- This topic has 520 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by jpinpb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 10, 2009 at 11:03 AM #480750November 10, 2009 at 11:17 AM #479933ucodegenParticipant
For example a generic drug prescription could be at a $5 co-pay but a brand name drug prescription would be costly enough to make the patient think again about demanding that drug — perhaps 50% co-insurance.
True, but we also have to be aware that if the threshold is too high, we lose innovation. How about generic being covered at median + 1 std deviation of all generics (to avoid crappy generics), brand name would only have the cost amounting to median+1std deviation of the generic being covered. Any amount above that would not be covered in the name brand. Too many drug companies ‘invent’ a new and improved product once their original goes off patent (they also call this innovation). There is really no significant difference between the earlier drug that went off patent and the new ‘improved’ drug.
I think that it’s better to go into debt for universal health care than it is for war and bank bailouts.
Hate to inform you, but the government is profiting from the bank bailouts. Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae is paying the government about $1B per quarter, $4Billion a year EACH just on interest payments under TARP. BofA is paying $405Million per quarter, $1.6Billion/year on interest payments to the government on their TARP money.. and the principal still needs to be repaid or the stock warrants become effective and the government owns a large block of stock… which they can sell for a gain because the strike price on the warrant will be lower than the stock price (the warrants have a decreasing strike price on them).
November 10, 2009 at 11:17 AM #480101ucodegenParticipantFor example a generic drug prescription could be at a $5 co-pay but a brand name drug prescription would be costly enough to make the patient think again about demanding that drug — perhaps 50% co-insurance.
True, but we also have to be aware that if the threshold is too high, we lose innovation. How about generic being covered at median + 1 std deviation of all generics (to avoid crappy generics), brand name would only have the cost amounting to median+1std deviation of the generic being covered. Any amount above that would not be covered in the name brand. Too many drug companies ‘invent’ a new and improved product once their original goes off patent (they also call this innovation). There is really no significant difference between the earlier drug that went off patent and the new ‘improved’ drug.
I think that it’s better to go into debt for universal health care than it is for war and bank bailouts.
Hate to inform you, but the government is profiting from the bank bailouts. Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae is paying the government about $1B per quarter, $4Billion a year EACH just on interest payments under TARP. BofA is paying $405Million per quarter, $1.6Billion/year on interest payments to the government on their TARP money.. and the principal still needs to be repaid or the stock warrants become effective and the government owns a large block of stock… which they can sell for a gain because the strike price on the warrant will be lower than the stock price (the warrants have a decreasing strike price on them).
November 10, 2009 at 11:17 AM #480458ucodegenParticipantFor example a generic drug prescription could be at a $5 co-pay but a brand name drug prescription would be costly enough to make the patient think again about demanding that drug — perhaps 50% co-insurance.
True, but we also have to be aware that if the threshold is too high, we lose innovation. How about generic being covered at median + 1 std deviation of all generics (to avoid crappy generics), brand name would only have the cost amounting to median+1std deviation of the generic being covered. Any amount above that would not be covered in the name brand. Too many drug companies ‘invent’ a new and improved product once their original goes off patent (they also call this innovation). There is really no significant difference between the earlier drug that went off patent and the new ‘improved’ drug.
I think that it’s better to go into debt for universal health care than it is for war and bank bailouts.
Hate to inform you, but the government is profiting from the bank bailouts. Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae is paying the government about $1B per quarter, $4Billion a year EACH just on interest payments under TARP. BofA is paying $405Million per quarter, $1.6Billion/year on interest payments to the government on their TARP money.. and the principal still needs to be repaid or the stock warrants become effective and the government owns a large block of stock… which they can sell for a gain because the strike price on the warrant will be lower than the stock price (the warrants have a decreasing strike price on them).
November 10, 2009 at 11:17 AM #480538ucodegenParticipantFor example a generic drug prescription could be at a $5 co-pay but a brand name drug prescription would be costly enough to make the patient think again about demanding that drug — perhaps 50% co-insurance.
True, but we also have to be aware that if the threshold is too high, we lose innovation. How about generic being covered at median + 1 std deviation of all generics (to avoid crappy generics), brand name would only have the cost amounting to median+1std deviation of the generic being covered. Any amount above that would not be covered in the name brand. Too many drug companies ‘invent’ a new and improved product once their original goes off patent (they also call this innovation). There is really no significant difference between the earlier drug that went off patent and the new ‘improved’ drug.
I think that it’s better to go into debt for universal health care than it is for war and bank bailouts.
Hate to inform you, but the government is profiting from the bank bailouts. Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae is paying the government about $1B per quarter, $4Billion a year EACH just on interest payments under TARP. BofA is paying $405Million per quarter, $1.6Billion/year on interest payments to the government on their TARP money.. and the principal still needs to be repaid or the stock warrants become effective and the government owns a large block of stock… which they can sell for a gain because the strike price on the warrant will be lower than the stock price (the warrants have a decreasing strike price on them).
November 10, 2009 at 11:17 AM #480762ucodegenParticipantFor example a generic drug prescription could be at a $5 co-pay but a brand name drug prescription would be costly enough to make the patient think again about demanding that drug — perhaps 50% co-insurance.
