent care through EMTALA (unreimbursed) and their cost hidden by being spread to increasing everyone's bill (thereby obscuring how much health care actually costs). Discharging someone uninsured with some sort of cancer (regardless of whether it was pure genetic luck or pure bad choices)? Too bad, that person is gonna die from their cancer.

2. You accept the individual mandate/no limit on preexisting conditions. You know have to fund the system with tax payer dollars or premium dollars to insure that stock holders get paid. (we've saved insurance companies, but this is fiscally inefficient).

3. Single payer health care where our insurance is the government's bitch and coverage is at the whim of what special interests want (including the religious "We don't want any religious laws but ours" right), but there's no investors skimming off of the top.

 

[GeneralVeers]

The problem is that there's essentially three options.

1. You accept that some people will be uninsured and/or uninsurable (including those through no fault of their own. For example, 2 of my friends from college married each other, their first kid has recurrent seizures (Dravet syndrome). He will always be uninsurable if insurance companies are given the choice). These people will receive emergent/urgent care through EMTALA (unreimbursed) and their cost hidden by being spread to increasing everyone's bill (thereby obscuring how much health care actually costs). Discharging someone uninsured with some sort of cancer (regardless of whether it was pure genetic luck or pure bad choices)? Too bad, that person is gonna die from their cancer.

2. You accept the individual mandate/no limit on preexisting conditions. You know have to fund the system with tax payer dollars or premium dollars to insure that stock holders get paid. (we've saved insurance companies, but this is fiscally inefficient).

3. Single payer health care where our insurance is the government's bitch and coverage is at the whim of what special interests want (including the religious "We don't want any religious laws but ours" right), but there's no investors skimming off of the top.

You've summarized it nicely, but I think it's better to illustrate what Americans/Politicans "want":

1. Every American covered either through primary insurance, medicare or medicaid
2. Pre-existing conditions people pay the same as healthy people
3. Low premiums for everyone who pays.
4. No rationing of healthcare
5. Access to all drugs regardless of how expensive
6. No out of pocket costs for any preventative/primary care.

We can't have all of the above, but they keep trying to find a way to do it all. Either we accept that some people are going to go without health insurance and get substandard care in a private insurance marketplace, or we have a single-payer highly rationed government run system, where arguably MORE people will get substandard care but it will be "fair".

 

[bravotwozero]

I personally have no problems with rationed care whatsoever, which is why I would be ok with a single payer system.

As far as access to medications, I cannot for the life of me understand why 1) we cannot import pharmaceuticals from Canada and 2) why the government is not allowed to negotiate prices with drug companies. Why is socialism a travesty when it comes to poor people, but fine when it comes to corporations like drug companies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GeneralVeers]

I personally have no problems with rationed care whatsoever, which is why I would be ok with a single payer system.

As far as access to medications, I cannot for the life of me understand why 1) we cannot import pharmaceuticals from Canada and 2) why the government is not allowed to negotiate prices with drug companies. Why is socialism a travesty when it comes to poor people, but fine when it comes to corporations like drug companies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because it takes $1 billion (yes with a B) to bring the average drug to market and through R&D. That cost includes many failed drugs, and the cost through the FDA. Essentially we pay high prices in the U.S. to subsidize "negotiated" prices in other countries. We would not get new drugs if the companies could not recoup the cost of the drug within the 14 years that they can maintain a patent.

 

[bravotwozero]

What about drug companies jacking up the prices of epinephrine (pharma bro) and sulfadiazine, which cost nothing to make, and simply serve to price gouge patients? There's no new r and d going on there...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GeneralVeers]

What about drug companies jacking up the prices of epinephrine (pharma bro) and sulfadiazine, which cost nothing to make, and simply serve to price gouge patients? There's no new r and d going on there...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well if we had a system where patients paid out of pocket, and there was competition, my bet is they couldn't get away with it.

