[N0help4u]

Let me see... ''for instance''...

ONE the stimulus
They had that passed without being read through before most people could bat an eye.

[Wondergirl]

Let me see ....... ''for instance''....

ONE the stimulus
they had that passed without being read through before most people could bat an eye.

Obama had never told us anything about a stimulus package that was being put together? Did he have to get a democratic vote on it from the general public before it got approved by Congress?

[N0help4u]

He told us ABOUT it but that doesn't mean we knew what was in it. Hardly anybody even read it before they voted it in. So there is a difference between knowing about something and Democrats that didn't give two hoots to read it. Besides much of it benefited them and not us anyway.
I bet you can't even tell me everything that is in it now.
I still haven't seen a pro Obama provide links for the actual health care bill

[Wondergirl]

He told us ABOUT it but that doesn't mean we knew what was in it. Hardly anybody even read it before they voted it in. So there is a difference between knowing about something and Democrats that didn't give two hoots to read it. Besides much of it benefited them and not us anyway.
I bet you can't even tell me everything that is in it now.
I still haven't seen a pro Obama provide links for the actual health care bill

Where have you been vacationing?? Everyone was all huffy about p. 425 and putting Grandma on an ice floe!! The bill has been online all this time, all 1018 pages of it --

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

[N0help4u]

This for one doesn't look good to me

16 Trust Fund.
17 (iii) LIMITATION TO AVAILABLE
18 FUNDS.—The Secretary has the authority
19 to stop taking applications for participa20
Tion in the program or take such other
21 steps in reducing expenditures under the
22 reinsurance program in order to ensure
23 that expenditures under the reinsurance
24 program do not exceed the funds available
25 under this subsection.

[Wondergirl]

this for one doesn't look good to me

21 reducing expenditures under the
22 reinsurance program in order to ensure
23 that expenditures under the reinsurance
24 program do not exceed the funds available
25 under this subsection.

Sounds responsible to me.

[N0help4u]

In order to not exceed the funds available

They are already sunk cause the government is broke and even with all citizens paying into it I don't see how they will be able to afford all the health problems our nation has.

[Wondergirl]

I don't see how they will be able to afford all the health problems our nation has.

Aren't you paying attention?

[inthebox]

Cost is too high for private coverage. For employees, workplace doesn't offer it.

Part-time job, no coverage; also, employers are not required to offer health insurance to any employee.

That is why competition among private health insurance companies, and now apparently with insurance co-ops, should lower premiums through competition.

In addition, have national competition. Mandate minimum coverage basics, but live any additional coverage up to the individual or group consumer.

It has been 4 years since I was an employer, but I only had 1 direct and 20 shared amongst other and we provided health insurance for all full time employees.



G&P

[tomder55]

That is an excellent insurance plan, though a lot would hesitate at the $5000 deductible.

Agreed ;although that could be negotiated with the insurance company. If this type of plan went along with health saving accounts then the amt of money needed for the deductible would easily be available.

[excon]

Hello in:

Here's a solution - at least part of one... I don't know if it alone would do much, but it's certainly part of the problem... I discussed it on these pages years ago. If I remember correctly, the Wolverine didn't like my solution then, and I doubt he'll like it now... That's how come I know it's a goodun..

I don't like to be sold prescription drugs on television. If I need them, I want my doctor to tell me - not some huckster on the tube. I don't know how much big pharma spends on selling us that stuff, but I'll bet it's a lot. And, they do it because it WORKS... Worse than that, however, is my belief that big pharma created lots of illnesses that weren't there in the first place, just so they could sell drugs... (and you want to put pot dealers in jail... )

How many millions suffer from that age old ailment called Restless Leg Syndrome... Or what about those sufferers from overly dry eyes?? There's dozens of others of big pharma created illnesses... I'm sure you've got your own...

