Intellectual property has no single owner once it has been released for public consumption.
The pharmaceuticals do have to have a way of recovering research and development costs, or there won't be any research and development. The current system is to give them a temporary monopoly on what they've developed.
As a result, R and D continues, but more money is spent on advertising than on R and D. Another result is that some non generic prescriptions are so expensive that most people can't afford them without insurance, and the insurance companies can't afford them without charging rather large premiums.
Is there a better way, I wonder, one that pays for R and D, but not TV ad campaigns?
Maybe TV advertising of prescription drugs could go the way of TV advertising of tobacco products.
We're paying for it before reform. We pay in insurance premiums, higher costs, passed on by those who use services and don't pay, a society that believes more is better (more tests, more procedures, more drugs) no matter what the actual fact of the matter is. Our present system without reform encourages excess in every way. How do you suppose we pay for that?
Fact is, more reform, something a kind to a universal payer (which has not even ever been proposed), would allow some ability to measure and control cost, being more cost effective than the ad hock mess we currently have.
Just because you're not paying with tax dollars doesn't mean you aren't paying for it and for others. You pay for those uninsured and unable to pay right now, without a single tax increase or one attached to health care reform.
You didn't address my question. I asked how we are going to pay for the new health care reform bill that was signed into law.
You say we are paying for it now, what department is in charge of moving the funds we are paying now over to pay for the new ones? :roll:
That's the problem. Right now we have no way to control the cost, we've been charged for others with no way to monitor it or control it in anyway. It is done completely ad hoc with no real control at all, meaning we likely pay more than it actually costs.
Supposition.
This bill will likely lower or reduce the growth of those costs, being more cost effective over all. At a minimum, we should be able to see more of where the money is going, giving us more control. But it won't be as effective as a true universal payer system would be.
The health care systems in Mass. and Hawaii where this has been tried do not support your claim that this will lower costs.
What we have now is a compromise effort that won't pay for anything as well as it could, but will likely be less expensive than doing nothing.
Paying for health care that we currently have and paying taxes to fund this new law in not less expensive than doing nothing.
The answer to your question is that we are shifting cost and not increasing cost. And if it works, it will lower both costs and premiums, thus saving money in the long run.
I don't think this goes far enough to do so in a major way, but it is a start and better than doing nothing. But either way, no matter we do, we pay for it. Just as we have been paying for it all along.
In specific, just how are the costs going to shift?, I see new taxes and I see continued current costs. Put the two together and you don't get the same or less money spent, you get more money spent.
Uninsured people will have insurance, reducing the need for hospitals to raise costs to cover them. At a minimum, this should reduce the need to jack up cost. And it might even encourage them to lower prices. There is something in the bill that allows hospitals and doctors to benefit from cost savings, which would also lower costs, thus saving us all money.
But even if it only stopped the excessive growth, that would be an improvement.
Paying for health insurance for 30-45 million people who don't pay for thier own does not give me warm fuzzies BTW
You aren't going to be paying for health insurance for 30-45 million people. :roll:
Are you saying that my current health care costs will go down enough to offset the costs of this new law. because uninsured people will now be insured?
Why then are we paying taxes on this new law for 4 years before this happens, I am still paying for my existing insurance and I am paying for this new insurance as well.
Paying for health insurance for 30-45 million people who don't pay for thier own does not give me warm fuzzies BTW
You aren't going to be paying for health insurance for 30-45 million people. :roll:
If you read the bill, you will you would think otherwise.
Score 10 points for politicians duping the commoners again.
That's true, and his non response doesn't help him actually address your point either. Many will pick up their own insurance, paying for it themselves.
You and Misterman would do well to actually read the bill before you embarrass yourselves further. Taxpayers will be picking up all or some of the premium costs for people earning up to $88,000. per year.
30-45 million people ?? Who knows... the numbers have changed constantly since this debacle was first introduced.
No, the tooth fairy is going to pay for all the uninsured to join those who pay for thier own insurance.:doh
Where do you think the money is going to come from?
Another myth.Why then are we paying taxes on this new law for 4 years before this happens, I am still paying for my existing insurance and I am paying for this new insurance as well.
Some of the benefits that will be introduced within the first year:
Small business tax credits
Coverage for those with pre-existing conditions
Assistance for early retirees
Dependent coverage to age 26
No more rescissions
Enhanced preventive care
Some of the major tax changes will be delayed by a few years:
Medical device taxes (2013)
Taxes to benefit Medicare Part A (2013)
Insurance sector fees (2014)
Mandated coverage (penalty to start low in 2014 and then phase in through 2016)
"Cadillac tax" (2018)
10 percent of the total is raised in the first four years
PolitiFact | Tiahrt: Health care bill will collect 10 years of taxes for six years of services
What money? Not all 30-45 million people will need or qualify for subsidies. That's the point.
Another myth.
I've read a good amount of it. Perhaps you should read more of it and less of the fear mongering.
What specific tax, relating to this bill, are you currently paying?I am still paying taxes for this pig of a law and my current health care premiums.
The money to pay for this new law. Or are you telling me that it is self sufficient?
Are all the Rupub senators wrong? Is the CBO wrong? Paul Ryan?
Maybe you know something that the rest of America does'nt?
You need to read some more of it. Obviously, you don't know that a large number of people will get subsidies from taxpayers to pay for this pig.
How many? How much will they get?
How many?? No one knows the exact number. How many families in the U.S. with four members makes $88,000. or less?? That's how many.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?