The Lack of Affordable Healthcare in the US | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

The Lack of Affordable Healthcare in the US



U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders — US Senator for Vermont
20 hrs ·

Now that we have defeated the disastrous Trump-Ryan "health care" plan, we must work together to demand that Republican governors and legislatures expand Medicaid to provide affordable health insurance to over 4 million Americans.

The good news is that on the same day House Republicans pulled their bill to throw 24 million Americans off of health insurance, the Republican Kansas Senate took the first step towards expanding Medicaid to provide health insurance to 150,000 Kansans.

It's time for the governor of Kansas to stop putting his rich right-wing ideology ahead of the health care needs of the people in Kansas.

Stop giving tax breaks to billionaires and start providing affordable health care to those who desperately need it.


Kansas Republicans Just Defied Donald Trump and Voted to Expand Medicaid
As the GOP tries to blow up Obamacare in DC, Republicans in this deep-red state are rushing to implement it.

gettyimages-517051420.jpg


Full Story - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/kansas-state-senate-medicaid
 
Poll:
Most Americans want to replace Obamacare with single-payer —
including many Republicans

By Philip Bump May 16, 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-lot-of-republicans/?utm_term=.c98c236aef8b
imrs.php


Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks during a news conference at the National Press Club on May 1 in Washington.

The politics of Obamacare aren't all that complicated.
Republicans have called for the Affordable Care Act to be "repealed and replaced" for years, with only sporadic attempts to articulate what the replacement would be.

On the Democratic side, the question that's emerged over the course of the primary is whether or not the program should be expanded and improved (Hillary Clinton's argument) or if we should push for a complete overhaul, moving toward a "single-payer" system like Medicare (Bernie Sanders's argument).

In a round of polling conducted this month, Gallup figured out which of those ideas was the most popular.
And the result?

It's sort of a three-way tie.
imrs.php


Well over half of Americans want to replace Obamacare with a single-payer system.
That figure, amazingly, includes 41 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents — even though the wording of the question specifies that the program would be "federally funded." (Mind you, more than half of Republicans oppose the idea.)

The high number of Republicans approving of the idea may be because Republicans are so hostile to the Affordable Care Act.
Gallup's polling has consistently shown that Republicans hold strongly negative views of the program.

Replacing the ACA with anything probably holds some appeal.

On the Clinton-versus-Sanders question, Democrats are slightly more inclined to back Clinton's theory than Sanders's.
Nearly 8 in 10 Democrats want to keep the ACA in place; just under three-quarters want to replace it with single-payer.
(Only 16 percent of Republicans want to keep the ACA, which is why single-payer gets the highest support overall.)

It's not that simple, though. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats support the idea of both keeping the ACA and replacing it with a single-payer program.
Asked to pick between the two, though, that group favors single-payer by a 2-to-1 margin.

What's suggested by these poll results is something of a muddle.
Democrats are happy with the ACA but would love single-payer.

Republicans hate the ACA and a majority still oppose a federally funded program.
The pragmatic result is stasis, which is what Clinton has embraced: making the ACA more palatable and expansive, instead of restarting the fight she lost while her husband was president.

Even if, over the long term, more Americans say they'd be happier with something like what Bernie Sanders has proposed.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Misty


U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren
2 hrs ·

Donald Trump’s plan to kick 24 million people off their health insurance may have gone up in flames, but the President is just getting started.
He’s made it perfectly clear that he plans to use his executive authority to sabotage Americans’ health care to try and score political points.

A legitimate president doesn’t pound his chest about sabotaging the health and security of the American people because it’s politically expedient.
The American people know the difference between a fireman and an arsonist – and if this President keeps playing politics with millions of lives, they will once again rise up to fight it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Misty and Ryso89
if i was american i would be dead, or very very very poor

And yet...there are those in our Congress who want to yank even more parts of our social safety net apart...this “healthcare” bill didn’t pass because it had almost no support from their own party in the GOP.
Part of them were trying to get parts put back in like Medicaid for children (if you are going to destroy the program for the millions of adults who utilize it at least let the children be insured...nope.), while the other half of their party wanted even deeper cuts to such programs...in other words - it still helped too many people.

