|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/19/2009 1:59:50 PM
|
|
|
Pat-rebel_lady
Posts: 676
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:
$46 for six pills?
The high cost of drugs in America is chiefly due to two factors: research and marketing costs.
In regards to the latter, whenever you see TV commercials (and they seem to dominate cable and free TV networks, in addition to print ads in major magazines) advertising a given drug, the cost of that sweeping ad campaign is passed onto the consumer.
So when John Doe buys six pills for $46, he is not only paying for the costs to research and manufacture that drug, but the extra costs patched on to hawk it to countless strangers in mass media.
You got that right!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/19/2009 2:12:11 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 415
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:
$46 for six pills?
The high cost of drugs in America is chiefly due to two factors: research and marketing costs.
In regards to the latter, whenever you see TV commercials (and they seem to dominate cable and free TV networks, in addition to print ads in major magazines) advertising a given drug, the cost of that sweeping ad campaign is passed onto the consumer.
So when John Doe buys six pills for $46, he is not only paying for the costs to research and manufacture that drug, but the extra costs patched on to hawk it to countless strangers in mass media.
The marketing, advertising, I could definitely do without.
Research - I think is needed to find out if the medications do not have terrible side effects; to see if they work; to see if you can find a cure.
Peace and God bless,
_____________________________
"If you judge people, you have no time to love them." - Mother Teresa
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/19/2009 2:49:12 PM
|
|
|
Pat-rebel_lady
Posts: 676
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:
$46 for six pills?
The high cost of drugs in America is chiefly due to two factors: research and marketing costs.
In regards to the latter, whenever you see TV commercials (and they seem to dominate cable and free TV networks, in addition to print ads in major magazines) advertising a given drug, the cost of that sweeping ad campaign is passed onto the consumer.
So when John Doe buys six pills for $46, he is not only paying for the costs to research and manufacture that drug, but the extra costs patched on to hawk it to countless strangers in mass media.
The marketing, advertising, I could definitely do without.
Research - I think is needed to find out if the medications do not have terrible side effects; to see if they work; to see if you can find a cure.
Peace and God bless,
Education, Research & Development and manufacture of drugs; Laboratories, new Technology, Equipment and testing, sales personnel and advertisements should Never be passed on to anyone under the cover of Health care insurance and/or Reform. It was never part of health care from the beginning. Get it back under it's own umbrella; and then watch cost come down to affordability levels with or without insurance. There would then be NO need for Obama's Plan to be passed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/19/2009 5:59:46 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1887
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
quote:
This football season you can watch erectile dysfunction commercials for 3 hours or so per game with a football game tossed in-between.
Well, have you noticed who the chief advertiser is during prime-time network new programs? It's Big Pharma all the way.
Of course, advertising for most anything on TV is hardly illegal.
But when pharmaceutical companies invest so much revenue into TV/print ads those costs have a way of trickling down to the consumer to stick them with the bill from Madison Avenue.
_____________________________
Hail Cthulhu
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/19/2009 6:12:31 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 415
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:
$46 for six pills?
The high cost of drugs in America is chiefly due to two factors: research and marketing costs.
In regards to the latter, whenever you see TV commercials (and they seem to dominate cable and free TV networks, in addition to print ads in major magazines) advertising a given drug, the cost of that sweeping ad campaign is passed onto the consumer.
So when John Doe buys six pills for $46, he is not only paying for the costs to research and manufacture that drug, but the extra costs patched on to hawk it to countless strangers in mass media.
The marketing, advertising, I could definitely do without.
Research - I think is needed to find out if the medications do not have terrible side effects; to see if they work; to see if you can find a cure.
Peace and God bless,
Education, Research & Development and manufacture of drugs; Laboratories, new Technology, Equipment and testing, sales personnel and advertisements should Never be passed on to anyone under the cover of Health care insurance and/or Reform. It was never part of health care from the beginning. Get it back under it's own umbrella; and then watch cost come down to affordability levels with or without insurance. There would then be NO need for Obama's Plan to be passed.
Hmmm...so you're saying that the government should tell the private companies that manufacture the drugs, not to advertise, not to research, test? Isn't, that, well government regulations? And, how would you stop them from advertising? Sorry - I'm just not understanding.
Thanks, Peace and God bless,
_____________________________
"If you judge people, you have no time to love them." - Mother Teresa
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/19/2009 6:30:10 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano23
Posts: 2076
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:
$46 for six pills?
