Posted on 12/29/2013 7:22:11 AM PST by Libloather
We have a winner!! The goal from the beginning has always been to bankrupt the insurance companies and then for the federal government to come to the rescue with single payer “medicaid for all”
Dean is right Obama will not get the blame, the low information voter will gladly demonize the greedy doctors and insurance companies… as easy as stealing candy from a baby.
By the way, during this interview which was more of a debate, Dr. Gottlieb destroyed Dean’s party line lies with facts. Even Dean had to admit that Gottlieb was correct. But Dean’s analysis of who will be blamed is Obama’s strategy
I would agree with you but for Obama’s empty promise of, “You can keep your ...”. That is such a bald face lie that even the low information voters can understand the perfidy. Couple that with the coming wave of employees that are going to feel the pain and you have a perfect storm in 2014.
What is Obama going to say? That his insurance company “partners” tricked him and lied to him?
I'm encouraged that the insanity keeps coming - my toaster could win a debate against most of the Left's arguments these days.
Thanks Libloather. That’s what his and their intent is, anyway.
Obamacare Vending Machine Mandate Expected to Cost Millions
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3106291/posts
The Bolshies point is that when the insurance system fails, people will demand that government take over. Then, the only people to blame will be themselves, when costs are cut, doctors limited and aspirin is in short supply.
The Bolshecrats assume the majority of people are too stupid to notice that is was the government that failed and not the insurance companies. (Though, the insurance companies share some blame for going along with this fiasco.)
I agree with almost everything you've written, but Pharma, and device companies are getting squeezed. That's not to say that they weren't trying to work with this administration to assure their own interests were taken care of, but in the end they are paying a price they probably thought they wouldn't have to. The device tax is having a huge effect on companies like Medtronic and Boston Scientific, and they will pass this on to us, in part by cutting back substantially on innovation. Pharma will not take many risks anymore, and many have (or are in the process of) cutting back substantially on R&D.
The insurance companies, the big ones, will always figure out a way to stay profitable, and you are correct that this horrible law provides them with some opportunities.
Ultimately, medical care will become dictated by horribly flawed and ill-conceived ‘outcomes’ analysis, and both physicians and patients will lose more and more the ability to define individual medical care. It will be like ‘one size fits all’ underwear for all those who don't have ‘connections’, and/or don't have the money to pay privately for medical care - all for the sake of the left’s ideological stupidity.
Let me guess, they’ll blame it on George Bush.
Big Pharma has already locked in its deal. They are not being squeezed or hurt. Obamacare reconsidered: a pretty good deal for the drug industry
As far as the medical device tax is concerned, I see it being reversed soon and possibly being part of the budget ceiling negotiations next year. There are plenty of Dems that want to see it reversed so it could be played as a bipartisan compromise that actually both parties want.
Ultimately, medical care will become dictated by horribly flawed and ill-conceived ‘outcomes’ analysis, and both physicians and patients will lose more and more the ability to define individual medical care. It will be like ‘one size fits all’ underwear for all those who don't have ‘connections’, and/or don't have the money to pay privately for medical care - all for the sake of the left’s ideological stupidity.
It will become a two-tiered system like they have in the UK and the rest of Europe. One inferior system for the great unwashed and another for those who have the money to pay for a better system. We are already seeing concierge medicine in the US.
I can see a movement to force all doctors and hospitals to accept Medicaid and Medicare patients. 40% of doctors don't accept Medicaid and 12% don't accept new Medicare patients because the reimbursement rates are too low. The public will support such a mandate thus degrading the quality of health care even further. We will have single payer, it is only a matter of when, not if. Obamacare is just the transition vehicle to achieve it. Obama made that quite clear years ago.
If anyone really believes that Obamacare is going to be repealed, they are delusional. Obama and Hillary will support mending it, not ending it. The Dems have achieved their dream and will not relinquish it. They have no other choice.
Dean would feel otherwise, if he was holding public office and up for re-election.
“Does the GOP have talking points to counter this?”
One ad per district like this one, only with the face changed, is all that will be needed for any Republican to win:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYyMMs-WO4U
“Those aren’t the doctors you’re looking for.”
HF
Sorry, but I have many professional contacts and friends in Pharma, and they are being hurt. This hurt is being passed on as downsizing - and it is happening in most pharma companies (e.g. huge cuts of in-house research staff as part of reduced R&D expenditure; dropping the development of a significant number of drugs, cuts in sales staff, closing entire facilities, etc.). You can't judge whether or not Pharma is affected by just looking at CEO salaries, or the stock price. Those can be maintained for the short term by doing things that ultimately hurt the companies in the long run.
“We are already seeing concierge medicine in the US.”
Yes, but concierge medicine - unless played at the level of hospital services - cannot provide the kind of health care that matters most and costs the most. Having a physician on retainer doesn't pay for your coronary stent, or your kidney transplant, or your chemotherapy, or your surgery. All of these require multi-faceted care with facilities that have a wide-range of capabilities. Concierge physician services cannot, and do not cover these - and aren't meant to. The restrictions the administration and current laws have placed on physician-run facilities really limits the ability to put together a physician-run concierge-like facility that provides these types of crucial services.
“If anyone really believes that Obamacare is going to be repealed, they are delusional”
I would have to say that it is probably more delusional to believe that anything that looks recognizably like the current iteration of Obamacare will survive for long. I think the only question is how long it will be before it morphs into something very, very different.
As far as single payer goes, the big question there is where are they going to propose the money comes from? It would be a very hard sell.
Regarding the two-tiered system, I really hope that doesn't happen here. The funny thing is, as a physician, you can make a lot more money in a two-tiered system than the one we have now. One of the people I trained with in the U.S. left to go back to Europe, and after seeing his quota of national health patients, he would then go on to see enough private patients such that he was making well over a million a year (dollar equivalent). At one point he was one of the highest paid physicians in the world. The point is that if the left really believes they are pushing ‘fairness’, they are the ones who are delusional.
And naturally the spineless GOP will not say a word, once again allowing the Dems to get the upper hand.
How is Big Pharma being hurt by Obamacare? The customer base is being expanded by Obvamacare along with an aging society; the Medicare donut hole has been closed, and they struck a deal that fended off provisions that would have allowed direct price controls and restricted drug marketing.
This hurt is being passed on as downsizing - and it is happening in most pharma companies (e.g. huge cuts of in-house research staff as part of reduced R&D expenditure; dropping the development of a significant number of drugs, cuts in sales staff, closing entire facilities, etc.)
How much of that is a function of generic drugs and expiring patents?
Yes, but concierge medicine - unless played at the level of hospital services - cannot provide the kind of health care that matters most and costs the most.
I didn't say they did, but this is the beginning of a parallel system that could include hospitals and the kind of care you are describing. Many of the top hospitals are not taking Obamacare enrollees. The insurance companies are trying to keep costs to a minimum. There is also limited numbers of specialists.
I would have to say that it is probably more delusional to believe that anything that looks recognizably like the current iteration of Obamacare will survive for long. I think the only question is how long it will be before it morphs into something very, very different.
It would no doubt morph due to political and budgetary pressures, but it will still be called Obamacare, which will remain the framework for an evolving health care system. It is a matter of political perception. Significant changes have already been made to Obamacare by Congress and the Administration, e.g., the long term care portion has been dropped.
As far as single payer goes, the big question there is where are they going to propose the money comes from? It would be a very hard sell.
It will be an easy sell if the public becomes frustrated by Obamacare and the Dems propose a Medicare system for all. Nobody worries about where the money is coming for Medicare, which represents a $40 trillion unfunded liability not counting the Bush prescription drug program that has a $7.3 trillion unfunded liability. Medicare (Part A) has been running in the red since 2008 and 75% of the costs for Medicare Parts B and D (SMI) are funded, by law, by the General Fund. In 2012 the cost for SMI was $215 billion with 40% of that being borrowed. Medicare costs more than nine times what it was projected to cost.
I can see a request for new revenue coming from a VAT tax or some other fee raising scheme. The Dems will connect health care to what kind of society we are in terms of moral values. If there really was any concern about where the money would come from, Obamacare would never have been passed.
Regarding the two-tiered system, I really hope that doesn't happen here.
It will happen unless we go to a strict single payer system like Canada or North Korea. Whatever happens, the quality of medical care will decline along with various medical advancements. We will be importing many more doctors from abroad to deal with increased patient load and retiring baby boomer doctors.
Being long health care sector is one of the safest* bets in the world especially when the risk corridor kicks in.
*of course, still subject to market risk
I agree with this, although as the US becomes a less desirable place to practice I wonder if it will remain as easy to bring in foreign docs.
Regarding the pharma question, they're hurting because it costs at least 1.5 billion to develop a substantial big market drug, most attempts to develop new drugs fail (even after 100s of millions have been spent), many existing blockbuster drugs are coming off patent, and the FDA is going to be used as a point of rationing (making it more difficult to get approval for new drugs, and if you're not first, making it more and more difficult to get approval for similar drugs, etc.). If your big money maker is coming off patent, and your anticipated blockbuster replacement failed, you become very careful about the other things you have in portfolio. Stopping the development of anything in the pipeline that is judged somewhat risky is going to be seriously considered. The result is a less innovative, scaled back pharma industry - leading to the decline in medical advancements you mentioned.
We both agree that Obamacare is a bad thing for patients and the US medical system. We just have different takes on some of the players and details. It's very depressing to me.
Honey child, then why are the policies sold by the insurance companies directly so much cheaper and better then the ones available on the Obama(don't)care website?
I thought HHS was running this and by extension, Obama. That's why he is getting away with these executive mandates that are outside the law...the law allows HHS to change on a whim.
They should have read it...Howard!
“Who was it said “There’s a sucker born every minute’’?— P.T. Barnum
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.