DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote:
DesideriScuri And here is where you are missing the boat. Big Pharma and our elected officials will always be linked until we can sever the $$ ties between them. Some one is missing the boat all right. But it's not me, I'm the one paying $10 per script. I'm not the one prevented from accessing affordable drugs because of collusion between "Big Pharma and [US] elected officials" or prevented from obtaining best quality healthcare because I can't afford it. Don't you find it odd that you are calling for Big Pharma to have even more control over US citizens lives and healthcare by insisting on exclusively market-based solutions, solutions that will favour Big Pharma, always have and always will, while asserting that the same Big Pharma's corrupt relationship with your elected officials is at the heart of the problem? Particularly when overseas experience is that the solution is to use democratic powers to tame the power of Big Pharma through creating universal health systems and appropriate regulation. The fastest easiest and best way for US citizens to enjoy the benefits of a universal health scheme is to exercise your democratic rights and elect a Congress and a President committed to a universal health scheme and get one enacted. This scheme will not, I repeat, will not, lower the cost of care. It lowers the cost of insurance, for some. Yet, up to 38% of the "uninsured" make over $50k/yr. and have chosen not to buy health insurance. If we have 45.7M people uninsured, that means 5.7% of Americans are not purchasing insurance even though they make over $50k/year. Makes you wonder who the 1-2% of "free riders" are, if 5.7% of the population doesn't have insurance and makes over $50k/year. Obama's top end estimate for the tax penalty is $700. Where can you buy insurance for $700/yr.? What happens when one of those people walks into an ER? I pay $69/month total for 2 Rx's that I paid $25 in co-pay's for when I had insurance. My costs have risen $44/month. But, nothing else was paid for those Rx's. $170 was paid for those Rx's when I had insurance, but only $25 out of my pocket. My therapist charges $150, but the insurance reduced it to $90, including a $15 co-pay. I now pay $65 ($50 more), but it's still $25 less than when I had insurance. I have yet to go to a physician for a checkup or anything, so I can't tell you what that cost is ($15 co-pay was all it was before). To add it all up, I pay $134 for 2 medications and a monthly therapy session. That is a grand total of $94 more out of my pocket, and $126 less than when I had insurance. How is it that forcing more people onto insurance plans is going to reduce costs? I've been without a plan, and the health care expenditure for me has dropped almost in half. Plus, Obama calls this a "penalty" for free riders. If I pay for all my medications and appointments by myself, how is it going to be okay for me to be penalized for being a "free rider" when 1. it wasn't free, and 2. all my care costs were borne by me and only me?
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|