The high cost of drugs in America is chiefly due to two factors: research and marketing costs.
In regards to the latter, whenever you see TV commercials (and they seem to dominate cable and free TV networks, in addition to print ads in major magazines) advertising a given drug, the cost of that sweeping ad campaign is passed onto the consumer.
So when John Doe buys six pills for $46, he is not only paying for the costs to research and manufacture that drug, but the extra costs patched on to hawk it to countless strangers in mass media.
The marketing, advertising, I could definitely do without.
Research - I think is needed to find out if the medications do not have terrible side effects; to see if they work; to see if you can find a cure.
Peace and God bless,
Education, Research & Development and manufacture of drugs; Laboratories, new Technology, Equipment and testing, sales personnel and advertisements should Never be passed on to anyone under the cover of Health care insurance and/or Reform. It was never part of health care from the beginning. Get it back under it's own umbrella; and then watch cost come down to affordability levels with or without insurance. There would then be NO need for Obama's Plan to be passed.
How would things work?
(I'm not asking to be facetious; I'm on the research end... although I'm currently unemployed, lol.  )
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/19/2009 6:48:09 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1887
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hmmm...so you're saying that the government should tell the private companies that manufacture the drugs, not to advertise, not to research, test?
I never said that.
I was just explaining why drug costs are (in part) so obscenely high in the current marketplace, which is in part due to marketing costs.
_____________________________
Hail Cthulhu
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/19/2009 8:49:48 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 415
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:
Hmmm...so you're saying that the government should tell the private companies that manufacture the drugs, not to advertise, not to research, test?
I never said that.
I was just explaining why drug costs are (in part) so obscenely high in the current marketplace, which is in part due to marketing costs.
I was actually responding to Pat_rebel_lady. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Peace and God bless,
_____________________________
"If you judge people, you have no time to love them." - Mother Teresa
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/20/2009 12:46:05 AM
|
|
|
Pat-rebel_lady
Posts: 676
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
Hmmm...so you're saying that the government should tell the private companies that manufacture the drugs, not to advertise, not to research, test? Isn't, that, well government regulations? And, how would you stop them from advertising? Sorry - I'm just not understanding.
Thanks, Peace and God bless,
No, what I'm saying is they have no reason and no business tapping into Patient cost and/or driving up the cost of Private Health Care Insurance for funding of these type things.
The funding for these come from other sources, such as Grants, Private contributions, and others, such as:
Stimulus Package
National Institutes of Health
• $8.5B for biomedical research in areas such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart
disease, stem cells; and to improve NIH facilities.
• $1.5B for NIH to renovate university research facilities and help them compete
for biomedical research grants
$10B
Prevention and Comparative Effectiveness Research
• $1B for the Prevention and Wellness Fund - to fight preventable chronic
diseases, and infectious diseases
o includes hospital infection prevention, Preventive Health and Health
Services Block Grants for state and local public health departments,
immunization programs, and evidence-based disease prevention.
• $1.1B to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, NIH, and HHS to
evaluate the relative effectiveness of different health care services and
treatment options.
$2.1B
Health Information Technology
• $2B in discretionary funds
• $17B for investments and incentives through Medicare and Medicaid to ensure
widespread adoption and use of interoperable health information technology
$19B
Indian Health Service Facilities
• to modernize hospitals and health clinics, and make healthcare technology
upgrades to improve healthcare for underserved rural populations.
$0.42B
< Message edited by Pat-rebel_lady -- 7/20/2009 1:33:29 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/20/2009 1:52:18 AM
|
|
|
solo_soprano23
Posts: 2076
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
Is there a reason why they tap into other sources? Do they need it?
I'm familiar with some aspects of funding, but not everything. (Again, not being facetious.)
(For those who don't agree with the "stimulus" part Pat listed above)... Some biomedical departments at universities are having issues with funding right now, or I should say, the lack of it. I know funding is becoming a problem LATELY, mostly because they affected me directly and they told me what was happening; then I saw they started affecting a lot of research departments and biologists/researchers nationwide. I was supposed to do research with a (former) Harvard professor; he told me he could take me, then had to let go some of his reseachers (couldn't take me because his staff was gone). Then I found out the university he works for now is laying off researchers and has funding problems.
I network with a bunch of grad students nationwide, but I chose to apply for grad school next year instead of this one. I ran into plenty across the country who were told that they were denied acceptance because they don't have the funding... or maybe that they can take one or two new students because the labs are having funding problems now.