I just don’t get how people can’t piece together, so long as we have a system built on making profits off the sick and dying then the prices for such things are always going to increase without some kind of regulations or oversight.
At the very least a public insurance option would make sense...but they won’t even do that.
Instead they go to cut meals on wheels who deliver food for the elderly who have trouble getting out and cooking for themselves.
They go to cut school lunches for poor children who are food insecure already.
They cut tax subsides for the poor in winter so they can afford heating oil so they don’t freeze to death.
All while we are seeing some of the biggest tax cuts for the rich in our history.
And taxes will go up for the poor in his plan, not down...it’s all in black and white.
We could pay for and keep those programs if Trump would stay off the golf course (3 million each time) and pay for his wife to live in Trump tower since she refuses to live at the White House (estimated cost some $50 mill alone...Meals on Wheels costs 3 Mill)
Those Trump supporters who keep thinking that their taxes are going to go down are missing the forest for the trees.
Getting healthcare, or buying healthcare is in itself a tax - because those who don’t have insurance are subsidized by those that do have insurance in their insurance premiums....so it just makes sense to use that money (More than any other country pays) to cover everyone.
But apparently anything that would help the middle/working class (like a living minimum wage so we again, don’t have to subsidize in our taxes those people who don’t make enough to eat with Food Stamps...many of whom are working but still too poor to feed their families or themselves) is too much money out of the coffers of the rich, who thanks to the "Citizen’s United" ruling can influence our elections with as much money as they want....which is why this last one was such a shit show.

But whatever...some people still have no real clue what is taking place and they don’t care so long as their own life isn’t effected.
Problem is, once it reaches that point we are all fucked.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Misty and Ryso89
if i was american i would be dead, or very very very poor

People here are raised to think that anything US is awesome...that we have the best ways of doing everything...it’s built in BS patriotism reinforced in the schools and the media.
I wish I lived in a country that considered basic healthcare a right and not a privilege for those who can afford it.
 
fuck not even counting my big huge complicated scoliosis surgeries.

just a gallbladder removal is ~$15k without insurance (looking at a quiet google, sorry if i'm wrong)

If you are lucky that is all you pay.
For some people being sick is equitable to buying a new car every year.
The new “healthcare” plan they tried to push would have raised the amount paid from 5% of gross income for someone 65 or older to 55% of their yearly income.
That is not livable and we already have many people who choose between the cost of medication and eating.
Millions of people will be forced off insurance by Congress’s own assessment.
24 Million in the first two years....and somewhere around 58 Million wouldn’t have insurance in a decade.
Yep...can’t afford the gallbladder surgery?
We have financing through high interest companies like “Care Credit”...who care about getting paid....so long as you are credit worthy and can even get it.
Other than that you just die.
 
The Gates Foundation Plans To Give Birth Control To 120 Million Women Worldwide By 2020


Bill and Melinda Gates.

Donald Trump and Mike Pence campaigned very strongly against abortion access and we are already seeing the influence of their administration with some terrible new bills.

Internationally, Trump reinstated a ban for abortion and birth control funding overseas.
This “global gag rule” will take away funding from organizations that provide health services to women all over the world.

Thankfully, we have seen donations to Planned Parenthood skyrocket in response and some of the wealthiest people in the world have been fighting back as well.


Melinda Gates recently discussed some of the future plans of the Gates Foundation and they include funding birth control to many women all over the world:

"In the decade and a half since Bill and I started our foundation, I’ve heard from women all over the world about how important contraceptives are to their ability to take charge of their futures.

When women are able to plan their pregnancies around their goals for themselves and their families, they are also better able to finish their education, earn an income, and fully participate in their communities."


The Gates Foundation made a pledge in 2012 to provide birth control to 120 million women worldwide by 2020.
This is more necessary than ever before.


While the “global gag rule” may make things more challenging for The Gates Foundation, they are determined to help as many women as they can.
As Melinda Gates mentions, women who can plan their pregnancies are better able to attain their goals without as many barriers.

That is something all people should be supportive of, regardless of their politics.
 
Part of Trump’s budget revealed last month he would cut 18 percent from the National Institutes of Health.
Eighteen percent may not sound like a lot; however, in real dollars that’s about $5.8 billion, and cancer research isn’t cheap. Researchers, to say the least, aren’t pleased.
 


U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders — US Senator for Vermont
3 hrs ·

Gilead is the poster child for pharmaceutical industry greed -- charging outrageously high prices, while making outrageously high profits.
It is also one of the largest corporate tax dodgers in America.

Over the past two years, Gilead has dodged $23 billion by stashing their profits in offshore tax havens.
That $23 billion could cover several of the largest medical research programs on cancer and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

But instead of demanding that Gilead pay its fair share of taxes, Donald Trump has proposed slashing the NIH budget by nearly $6 billion making it harder to find cures for life-threatening illnesses.

It’s time that Gilead ends its greed, lowers the prices of its life-saving drugs, and starts paying its fair share in taxes.


17796572_10155799634732908_1879290229367326364_n.png
 


U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders — US Senator for Vermont
April 10 at 4:03pm ·

This is the richest nation in the history of the world.
People should not be fighting for their lives because the afford the medication prescribed to them.
It’s an international embarrassment that we pay by far the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world.
This has got to stop.
My colleagues in the Senate and I recently introduced legislation to allow importation of medication from other countries to help bring down the cost of prescription drugs.
We have got to keep fighting and end this nightmare.


 
Inexplicable greed.


Defiant,
Generic Drug Maker Continues to Raise Prices

Fair Game

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON APRIL 14, 2017

16gret-superJumbo.jpg

The market dynamics that allow a generic drug manufacturer to hike up prices have to do mostly with competition.
The problem, pharmaceutical experts say, definitely needs fixing.​

Congressional hearings.
Federal investigations.
Consumer outrage.

In the wake of developments like these, many drug company executives are laying low.
Their favored business models, based on raising drug prices indiscriminately, are now seen as a liability; many pharmaceutical companies are curbing increases on their products and accepting that this once-lucrative jig may be up.

Not Arthur P. Bedrosian, chief executive of Lannett Company.
A generic drug maker with roughly $600 million in net sales in fiscal 2016, Lannett continues to push prices skyward on some of its offerings.

And those moves are noteworthy on two accounts: First, its drugs are all off patent, meaning they are no longer proprietary formulations and should sell at deep discounts.

The other: Lannett is raising prices even as it faces an antitrust inquiry from the Justice Department and a drug-pricing investigation by Connecticut’s attorney general.

Lannett, based in Philadelphia, sells drugs for thyroid conditions, gastrointestinal diseases and congestive heart failure, among other ailments.
Its most recent price rise on dicyclomine, a treatment for irritable bowel syndrome, is scheduled to go into effect on May 2.

A bottle of 100 10-milligram capsules will cost $19.95, up from $5.90, its price since 2001.

But that is a relatively tiny bump compared with recent price increases on its other drugs.
Last year, Lannett more than tripled the price of terbutaline, a treatment for asthma and emphysema, propelling it to $435 for 100 tablets of 2.5 milligrams each, up from $136 for the bottle.

Also last year, Lannett raised the price of fluphenazine, an anti-psychotic drug, to $870 for 100 10-milligram capsules, from $43.50, its price since 2012. Fluphenazine, which treats schizophrenia, was approved in 1959 and has been off patent for years.

It is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines.

Many elderly patients take fluphenazine.
Data from QuintilesIMS shows that in January, Medicare and Medicaid together covered 65 percent of prescriptions for Lannett’s version of the drug.

This puts taxpayers squarely on the hook for Lannett’s price increases.

While Lannett’s customers and American taxpayers may be hurt by the company’s pricing practices, Wall Street loves them.
Among the six analysts who cover the company, five rate it a “buy” and one a “perform,” or hold.

Lannett’s stock was up 7.6 percent over the past week and 15 percent this year to date.

Elliot Wilbur, an analyst for Raymond James, is among the bulls.
He recently wrote a research report commending Lannett’s management for being able to “squeeze dollars” from its base; he called the company the “last of the pricing Mohicans.”

Lannett is not new to the aggressive pricing game.
In 2014, The New York Times cited the soaring price of digoxin, the company’s congestive heart failure drug.

Many patients on digoxin are older, as is the case with fluphenazine.

Both investigations into Lannett, by the Justice Department and the Connecticut attorney general, remain ongoing.
The company says it complies with all regulations and is cooperating.

Mr. Bedrosian, through a spokesman, declined to talk to me about his company’s pricing practices.
But he has spoken about it with others.

Three people who attended an investor conference in Laguna Niguel, Calif., on March 14, 2017, said Mr. Bedrosian boasted in meetings about his ability to keep pushing up prices on products.

The investors spoke on condition of anonymity, fearful of retaliation if they were identified.

According to the investors, Mr. Bedrosian was asked if the price-hike business model in the drug industry was over.
He chuckled and said no, adding that he had tripled the price of one of Lannett’s drugs that very morning.

He did not identify which one, the investors said.

When I asked Robert Jaffe, a spokesman for Lannett, to explain the rationale for these steep price increases, he said the company does not discuss its strategy.

Instead, he suggested I speak with analysts, singling out Mr. Wilbur of Raymond James.
In his recent report, Mr. Wilbur wrote that Lannett’s shares are attractive because the company can “find obscure, infrequently trafficked products where market dynamics facilitate or require substantial price movement.”

I asked Mr. Wilbur whether he was concerned that Lannett might face heightened scrutiny because of this practice.
In a series of emails, he questioned why I would write about the company’s price increases, since they affected only a small number of people.

“Convince me there is a real story here, and I can be helpful,” he said.

It’s true that some of Lannett’s price increases have been on niche drugs not used by millions of patients.
Still, Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, associate professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and at Harvard Medical School, said,
“The people who do use them maybe haven’t responded to other medications, so the rise in price for those patients would be problematic.”

The market dynamics that allow a generic drug manufacturer to hike up prices have to do mostly with competition.
The problem, pharmaceutical experts say, definitely needs fixing.

Generics come to market after the branded manufacturers’ exclusivity periods on their drugs expire.
Prices of these drugs are a fraction of what the offerings were when they were branded.

And yet, prices on many generic products have risen significantly in recent years.
A 2016 study by the United States Government Accountability Office found that from early 2010 to mid-2015, more than 20 percent of generic drugs had undergone price increases of over 100 percent.

These jumps are a concern to Dr. Scott Gottlieb, President Trump’s nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration.
In testimony earlier this month before the Senate committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Dr. Gottlieb said he intended to solve the problem of rapid escalations in generic drug prices.

Price surges among generics are especially worrisome because these drugs account for 90 percent of all prescriptions and are crucial to reducing health care costs.

Dr. Kesselheim said that generic drug increases often come about when there is a lack of intense competition in the marketplace.
He pointed to studies showing that when three or fewer manufacturers sell a generic drug, prices are far higher than when four or five makers compete.

A recent study done by Dr. Kesselheim and four other academics found that one third of generic drugs had three or fewer manufacturers.
The drugs that Lannett has recently re-priced fall into that category.

“People expect a generic to be inexpensive, but the reason it is inexpensive is that there is reasonable competition,”
Dr. Kesselheim said. “When you take that away, there is nothing to stop generic companies from trying to extract the maximum they can.”

The benefits to companies can be significant. Mr. Wilbur of Raymond James estimated that Lannett’s increase on dicylomine could propel that drug’s sales at the company from under $100,000 a year to as much as $15 million.

And according to Lannett’s quarterly results in December, the almost 2,000 percent price increase it levied on its anti-psychosis drugs resulted in a $14.6 million increase in sales — or 54 percent — from the same period a year earlier.

In a world of billion-dollar drugmakers, this may not sound like much.
But the price increase in the anti-psychosis category alone accounted for 8.5 percent of Lannett’s total net sales in the December quarter.

Overall net sales were up 35 percent.

“Generics are essential in the care of certain patients,” Dr. Kesselheim said.
“We need to make sure that the marketplace is functioning efficiently to be able to continue to get these essential benefits from generic drugs.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if drug companies thought better of leaving their patients in the lurch, so that they can laugh all the way to the bank?
 
People!
The GOP is once again trying to push their “healthcare” bill that hurts so many people.
It is up to me and you to call and email our Congressional Representatives and tell them to not screw the American people over!
What they are trying to do is not good for this country...it is not good for the working and middle class...it is ultimately cruel and cold-hearted to our poor, seniors, disabled, Vets, 8 million children will lose healthcare coverage amongst the 24 million more who will lose it.
In a decade around 60 Million will not have healthcare coverage.
Is that okay with you as a citizen?
The bill they propose defunds Planned Parenthood...once again, the old, white, evangelical conservative Christians are trying to legislate what a woman can or cannot do with her own body, and are imposing their religious morals and commandments into nationwide “law” no matter what religious or non-religious beliefs the rest of the US is supposed to be protected from.
That was the whole reason the pilgrims came here in the first place!
Freedom of religion, but freedom from religion should one choose as well.
Oh, how quickly talk of “Sharia Law” is demonized and scapegoated as so-called “Christians” impose their own morality that the majority of America does not share.
Call your Congresspeople!
This healthcare bill is a shame and a sham...Trump promised - Healthcare for all, much better, much cheaper, paid by the govt..
It’s on video if you really want to see it.
It must not pass, and his budget killing so many essential programs like the EPA and our public libraries, public school funding...the whole list is disgusting...this can not be allowed to pass either!
Speak up!!
We must show that we see what they are doing!
The middle class captured ZERO of the GDP last year...zero...wages have stagnated for almost 30 years now.
Enough is enough.
Call your Representatives!!


 
Last edited:
Republicans Don't Want to Eat Their Own Dog Food
KEVIN DRUM
APR. 26, 2017 11:24 AM​

In case you missed it in last night's post because I kind of buried it, the latest Republican amendment to their health care bill allows states to opt out of Obamacare's essential requirements.

But it doesn't apply to Congress.
They are exempted.

Just to refresh your memory, here's the list of essential benefits:
  1. Ambulatory patient services.
  2. Emergency services.
  3. Hospitalization.
  4. Maternity and newborn care.
  5. Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
  6. Prescription drugs.
  7. Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
  8. Laboratory services.
  9. Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management.
  10. Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
The state of Wisconsin, for example, could choose to approve plans that don't include doctor visits (#1), hospitalization (#3), or prescription drugs (#6). House Republicans apparently think that's just fine.

But for themselves, their plans will include every single benefit on that list.
I'm not normally too bothered by political hypocrisy, but this really jumps the shark.

Back in 2009, Republicans gleefully proposed an amendment to Obamacare that would make it apply to Congress.
They apparently figured that this would show up Democrats who didn't want to eat their own dog food.

But no: Democrats were perfectly willing to be covered by their own law.
They shrugged, voted for the amendment, and Republicans were then stuck using Obamacare for their insurance.

But now that they're in charge, Republicans are dead set on not eating their dog food.
And who can blame them?

Their dog food sucks.

This really ought to drive home just how horrible the Republican health care plan is.
And maybe it will.

Finally.
 
Don’t be fooled by the language of the GOP in Congress as they try to destroy our healthcare.
High risk pools?
Estimated to cost the average person in one about $25,000+ per year...if you can’t afford it - too fucking bad.
Pre-existing conditions?
I though those were not going to be touched?
This is one of the promises Trump made...once again, turns out to not be true.
1 in every 2 Americans.
About half of all workplace supplied healthcare....have a pre-existing condition.
This will potentially move those Americans into high risk insurance pools...which are unaffordable and defeat the purpose of having insurance at all.
You Son or Daughter have asthma? Pre-existing condition.
Born diabetic - pre-existing.
I’ve seen people group in that group for having had a urinary tract infection.
Not only that...but it gives them the ability to place limits on the total amount of care people in the HRP receive...so if you are getting treatment for cancer and your lifetime limit runs out....too bad...I guess you just die...because the majority of people have no way in hell to pay for those drugs and treatment out of pocket.
All while still kicking 24 million off insurance, while the rich...like Trump, who will receive a $2 million dollar subsidy from this “healthcare” plan.
8 million + children.
It’s very easy to e-mail your Representatives in Congress and your state.
Let them know that it isn’t not okay to screw over and gouge half of America.
I’m so sick and tired of people trying to fuck over those who are the most vulnerable.
And you Christians who supported Trump - what would Jesus do?
Would he be happy about this?
Doubtful.


Find your Representative - http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
 
Last edited:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skarekrow