True, but we also have to be aware that if the threshold is too high, we lose innovation. How about generic being covered at median + 1 std deviation of all generics (to avoid crappy generics), brand name would only have the cost amounting to median+1std deviation of the generic being covered. Any amount above that would not be covered in the name brand. Too many drug companies ‘invent’ a new and improved product once their original goes off patent (they also call this innovation). There is really no significant difference between the earlier drug that went off patent and the new ‘improved’ drug.
I think that it’s better to go into debt for universal health care than it is for war and bank bailouts.
Hate to inform you, but the government is profiting from the bank bailouts. Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae is paying the government about $1B per quarter, $4Billion a year EACH just on interest payments under TARP. BofA is paying $405Million per quarter, $1.6Billion/year on interest payments to the government on their TARP money.. and the principal still needs to be repaid or the stock warrants become effective and the government owns a large block of stock… which they can sell for a gain because the strike price on the warrant will be lower than the stock price (the warrants have a decreasing strike price on them).
November 10, 2009 at 11:21 AM #479938ucodegenParticipantI just went to the dentist. My bill, before insurance payment was about $220 (x-rays and cleaning). I noticed that a lot of people have terrible teeth but they’ll spend money on other things.
How much after insurance.. and how much was being paid on your monthly insurance?? I stopped paying dental insurance because I found it cheaper to save and pay direct… and I had a lot of work done fixing what a previous dentist had done. I would have easily hit the insurance cap each year for several years as well as potentially the lifetime cap.
November 10, 2009 at 11:21 AM #480106ucodegenParticipantI just went to the dentist. My bill, before insurance payment was about $220 (x-rays and cleaning). I noticed that a lot of people have terrible teeth but they’ll spend money on other things.
How much after insurance.. and how much was being paid on your monthly insurance?? I stopped paying dental insurance because I found it cheaper to save and pay direct… and I had a lot of work done fixing what a previous dentist had done. I would have easily hit the insurance cap each year for several years as well as potentially the lifetime cap.
November 10, 2009 at 11:21 AM #480463ucodegenParticipantI just went to the dentist. My bill, before insurance payment was about $220 (x-rays and cleaning). I noticed that a lot of people have terrible teeth but they’ll spend money on other things.
How much after insurance.. and how much was being paid on your monthly insurance?? I stopped paying dental insurance because I found it cheaper to save and pay direct… and I had a lot of work done fixing what a previous dentist had done. I would have easily hit the insurance cap each year for several years as well as potentially the lifetime cap.
November 10, 2009 at 11:21 AM #480543ucodegenParticipantI just went to the dentist. My bill, before insurance payment was about $220 (x-rays and cleaning). I noticed that a lot of people have terrible teeth but they’ll spend money on other things.
How much after insurance.. and how much was being paid on your monthly insurance?? I stopped paying dental insurance because I found it cheaper to save and pay direct… and I had a lot of work done fixing what a previous dentist had done. I would have easily hit the insurance cap each year for several years as well as potentially the lifetime cap.
November 10, 2009 at 11:21 AM #480767ucodegenParticipantI just went to the dentist. My bill, before insurance payment was about $220 (x-rays and cleaning). I noticed that a lot of people have terrible teeth but they’ll spend money on other things.
How much after insurance.. and how much was being paid on your monthly insurance?? I stopped paying dental insurance because I found it cheaper to save and pay direct… and I had a lot of work done fixing what a previous dentist had done. I would have easily hit the insurance cap each year for several years as well as potentially the lifetime cap.
November 10, 2009 at 11:25 AM #479953briansd1Guest[quote=ucodegen]
The present bills do not address any of the costs of health care.. it only conceals it under a layer of insurance. This is guaranteed to do only one thing, make the true costs higher.[/quote]That is true.
But we need to deal with things one step at a time.
The first order of priority is to provide universal health care.
It’s like “winning” in Iraq. You can’t have everything all at once. One success follows the other, and so on.
November 10, 2009 at 11:25 AM #480121briansd1Guest[quote=ucodegen]
The present bills do not address any of the costs of health care.. it only conceals it under a layer of insurance. This is guaranteed to do only one thing, make the true costs higher.[/quote]That is true.
But we need to deal with things one step at a time.
The first order of priority is to provide universal health care.
It’s like “winning” in Iraq. You can’t have everything all at once. One success follows the other, and so on.
November 10, 2009 at 11:25 AM #480477briansd1Guest[quote=ucodegen]
The present bills do not address any of the costs of health care.. it only conceals it under a layer of insurance. This is guaranteed to do only one thing, make the true costs higher.[/quote]That is true.
But we need to deal with things one step at a time.
The first order of priority is to provide universal health care.
It’s like “winning” in Iraq. You can’t have everything all at once. One success follows the other, and so on.
November 10, 2009 at 11:25 AM #480558briansd1Guest[quote=ucodegen]
The present bills do not address any of the costs of health care.. it only conceals it under a layer of insurance. This is guaranteed to do only one thing, make the true costs higher.[/quote]That is true.
But we need to deal with things one step at a time.
The first order of priority is to provide universal health care.
It’s like “winning” in Iraq. You can’t have everything all at once. One success follows the other, and so on.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.