I can see counting on grants and private monies for research, but that's not always there... when some places/doctors/researchers could have counted on that in the past. Times are tougher. I didn't think it was affecting the research end that badly, but apparently, at least at some places, they're hit hard. And the costs seem high to begin with; I would have never imagined how much money it takes per year to maintain lab mice. 
Of course, all that might not matter to somebody. Just a thought. When there's inadquate funding, unless you get something adequate, you'll have problems.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/20/2009 5:56:47 AM
|
|
|
keithyhuntington
Posts: 814
Joined: 7/7/2009
From: Tulsa, Okla.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
The high cost of drugs in America is chiefly due to two factors: research and marketing costs.
In regards to the latter, whenever you see TV commercials (and they seem to dominate cable and free TV networks, in addition to print ads in major magazines) advertising a given drug, the cost of that sweeping ad campaign is passed onto the consumer.
this is just rediculous. i remember watching a politician on tv years ago... sopme interview show... dateline, 20/20, GMA.... something... ANYWAY, i remember he was atlking about Big Pharma and he said "theres is absolutely no reason at all to have commercials or paper ad's for pharmaceuticals. The ad's a geared to teh common consumer, but we are not Doctors. if we have a problem, we need to go to teh doctor and say "yeah, i have this problem, what can you do to help me" and his job is to prescribe medication to fix my problem. its backwards thinking to say "hey joe blow, you need to talk to your dr about Lunesta, and tell him the TV sent ya!"
and i agree 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000% (what number is that anyway?) why are they advertising to us... we're common folk. its teh dr. job to figure out whats broken and fix it with medication.... i shouldnt even know about half the medicine opn tv. i dont have 85% of those ailmnts... so why am i watching it? 
_____________________________
Jesus Christ please help me 'cause i'm lonely. Whats the use in living, if you can't make a good living?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/20/2009 6:58:13 AM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 897
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:
$46 for six pills?
The high cost of drugs in America is chiefly due to two factors: research and marketing costs.
This is partly true. The cost of advertising is high, but it's miniscule when compared to resulting revenues from the ads. So I don't think ads are the main problem (although they are a problem indirectly, which I'll get to).
The cost of research is also very high, and rising, but ensuring that drug companies have massive revenues does not necessarily guarantee the kind of innovative research that you would expect. Drug companies are a business. As such, they will invest more money in doing research in either drugs that will sell and be the next big thing, or into altering existing "popular" drugs in order to have their own version or to maintain their existing copyrights. This often ends up meaning that they will invest more time and money in developing the latest erectile disfunction pill, or yet another SSRI variant on depression meds (in an already crowded field) than they will invest time and money in developing treatment for stuff like cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. Which doesn't mean that they don't think a cancer wonder drug wouldn't sell (it would), but rather that cancer research is much more time consuming and costly and it has a much higher failure rate (i.e. chance that nothing will end up coming from the research). It's very, very hard to develop new cancer treatments that will be effective, and thus if they pour research money into that area they are most likely going to take a loss. On the other hand, taking existing technology and refining/rebranding it is way more cost effective, so unfortunately this is the avenue that most companies tend to take (and which is why it seems we now have like 800 different versions of Viagra -as every company has to have its own version of a popular drug).
So the idea that drug companies must maintain the sort of exorbitant revenues that they do in order to ensure innovation in research is kind of questionable. Sure it might mean innovation in stuff like pills that will make your eye-lashes grow thicker, or erectile dysfunction, or 7 million variations of the same acid-reflux drug, but not much more. Usually the most innovative research on stuff like cancer, heart disease, and the stuff that everyone really cares about comes out of universities or privately funded research institutes (which are, sadly, often underfunded). I read a study recently (I'll try to track it down) that claimed that 85% of the new drugs released today are simply just variants on old ones that are different enough for the company to have a new copyright, but offer negligible added benefits.
Which is where ads factor in. Drug companies make major money off of ads -so the more successful any given drug is, the more likely they will be to invest money in developing drugs that are just variants on that drug (as opposed to investing money in developing wholly new drugs, which is a much riskier prospect).
Personally, with how obscenely high certain prices of medications are and how massive many of the drug companies' profits tend to be, I think we need to tell them to put up or shut up. If they need said profits to insure innovation, then they should have to show us real innovation. Or at least an attempt at innovation (I realize such things don't happen over night). If not, I think we need to start allowing for more freedom in price negotiation between insurers and the companies, as I really don't think there's need for prices to be so high.