 

[FutureDOdr]

The ACA made things worse for a lot of people. I'm one of them. I am a graduating medical student, my family's income has been pretty miniimal the last few years. It cost roughly $1400 to insure a family through my wife's employer, which just wasn't doable on her income of about $45,000. So, my kids and I purchased plans on the exchange while my wife continued to get reasonable insurance through her work. They were a little cheaper overall (Mine was slightly over $400 per month last year), but they were terrible policies when total cost and quality was considered.

The networks were tiny and often only included one office or group in a given field of medicine when a specialist was needed. I live in a metro area with well over a million people, so there were plenty of docs around, but for some reason the networks are kept incredibly small on these policies. Thanks Obamacare. Our deductibles were several thousand dollars, and maximum out of pocket was nearly $15,000 per year. We were not eligible for any subsidies like politicians and pro obamacare people speak so highly of since my kids and I were eligible for workplace coverage, despite the fact the workplace coverage would consume half our take home pay. Thanks for nothing Obamacare.

My wife switched jobs during my years as a medical student and lost the ability to get workplace insurance, so she also bought a crappy policy on the exchange. I was excited because I thought we would be eligible for a subsidy now, but I was wrong. I was told we didn't make enough to qualify for a subsidy. That's right folks. For those unaware, there is a big gap of people in many states who make too much for medicaid but not enough for an Obamacare subsidy. So we continued to pay a ton for insurance despite democrats and other bragging about all the subsidies people were getting to help buy coverage. Thanks for nothing Obamacare.

The cost of my policy increased by 40% over 3 years. Thanks Obamacare.

The republican plan will benefit people like me greatly. Under the new plan, I would have received up to $2000 per year based on age and income to purchase insurance in the private market. I would have been able to buy plans with decent networks.

There are plenty of people just like me who are NOT happy with Obamacare plans and can't wait to have better options. Many of the people who tout how great Obamacare is never had to have an Obamacare insurance plan. They are awful.

 

[FutureDOdr]

I want to point out that the democrats vastly overestimate the number of people who will lose coverage and become uninsured with the republican plan. It's not like everyone who is currently insured with a marketplace plane will go without coverage under the new law as some want to believe. In order for 20-30 million people to suddenly become uninsured as some people suggest, everyone currently getting insurance one of the following ways would have to abruptly lose coverage and not find other insurance. The categories potentially at risk are 1) through the marketplace, 2) through medicaid specifically covered due to the expanded medicaid income levels, or 3) by staying on a parent's plan until age 26.

Many younger people in categories 1 and 2 will be able to buy coverage outside of the marketplace or medicaid using tax credits of up to $2000 per year. Many will likely end up saving money compared to their options with Obamacare. These people will not suddenly be uninsured as some want you to believe. Some will be uninsured, but not nearly as many the numbers quoted in the news.

It is simply dishonest to count people in category 3 when estimating how many people will lose coverage. Although they are counted as people who gained coverage under Obamacare, they will not lose coverage because the republican plan continues this key feature of the ACA.

In summary, many of the numbers quoted in the news are scare tactics have no basis in reality.

 

[Siggy]

Either we accept that some people are going to go without health insurance and get substandard care in a private insurance marketplace, or we have a single-payer highly rationed government run system, where arguably MORE people will get substandard care but it will be "fair".

...and every time someone complains about rationed care, I wonder how much money could have been saved on the 70 year old dementia patient (who finally died) who was so far gone that I don't think I've ever heard her speak, who was contracted into a ball so severely that they couldn't do an implanted pacemaker for her 3rd degree heart block. Yet she was in and out of the ICU and intubated several times for aspiration pneumonia because the son "wanted everything done for her" right up to the point where she finally mercifully died during a bronch.

...but tell me again why rationed care is necessarily a bad thing?

 

[Siggy]

Because it takes $1 billion (yes with a B) to bring the average drug to market and through R&D. That cost includes many failed drugs, and the cost through the FDA. Essentially we pay high prices in the U.S. to subsidize "negotiated" prices in other countries. We would not get new drugs if the companies could not recoup the cost of the drug within the 14 years that they can maintain a patent.