ALL advertising for prescription drugs should be BANNED. Besides being the right thing to do, it'll save billions... Most of all, it'll stop a lot of people who are taking drugs they don't need and could be harmful.

excon

[tomder55]

Although you can attribute RLS sometimes to side effects of medications it would be a stretch to say that those evil Pharmaceutical companies created the illness. You are neglecting to include other common causes like iron-deficiency anemia ;Vitamin B12 and magnesium deficiency ;symptoms related to Parkinson's disease ,varicose veins... etc. there are more .

Now ;according to some reports ,the President struck a deal with "big Pharma " that they would go along with his plan and shill for it using advertising dollars if he would keep some provisions like bulk gvt. Purchase discounts and buying from Canada out of the legislation. I assume you also oppose their advertising advocacy for the President's plan ?

[N0help4u]

Yeah that is the root of the problem people think they can eat and drink anything and it is safe then they never connect that the chemicals and preservatives they put in foods is the direct link to their health problems.
Instead of balancing their vitamins and minerals they jump to be put on meds that have the long list of side effects.

I know I have adrenal exhaust and it is probably actually hypokalemia from all the years I was addicted to Pepsi. I know I'd rather balance my supplements than go the meds route.

[excon]

I assume you also oppose their advertising advocacy for the President's plan ?

Hello tom:

I oppose ANY deal made with the devil... That's why I'm sitting here and not in congress. I KNOW how deals are made. I just don't happen to like it.

excon

[tomder55]

Sapph . The one thing I'm sure of is that any reform package I would put together would include coverage for alt.care including supplementation.

Disclaimer :Yes ;that is the industry I work in (after doing my time in the Pharmaceutical industry) ;but I have seen that results of choosing natural alternatives over using drugs can sometimes be obtained ;as well as using supplementation to support a drug regimin .

I have seen examples of adjusting mineral levels as the answer to issues like stress ;where the use of the anti-stress medications risks turning the patient into suicidal basket cases.

I'm not saying that supplementation is a cure all to 100 % replace pharmaceuticals ,but if prevention is a goal in reform then it should be considered in coverage.

I agree with Excon to a large extent about Pharma's advertising . You know there is a problem when the disclaimer takes as long to recite as the allegeded benefits to taking the drug .

[Skell]

ALL advertising for prescription drugs should be BANNED. Besides being the right thing to do, it'll save billions.... Most of all, it'll stop a lot of people who are taking drugs they don't need and could be harmful.

excon

Prescription drugs are actually advertised in the States?? Wow...

[N0help4u]

Yeah and they have a super long list of side effects. The ads in a magazine generally take up the entire page.

[inthebox]

although you can attribute RLS sometimes to side effects of medications it would be a stretch to say that those evil Pharmaceutical companies created the illness. You are neglecting to include other common causes like iron-deficiency anemia ;Vitamin B12 and magnesium deficiency ;symptoms related to Parkinson's disease ,varicose veins ...etc. there are more .

Now ;according to some reports ,the President struck a deal with "big Pharma " that they would go along with his plan and shill for it using advertising dollars if he would keep some provisions like bulk gvt. purchase discounts and buying from Canada out of the legislation. I assume you also oppose their advertising advocacy for the President's plan ?

On the one hand, like any other businesss, pharma is marketing themselves. On the other hand is the underlying message: you have this symptom, we have this pill.

Like you mentioned, there are sometimes underlying treatable causes that might get missed because the consumer is convinced that all they need to do is take this or that pill, and the doctor, also subject to this advertisement, finds it more time efficient to prescribe this pill, rather than have a discussion with that patient as to working up the underlying cause.

So I agree with Ex on this one





G&P

[inthebox]

Does anyone agree with the similar emphasis on INDIVIDUAL decision making, not on government mandates, in improving personal health behavior and thus potentially preventing illnesses or controlling chronic diseases. This seems to be the approach by Whole Foods and Safeway. System wide, this would save US healthcare a ton of money.

Good behavior; quitting smoking, getting closer to an ideal body weight, controlling blood pressure, controlling blood sugar levels; should be rewarded. Lower premiums, or cash back.





G&P

[tomder55]

I certainly do . I sort of went on that tangent when I said if prevention is a goal in reform then it should be considered in coverage.