Obama comment to AMA?

[Donkey Boy]

The CiC was giving a speech in Chicago the American Medical Association today and at one point made a comment as quoted by CNN: "Seniors who are well-off should pay more for their prescriptions."

This struck me as odd because I thought the Prez thought all people should be treated equally. Why does it matter what someone makes?

The cost of Rx drugs should be the cost of Rx drugs no matter what the "qualifier." As soon as we start differentiating (dare I call it "profiling") based on any (Race, creed, gender, financial status) criteria it's BS.

I guess it's okay if it goes one way but not the other? :dunno:

And then my next question is, who determines that, and what is the criteria for someone who is "well off?"

 

[Ceska]

How is this different in principle from any of Obama's other initiatives to "spread the wealth"?

 

[Hot Mega]

The CiC was giving a speech in Chicago the American Medical Association today and at one point made a comment as quoted by CNN: "Seniors who are well-off should pay more for their prescriptions."

This struck me as odd because I thought the Prez thought all people should be treated equally. Why does it matter what someone makes?

The cost of Rx drugs should be the cost of Rx drugs no matter what the "qualifier." As soon as we start differentiating (dare I call it "profiling") based on any (Race, creed, gender, financial status) criteria it's BS.

I guess it's okay if it goes one way but not the other? :dunno:

And then my next question is, who determines that, and what is the criteria for someone who is "well off?"

Let's take the concept in reverse, seniors who are not well off should pay less for their meds. Do you agree or disagree with that notion?

Sorry, that's not actually reverse...it's the same thing said differently.

 

[Neutron66]

I can't find that quote anywhere.

Got a link?

 

[Ceska]

According to the Washington Post, John McCain, Carly Fiorina and George W. Bush agree:

" Sen. John McCain will propose today that affluent seniors pay more for government-provided drug benefits as a way to control health-care spending"

"The proposal is similar to a controversial one put forth last fall by President Bush, in which married retirees who make more than $160,000 a year would pay increasingly higher costs for the newly established Medicare prescription drug plans."

"When we added the prescription drug benefit . . . we included a lot of people that can well afford to pay for their own prescription drugs," said Carly Fiorina, a former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard and a top adviser to McCain's presidential campaign, saying "that reform alone saves billions of dollars."

Washington Post - April 15 2008: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041403056.html

"That idea has been part of Bush's budget submissions for the past two years. It has been greeted coldly by both Congress and AARP"

 

[Ceska]

Who opposed it?

"That idea has been part of Bush's budget submissions for the past two years. It has been greeted coldly by both Congress and AARP"

and the DNC ...

"His answer for people struggling with skyrocketing drug prices is to make some people pay more?" asked Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, after the aides finished a conference call with reporters yesterday evening.

Looks like those with a special interest or something to gain by opposing it (or them)

 

[Facetious]

I can tell you one thing - ever since this obama character was sworn into office, each new day tends to be to less cheerful and more gloomy - doomy.

I agree with everything you typed, Donkey ! :hatsoff:

The AMA is not happy with the direction that the messiah is taking u.s. -> toward a collectivist - one payer - rationed system. The quality of a socialized healthcare initiative will be based solely upon the governments ability or inability to pay for it. Having said that, fewer and fewer young Americans are enrolling into medical school these days. How could you blame them ? :dunno:
Who wants to go through all of the rigors of med school when you already know that the government, not only gets to select your patients for your practice, they get to determine the extent (if at all) that you may actually treat your patients.

as an aside - I think that obama is basically winging this presidency.
If he's not reading his speech material directly from his inconspicuously placed clear glass pane teleprompters, he stalls his speech in the worst way . . "uhhhhhh . . . annnndddd .. . . soooooooo . . ."
I just wish that I could actually hear him say something from his very own heart instead of all of this scripted crap.

I don't hate the man by any means. In fact, I like his persona ! That's the root core central part of the problem with this President - The masses are head over heels in love with the persona part of Obama, yet, they just can't seem to get around to critiquing the man's character.

Soros and gang did a superior job in the selection and election of Obama, it's just too bad that, on paper, the man has to be my enemy.

 

[Hot Mega]

I can tell you one thing - ever since this obama character was sworn into office, each new day tends to be to less cheerful and more gloomy - doomy.

I agree with everything you typed, Donkey ! :hatsoff:

The AMA is not happy with the direction that the messiah is taking u.s. -> toward a collectivist - one payer - rationed system. The quality of a socialized healthcare initiative will be based solely upon the governments ability or inability to pay for it. Fewer and fewer young Americans are enrolling into medical school these days. How could you blame them ? :dunno:
Who wants to go through all of the rigors of med school when you already know that the government, not only gets to select your patients for your practice, they get to determine the extent (if at all) that you may actually treat your patients.

as an aside - I think that obama is basically winging this presidency.
If he's not reading his speech material directly from his inconspicuously placed clear glass pane telepromptors, he stalls his speech in the worst way . . "uhhhhhh . . . annnndddd .. . . soooooooo . . ."

I don't hate the man by any means. In fact, I like his persona ! That's the root core central part of the problem with this President - The masses are head over heels in love with the persona part of Obama, they just can't seem to get around to critiquing the man's character.

Soros and gang did a superior job in the selection and election of Obama, it's just too bad that, on paper, the man has to be my enemy.

"winging it"??

I don't know what color glasses you're peering through but they are damned sure obscuring your ability to see reason and truth.

The man campaigned for 2 years on Closing GTMO, Universal Healthcare, Setting in motion withdrawal from Iraq, Increasing force size in Afghanistan, improving our nations image abroad among other things.

He has done or is doing all of those IN SPITE OF inheriting and navigating almost unprecedented economic challenges.

"winging it'?? :rofl:

I suppose when you're good challenges look ea....uh, never mind...

 

[titsrock]

The US Healthcare system is a capitalistic healthcare system. More money is spent by Big Pharma marketing and developing bullshit "meds" for "conditions" that everybody has--- "Sudden Sleepiness Syndrome" or "Stomach Grumbling Syndrome" etc. Big Pharma "creates" a dilemma, then creates a pill, then launches tv ads meant to *fear* the populace into swarming doctor's offices around the nation "Gee Doc, my stomach DOES make strange noises. Give me Bellyquietex NOW! I don't care if it costs $400 a pill. I can't be out in public with my stomach making strange noises!"

When patients begin telling doctors what treatments they want and that they are willing to pay money, no matter the cost, than our system is broken. It's that simple.

We need to take the Capitalism OUT of healthcare. People's health SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED by how much money they are worth or how much money they make the hospital/doctor/Big Pharma, etc.

We need a massive overhaul to the American Healthcare system. The AMA is nothing but a puppet lobby group for the Republicans.

I'm not sure a Gov't Health Insurance Plan goes far enough, actually....

 

[nearlyinvisible]

IMO, health care should not be a right. It should be privilege for those that can afford it or earn it through their employment.

 

[Ceska]

IMO, health care should not be a right. It should be privilege for those that can afford it or earn it through their employment.

The problem is, in the United States, health care is already treated as a right. The employed pay for the others anyway because a civilized society does not allow its citizens to simply die when they walk into a hospital and cannot pay.

Supporters of nationalized health care argue that it would be better to have an organized system that includes, tracks, and treats these people earlier with preventative measures rather than the far more expensive treatments necessary later when they are at death's door.

It is conceivable that these costs could outweigh the inherent costs of inefficiency and abuse often found in government-run systems.

 

[lovejoy]

The CiC was giving a speech in Chicago the American Medical Association today and at one point made a comment as quoted by CNN: "Seniors who are well-off should pay more for their prescriptions."

This struck me as odd because I thought the Prez thought all people should be treated equally. Why does it matter what someone makes?

The cost of Rx drugs should be the cost of Rx drugs no matter what the "qualifier." As soon as we start differentiating (dare I call it "profiling") based on any (Race, creed, gender, financial status) criteria it's BS.

I guess it's okay if it goes one way but not the other? :dunno:

And then my next question is, who determines that, and what is the criteria for someone who is "well off?"

President Obama "may" imply those seniors who make over $200,000.00-$250,000.00 a year before tax should pay for part of the medication.

The real problem is the cost of medication exceeds 400 billion dollars in United States and is running at 11% increase a year.

United States Government Department of Health and Human Services encourage Medicaid and Medicare recipients to use generic drugs to reduce the cost of medication which is opposed by the AMA.

Medication costs is NOT the largest expenses but hospital cost plus medication actually consist of the bulk of health care cost !

 

[titsrock]

^
The U.S. subsidizes the cost of drugs for the rest of the world. That way Big Pharma can offer a pill for $1 to Canada that fetches a price of $800 in the U.S.

This kind of market puts the U.S. at a such a disadvantage that it will ultimately bankrupt the country.

US Corporations are shifting more and more of the burdan of healthcare onto the back of the American worker. Sure, you'll have a nice plan (with a hefty premium) while you work for MegaCorp, but when you retire from MegaCorp, buhbye healthcare. Isn't it interesting that the point in life (other than childbirth) when a person needs healthcare is the time it's taken away?

Unless we *fix* Medicare, it won't be around for any GenX worker upon retirement. If we don't address healthcare costs---will anyone be able to afford healthcare in 15 years, other than the SuperRich? Even if a plan covers 80% of a surgery, in 15 years, that 20% cost will be enough to bankrupt probably 75% of Americans...