If we start negotiating lower prices, then the end result is that foreign countries will have to start paying more their fair share of the cost of the medication.

 

[Siggy]

I want to point out that the democrats vastly overestimate the number of people who will lose coverage and become uninsured with the republican plan. It's not like everyone who is currently insured with a marketplace plane will go without coverage under the new law as some want to believe. In order for 20-30 million people to suddenly become uninsured as some people suggest, everyone currently getting insurance one of the following ways would have to abruptly lose coverage and not find other insurance. The categories potentially at risk are 1) through the marketplace, 2) through medicaid specifically covered due to the expanded medicaid income levels, or 3) by staying on a parent's plan until age 26.

Many younger people in categories 1 and 2 will be able to buy coverage outside of the marketplace or medicaid using tax credits of up to $2000 per year. Many will likely end up saving money compared to their options with Obamacare. These people will not suddenly be uninsured as some want you to believe. Some will be uninsured, but not nearly as many the numbers quoted in the new
It is simply dishonest to count people in category 3 when estimating how many people will lose coverage. Although they are counted as people who gained coverage under Obamacare, they will not lose coverage because the republican plan continues this key feature of the ACA.

In summary, many of the numbers quoted in the news are scare tactics have no basis in reality.

Do you have a source to claim for this? How many of those families have conditions where they would be unable to buy insurance with a $2000 a year check from the government? Also, how many people have the money to pay now and wait till April to get reimbursed?

I wounder if the CBO analysis would have covered it, but... unfortunately, Congress is full of hypocrites.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

If we start negotiating lower prices, then the end result is that foreign countries will have to start paying more their fair share of the cost of the medication.

I'm not sure that's accurate

 

[Apollyon]

I wonder if the CBO analysis would have covered it, but... unfortunately, Congress is full of hypocrites.

But you have to pass the bill, to read the bill.

Oh, wait...

 

[Siggy]

But you have to pass the bill, to read the bill.

Oh, wait...

It was wrong when the Dems did it. It's wrong when the Repubs do it.

 

[Siggy]

I'm not sure that's accurate

No one is forcing companies to sell drugs to foreign countries on the cheap. If we're going to claim that it's market forces that are setting the price, then once we get in on the "we'll negotiate as a block" game too, our prices should drop. If the average price is too low, then it's going to have to go up for someone.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

No one is forcing companies to sell drugs to foreign countries on the cheap. If we're going to claim that it's market forces that are setting the price, then once we get in on the "we'll negotiate as a block" game too, our prices should drop. If the average price is too low, then it's going to have to go up for someone.

I think it more likely that lots of European countries just won't buy the drugs.

Now for lots of new drugs that might not be a bad thing...

 

[Birdstrike]

Trump Plans to Seek Tax Rate of 15% on Owner-Operated Companies

If this happens and actually goes through how difficult would it be for EM docs who are currently W2 to become 1099 and incorporate?

15% tax rate sounds pretty good...

Also lowering the top rate from 39.6 to 35% (as Trump has proposed) will help greatly, as does eliminating the Obamacare taxes on high earners. On tax policy, at least, Trump is trying to move the needle in the right direction for doctors, more than anyone since maybe Reagan.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Doc674]

Well if we had a system where patients paid out of pocket, and there was competition, my bet is they couldn't get away with it.

The concept of free market competition is predicated on the premise that the purchaser is free to either buy a product elsewhere or not buy it at all if the cost is outrageous. An insulin dependent diabetic does not have the luxury of just not buying their insulin nor can they buy a more reasonably priced alternative. Free market economics don't work when the purchaser is forced to buy a product.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

The concept of free market competition is predicated on the premise that the purchaser is free to either buy a product elsewhere or not buy it at all if the cost is outrageous. An insulin dependent diabetic does not have the luxury of just not buying their insulin nor can they buy a more reasonably priced alternative. Free market economics don't work when the purchaser is forced to buy a product.

You mean like the $25 vial of 70/30 you can get at Walmart?

 

[bravotwozero]

Perhaps diabetes wasn't the best example, but his point is still valid .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk