I support doing something to reduce health COSTS. I do not profess to be smart enough to understand this current health bill, HOWEVER....

Our congress who has an approval rating in the 30's is going to pass a health bill that the President says "for the american people"...yet from what I have read today all the polls show that under 40% of americans want this bill.

Is there not something wrong with this picture or am I missing something ?

Originally Posted by Bucco

I support doing something to reduce health COSTS. I do not profess to be smart enough to understand this current health bill, HOWEVER....

Our congress who has an approval rating in the 30's is going to pass a health bill that the President says "for the american people"...yet from what I have read today all the polls show that under 40% of americans want this bill.

Is there not something wrong with this picture or am I missing something ?

No nothing is missing. Just regardless of what was promised last year it is just the same old, same old in DC.

One more example of the pols taking us for idiots. Their ten years projections do not account for the fact that the costs (taxes and fees) start in year one and the benefits (coverage) are 4 - 6 years out. So costs for years 5 through 15 are at least double current 10 year estimates. Nice. We are too stupid to understand that trick. Penn and Teller should really be in government.

No Bucko, I don't think you are missing anything. This administration seems bent on restructuring the very essence of this Republic. So far it's working....

Let's hope that the American people can realize the monumental mistake of 2008 and focus on getting back to what made this country the envy of the world. Soon!

Right now, it's quite common for the government to require that any business that wants to sell goods or services to the government give the lowest prices. In other words, you can't give a better deal to another customer - the government is supposed to get a deal equal to the best available.

What if the government, in their "takeover" of health care said that pharmaceuticals could not sell to the "public option" for a higher price than is offered to foreign governments?

I mean, isn't this what your insurance company SHOULD have been doing for you all these years? Instead, you get your premiums hiked and your co-pays go through the roof.

There's a lot of different areas that need to be addressed in health care - and this is only one of them - but I'm tired of subsidizing R&D for the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by djplong

Right now, it's quite common for the government to require that any business that wants to sell goods or services to the government give the lowest prices. In other words, you can't give a better deal to another customer - the government is supposed to get a deal equal to the best available.

What if the government, in their "takeover" of health care said that pharmaceuticals could not sell to the "public option" for a higher price than is offered to foreign governments?

I mean, isn't this what your insurance company SHOULD have been doing for you all these years? Instead, you get your premiums hiked and your co-pays go through the roof.

There's a lot of different areas that need to be addressed in health care - and this is only one of them - but I'm tired of subsidizing R&D for the rest of the world.

Sounds like a fine Left Wing concept.

What part? Demanding the best price or the 'takeover' part (which I was using a bit sarcastically referring to the public option).

The government demanding the best price is something I would expect people to be in FAVOR of in a very non-partisan way. After all, why should WE be paying Pfizer or Lilly more just so they can sell a drug to Germany cheaper?

Originally Posted by djplong

What part? Demanding the best price or the 'takeover' part (which I was using a bit sarcastically referring to the public option).

The government demanding the best price is something I would expect people to be in FAVOR of in a very non-partisan way. After all, why should WE be paying Pfizer or Lilly more just so they can sell a drug to Germany cheaper?

Why did the congress snicker at allowing competition beyond state lines which, I think would foster the competition you are seeking but that concept didnt fly !

BUT DJPLONG....

The question still is, doesnt it sound a bit funny that a body of folks who have an approval rating in the 20's passing a bill that less than 40% of americans want !

Does that not strike you as a bit....gee...you feel in the word !

Originally Posted by djplong

What part? Demanding the best price or the 'takeover' part (which I was using a bit sarcastically referring to the public option).

The government demanding the best price is something I would expect people to be in FAVOR of in a very non-partisan way. After all, why should WE be paying Pfizer or Lilly more just so they can sell a drug to Germany cheaper?

I'm sorry but are we talking about the same government that got caught buying "special" hammers and wrenches, a few years ago, to the tune of $1,400 each???

Originally Posted by Bucco

Why did the congress snicker at allowing competition beyond state lines which, I think would foster the competition you are seeking but that concept didnt fly !

I think that was a knee-jerk reaction to thinking we'd have some crisis in health care similar to the banking crisis which, it's said, was exacerbated by letting banks get too big - and one tool that allowed that growth was allowing interstate banking.

Originally Posted by Bucco

The question still is, doesnt it sound a bit funny that a body of folks who have an approval rating in the 20's passing a bill that less than 40% of americans want !

Does that not strike you as a bit....gee...you feel in the word !

I'd like to see how the poll was worded.

Some polls don't like the plan that was being discussed. Other show more favorability towards something like "Medicare for all".

It's clear that the public wants SOMEthing. Hard to pin down something that will be popular with most.

Originally Posted by spk7951

I'm sorry but are we talking about the same government that got caught buying "special" hammers and wrenches, a few years ago, to the tune of $1,400 each???

You have to understand how procurement works. A friend of mine in the Marines at the time that came out (1980s) explained it to me.

You have a toolkit. The contractor had to make that toolkit to very specific government requirements. Especially for things in the military, you can't just go "off the shelf". That hammer? That $600 toilet seat? They have to survive nuclear fallout, among other things. They have to have very precise measurements, etc.

Now, that hammer? It's part of the toolkit. The only way the contractor can put things out at a lowest-cost pric is to make it as a unit. You can't get just the hammer, you have to buy the whole toolkit, so you spend the money on the whole toolkit to get the hammer - hence the "hammer is $1400" stories come out.

Now I'm on a contract for the Air Force. Now I see how these contracts work. Lots of overhead, very expensive.

It's like Amtrak. They wanted to introduce high-speed rail betwen Boston, New York, Philly, Baltimore and D.C. They leased trains from a few European manufacturers to test things out (the German ICE, the Swedish X-2000, the Talgo, etc). They all performed well. So what did we do? Did we buy "off the shelf" technology?

No. We custom-designed the Acela, made mistakes in the design, changed the design during manufacturing and blamed Bombardier and Alstom for it. All of this made it far more expensive than buying a TGV or an X-2000 or an ICE. ...and it didn't work right in some cases (can't tilt as much in certian areas because they mismeasured certain clearances).

That's how it works.

Originally Posted by djplong

That $600 toilet seat? They have to survive nuclear fallout, among other things. They have to have very precise measurements, etc.

dpjlong, I have to ask. Who's arse do they have to precisely measure for this $600 toilet??? If the one's from Wal-Mart can survive my brother-in-law... they can survive nuclear fallout! $600? Forgettaboutit!

Sorry... woke up in a silly mood today!

Chels, Hope your brother-in-law doesn't see this post. LOL