_____________________________
Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/20/2009 7:08:52 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3038
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I don't necessarily disagree with his plan (and I don't necessarily agree with it either, whatever his plan is) but I would like him to present any bill to the public for review and give the public AT LEAST two weeks (3 - 4 weeks preferably) to review and analyze the bill before he signs it. At least that would give us time to prepare for what's to come or to try to resist if there is anything absurd.
I think a bill that effects every American not only should be presented to the public for review and give the public AT LEAST two months (3 - 4 months preferably) to review and analyze the bill and then let the public go to the Polls and Vote for or against it --- Popular/Majority votes winning.
I'd rather not have a straight up democratic vote on legislation. Look at where California has gotten with vote-by-referendum. Citizens even easier to con than politicians.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/20/2009 8:32:55 AM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 415
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
Hmmm...so you're saying that the government should tell the private companies that manufacture the drugs, not to advertise, not to research, test? Isn't, that, well government regulations? And, how would you stop them from advertising? Sorry - I'm just not understanding.
Thanks, Peace and God bless,
No, what I'm saying is they have no reason and no business tapping into Patient cost and/or driving up the cost of Private Health Care Insurance for funding of these type things.
The funding for these come from other sources, such as Grants, Private contributions, and others, such as:
Stimulus Package
National Institutes of Health
• $8.5B for biomedical research in areas such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart
disease, stem cells; and to improve NIH facilities.
• $1.5B for NIH to renovate university research facilities and help them compete
for biomedical research grants
$10B
Prevention and Comparative Effectiveness Research
• $1B for the Prevention and Wellness Fund - to fight preventable chronic
diseases, and infectious diseases
o includes hospital infection prevention, Preventive Health and Health
Services Block Grants for state and local public health departments,
immunization programs, and evidence-based disease prevention.
• $1.1B to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, NIH, and HHS to
evaluate the relative effectiveness of different health care services and
treatment options.
$2.1B
Health Information Technology
• $2B in discretionary funds
• $17B for investments and incentives through Medicare and Medicaid to ensure
widespread adoption and use of interoperable health information technology
$19B
Indian Health Service Facilities
• to modernize hospitals and health clinics, and make healthcare technology
upgrades to improve healthcare for underserved rural populations.
$0.42B
Well, you spoke of marketing, advertising - I see nothing in the aforementioned for these. Again, I don't see how you can tell the private drug companies not to advertise. For one, it would go against what you believe - it would mean government interference. For another, how would you be able to enforce this.
Regarding the aforementioned research - do you believe that money should not go towards these?
What's wrong with giving money to for biomedical research in areas such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, stem cells; and to improve NIH facilities? There is no cure for cancer, Alzheimers...and if you act on prevention with heart disease, you can curb the need for expensive heart surgery. What's wrong with this?
What's wrong with giving money to: $1B for the Prevention and Wellness Fund - to fight preventable chronic diseases, and infectious diseases includes hospital infection prevention, Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grants for state and local public health departments,
immunization programs, and evidence-based disease prevention? With this swine flu still affecting people in the US, don't you think it'd be a good idea for this?
What's wrong with giving money to: $1.1B to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, NIH, and HHS to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different health care services and
treatment options? Evaluating effictiveness is part of cost audits to see if a service, treatment is really needed - if it can be done more cost efficiently. Isn't that what we want to do to try and bring costs down? If we don't study it, how will we know how to do it more cost efficiently?
What's wrong with giving money to: $17B for investments and incentives through Medicare and Medicaid to ensure widespread adoption and use of interoperable health information technology? This is for cutting down on paperwork, and having medical records saved digitally - this has been proven to not only be more accurate and cut down on mistakes, but in the long run, it cuts cost in the way of paper, not having to document the same information on paper (ie with me, it's always my drug allergies) - instead it's right in the system. The nurse then selects what I'm allergic to on the graphical user interface of the computer. Before, she'd have to write it down; then someone would have to be paid to transcribe it and type it to document it. I know this because I asked the nurse what she thought of the new software (i'm in software) and she said she loved it for the aforementioned reasons. What's wrong with this?
And, which is it here, $19B, or $0.42B?: $19B Indian Health Service Facilities to modernize hospitals and health clinics, and make healthcare technology upgrades to improve healthcare for underserved rural populations. $0.42B? Irregardless, you don't think that we are obligated to provide adequate healthcare to the very people that we took land away from? The very same people whom our government gave blankets laced with small pox? You don't think we have an obligation to treat these people better?
In any event, the fact of the matter is, is that long before the stimulus package came along, our privatized healthcare system was failing, for a long time: failing 40+ million Americans who have no health insurance and do not get adequate care; failing because it was so costly that 'Joe the plumber' can't even pay for it out of his own pocket, therefore having to pool his money with others thru health insurance that is also very costly; failing because Joe the plumbers mom and dad had to sell their house so that they could simply pay for heart surgery; failing families who had to sell their house so that they could pay for surgeries...this, in the richest country in the world? This is outrageous.
Peace and God bless,
_____________________________
"If you judge people, you have no time to love them." - Mother Teresa
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/20/2009 8:48:27 AM
|
|
|
Pat-rebel_lady
Posts: 676
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
I'll say it again, maybe a little louder will help your hearing: No, what I'm saying is they have no reason and no business tapping into Patient cost and/or driving up the cost of Private Health Care Insurance for funding of these type things.
Why? because they are already getting billions and billions and billions from other areas.
BTW, First hand information here, NIH does not accept insurance, nor do they bill; Patients pay for services rendered at the time service is rendered. 5 years ago it cost $90.00 for a Patient to walk through the door.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/20/2009 9:10:40 AM
|
|
|
Pat-rebel_lady
Posts: 676
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
And, which is it here, $19B, or $0.42B?
National Institutes of Health
• $8.5B for biomedical research in areas such as cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, stem cells; and to improve NIH facilities.
• $1.5B for NIH to renovate university research facilities and help them compete for biomedical research grants
Total: $10B
Prevention and Comparative Effectiveness Research
• $1B for the Prevention and Wellness Fund - to fight preventable chronic diseases, and infectious diseases
• includes hospital infection prevention, Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grants for state and local public health departments, immunization programs, and evidence-based disease prevention.
• $1.1B to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, NIH, and HHS to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different health care services and treatment options.
Total: $2.1B
Health Information Technology
• $2B in discretionary funds
• $17B for investments and incentives through Medicare and Medicaid to ensure widespread adoption and use of interoperable health information technology
Total: $19B
Indian Health Service Facilities
• to modernize hospitals and health clinics, and make healthcare technology upgrades to improve healthcare for underserved rural populations.
Total: $0.42B
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/20/2009 10:03:50 AM
|
|
|
solo_soprano23
Posts: 2076
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady
I'll say it again, maybe a little louder will help your hearing: No, what I'm saying is they have no reason and no business tapping into Patient cost and/or driving up the cost of Private Health Care Insurance for funding of these type things.
Why? because they are already getting billions and billions and billions from other areas.
BTW, First hand information here, NIH does not accept insurance, nor do they bill; Patients pay for services rendered at the time service is rendered. 5 years ago it cost $90.00 for a Patient to walk through the door.
But they don't have enough funding for biomedical research a lot of the time, like I said before.
Is this why they are looking to other sources?
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/20/2009 11:17:57 AM
|
|
|
Pat-rebel_lady
Posts: 676
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
But they don't have enough funding for biomedical research a lot of the time, like I said before.
Is this why they are looking to other sources?
No, they're just plan Greedy; they just have to have a piece of the Patient Cost Pie.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/20/2009 1:40:53 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano23
Posts: 2076
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
rrr
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady
quote:
But they don't have enough funding for biomedical research a lot of the time, like I said before.
Is this why they are looking to other sources?
No, they're just plan Greedy; they just have to have a piece of the Patient Cost Pie.
Is there any proof of where the money goes?
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform- 6/29 - 7/20/2009 8:29:42 PM
|
|
|
its_GO_time
Posts: 543
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think a bill that effects every American not only should be presented to the public for review and give the public AT LEAST two months (3 - 4 months preferably) to review and analyze the bill and then let the public go to the Polls and Vote for or against it --- Popular/Majority votes winning.
Looks like a good idea at first; But here's what happens. Congress puts forth a bill full of freebies, for "losers in life's lottery" as Dick Gephart put it, and of course, the 'rich' will pay for all of it. Popular vote result: LANDSLIDE VICTORY! Franklin said that a democracy was two wolves, and a lamb, deciding what's for dinner. Our represenatives are supposed to represent us, and the Senate is supposed to represent the State. I'll let you determine how they're doing on that.
_____________________________
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