 

[Donkey Boy]

Let's take the concept in reverse, seniors who are not well off should pay less for their meds. Do you agree or disagree with that notion?

Sorry, that's not actually reverse...it's the same thing said differently.

I disagree with that as well. Again, we are saying everyone should be treated equally except when...

And if we are going to have lower costs for those less-financially well off it should NOT be subsidized by those who are more well off.

The cost of a drug should be the cost of a drug. If there are any subsidies, they should be paid by THE GOVERNMENT in a true social welfare program....that will of course be funded by taxes of which more are taken from the "more well off."

If I said, "I'm going to tax/make you pay more because you are male" would you agree with that?

If I said, "I'm going to tax/make you pay more because you are (white, yellow, green, black, purple)" would you agree with that?

If I said, "I'm going to tax/make you pay more because you are (Buddist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim)" would you agree with that?

Most likely not.

So why then is it okay to say "I'm going to tax/make you pay more because you are financially more well off?"

Kind of a double standard if you ask me.

 

[Hot Mega]

I disagree with that as well. Again, we are saying everyone should be treated equally except when...

And if we are going to have lower costs for those less-financially well off it should NOT be subsidized by those who are more well off.

The cost of a drug should be the cost of a drug. If there are any subsidies, they should be paid by THE GOVERNMENT in a true social welfare program....that will of course be funded by taxes of which more are taken from the "more well off."

If I said, "I'm going to tax/make you pay more because you are male" would you agree with that?

If I said, "I'm going to tax/make you pay more because you are (white, yellow, green, black, purple)" would you agree with that?

If I said, "I'm going to tax/make you pay more because you are (Buddist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim)" would you agree with that?

Most likely not.

So why then is it okay to say "I'm going to tax/make you pay more because you are financially more well off?"

Kind of a double standard if you ask me.

You are honestly comparing varying tax rates to racial, ethnic or religious descrimination?

Do you have a problem with seniors getting discounts to ride public transportation? Why is that not just as discriminatory as you assert the other example is??

And I can't believe you just said in one breath it should not be subsidized by those more "well off" and in the very next statement say it should be subsidized by the government:1orglaugh:helpme:.

Uh sir, where does the government get it's money from?? And certainly if they are going to tax for it to whom do you think that tax is likely to come against.

As far as the price of a drug being the price of a drug...IT IS and will always be what the manufacturer sells it for and what the retail price is!! When a person goes to get a prescription filled under their health plan and they pay a co-payment of $10 (for example) and some other person with different coverage pays some other cost for it....the cost of the drug is the same. It's just the level of subsidy in the two cases is different.

Here's the thing, I don't know you nor your personal income...but I find it funny that other than people who are paid to give a political perspective, almost none of the so-called rich are nearly as vocal as the people who don't make anywhere near "rich" are. Why don't we let the rich speak for themselves. Many say they would gladly pay to help solve a healthcare problem because they (in most cases) as business people, understand the cost of doing nothing in financial crisis.

 

[bustybbwlover]

i understand a rich versus poor type of profiling, clearly someone surviving on $15,000 a year has an inability to pay what a person living on $250,000 is capable of paying.

 

[nearlyinvisible]

i understand a rich versus poor type of profiling, clearly someone surviving on $15,000 a year has an inability to pay what a person living on $250,000 is capable of paying.

Regardless of your income, if it costs $XXX to have healthcare and you can't afford/earn $XXX, then you shouldn't get healthcare. Expecting those that can afford $XXX to also pay the $XXX you can't afford is completely unfair and unacceptable.

 

[sproing99]

Regardless of your income, if it costs $XXX to have healthcare and you can't afford/earn $XXX, then you shouldn't get healthcare. Expecting those that can afford $XXX to also pay the $XXX you can't afford is completely unfair and unacceptable.

That's a rather hard-nosed position and the kind of position which teand to be held by heathly, comparatively wealthy younger people.

Much of the world views access to healthcare as a basic human right

 

[nearlyinvisible]

Much of the world views access to healthcare as a basic human right

Then who pays for it?

Healthcare, like anything else, has costs. If someone can afford the costs then they deserve to have it. If someone can't afford the costs, then they don't deserve to have it.

 

[Hot Mega]

Then who pays for it?

Healthcare, like anything else, has costs. If someone can afford the costs then they deserve to have it. If someone can't afford the costs, then they don't deserve to have it.

I think advocates of "universal" healthcare view it as a priority on par with other priorities like education. Which we fund without deference to the individual's ability to pay.

No one practically questions the who or how education is paid for because most people accept that it's a priority worth investing in.:2 cents: