-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?
- Thread starter SacredBreh
- Start date
- Status
SacredBreh
Member
^^^^^^ They call them Bio-Ethics Committes...... really. Homeless no family/friends to make the decision pull the tube.
Peace
Peace
Great video
lol.
if you post too much factual information with references to back it up it makes the orderlies head hurt....
i wonder if these gub healthcare supporters realize what will happen when their doc reports their use of a schedule one narcotic to the overseer?
i guess they think that wont matter?
they convince themselves the gub wont care if they use a drug with no medicinal value?
but most likely denial of care or mandatory counseling will be the result of testing positive for marijuana...
http://www.dailypaul.com/223153/texas-starts-tuesday-3-27-hays-county
Texas Starts Today (3-27) Hays County
You must be a registered voter. We had a strong turnout in '08.
Hays County Precinct Convention Locations
Precinct Conventions will be held according to 2010 Voting Precincts (pre-redistricting boundaries). Anyone who wishes to affiliate with the Republican Party may attend.
Precinct Conventions will be on March 27, 2012 beginning at 7:00 PM at the following locations:
Precincts 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 120 and 127:
Goodnight Middle School
1301 N. State Highway 123
San Marcos, TX 78666
Precincts 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 and 234:
Hays Hills Baptist Church
1401 N. FM 1626
Buda, TX 78610
Precincts 315, 330, 331, 332, 334 and 336:
First Lutheran Church
1301 W. Holland Street
San Marcos, TX 78666
Precincts 333 and 335:
7A Ranch
333 Wayside Drive
Wimberley, TX 78676
Precinct 337:
Woodcreek POA
109 Woodacre Drive
Wimberley, TX 78676
Precinct 440, 441 and 449:
Church of the Springs
230 Sports Park Road
Dripping Springs, TX 78620
Precinct 442 and 448:
Driftwood Community Center – behind the Methodist Church
15090 FM 150 West (FM150 @ Elder Hill Road)
Driftwood, TX 78619
Precinct 443 and 444:
Sunset Canyon Baptist Church
4000 East Hwy 290
Dripping Springs, TX 78620
Precinct 446 and 447:
South Hays Fire Department/Hilliard Road
3300 Hilliard Road
San Marcos, TX 78666
http://haysgop.org/
Texas Starts Today (3-27) Hays County
You must be a registered voter. We had a strong turnout in '08.
Hays County Precinct Convention Locations
Precinct Conventions will be held according to 2010 Voting Precincts (pre-redistricting boundaries). Anyone who wishes to affiliate with the Republican Party may attend.
Precinct Conventions will be on March 27, 2012 beginning at 7:00 PM at the following locations:
Precincts 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 120 and 127:
Goodnight Middle School
1301 N. State Highway 123
San Marcos, TX 78666
Precincts 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 and 234:
Hays Hills Baptist Church
1401 N. FM 1626
Buda, TX 78610
Precincts 315, 330, 331, 332, 334 and 336:
First Lutheran Church
1301 W. Holland Street
San Marcos, TX 78666
Precincts 333 and 335:
7A Ranch
333 Wayside Drive
Wimberley, TX 78676
Precinct 337:
Woodcreek POA
109 Woodacre Drive
Wimberley, TX 78676
Precinct 440, 441 and 449:
Church of the Springs
230 Sports Park Road
Dripping Springs, TX 78620
Precinct 442 and 448:
Driftwood Community Center – behind the Methodist Church
15090 FM 150 West (FM150 @ Elder Hill Road)
Driftwood, TX 78619
Precinct 443 and 444:
Sunset Canyon Baptist Church
4000 East Hwy 290
Dripping Springs, TX 78620
Precinct 446 and 447:
South Hays Fire Department/Hilliard Road
3300 Hilliard Road
San Marcos, TX 78666
http://haysgop.org/
SacredBreh
Member
Wow! bentom..... that was absolutely painful......... like a good work out should be. The video is what I am referring to. I need to medicate, I think I may have torn some dendrites or axons. LMAO.... Seriously though, that lecture really put it all together for me. Some great stuff and truly appreciated.
Dagnabit-- you owe me a keyboard! You and Creosote have made me spit pop a few times.
Great input guys and gals. Who would have ever thought a bunch of "enlightened" people that partake of the Sacredherb would be sitting around talking about shit like this. I think them damn scientist the government pays off to say the medicine is getting stronger are right! We just use to sit there by the river and say, "What do you want to do? I don't know....what do you want to do?...... I don't know; lets smoke another bowl." "EEeeerrr take this."
Peace
Dagnabit-- you owe me a keyboard! You and Creosote have made me spit pop a few times.
Great input guys and gals. Who would have ever thought a bunch of "enlightened" people that partake of the Sacredherb would be sitting around talking about shit like this. I think them damn scientist the government pays off to say the medicine is getting stronger are right! We just use to sit there by the river and say, "What do you want to do? I don't know....what do you want to do?...... I don't know; lets smoke another bowl." "EEeeerrr take this."
Peace
I hope you guys aren't really buying the line that health costs are so high only because of the unhealthy running up costs, or people in govt programs. 150 or so pages ago I posted an article quoting health insurance companies justifying out of control rises in cost because they think the economy will pick up and people will think they can afford it. Greed as a defense, admitted. Can't find the article yet, but will keep looking. This nytimes article mentions that justification.
" Health Insurance Costs Rising Sharply This Year, Study Shows
By REED ABELSON Published: September 27, 2011
The cost of health insurance for many Americans this year climbed more sharply than in previous years, outstripping any growth in workers’ wages and adding more uncertainty about the pace of rising medical costs.
A new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group that tracks employer-sponsored health insurance on a yearly basis, shows that the average annual premium for family coverage through an employer reached $15,073 in 2011, an increase of 9 percent over the previous year.
“The open question is whether that’s a one-time spike or the start of a period of higher increases,” said Drew Altman, the chief executive of the Kaiser foundation.
The steep increase in rates is particularly unwelcome at a time when the economy is still sputtering and unemployment continues to hover at about 9 percent. Many businesses cite the high cost of coverage as a factor in their decision not to hire, and health insurance has become increasingly unaffordable for more Americans. Over all, the cost of family coverage has about doubled since 2001, when premiums averaged $7,061, compared with a 34 percent gain in wages over the same period.
How much the new federal health care law pushed by President Obama is affecting insurance rates remains a point of debate, with some analysts suggesting that insurers have raised prices in anticipation of new rules that would, in 2012, require them to justify any increase of more than 10 percent.
In addition to increases caused by insurers getting ahead of potential costs, some of the law’s provisions that are already in effect -- like coverage for adult children up to 26 years of age and prevention services like mammogram screening -- have contributed to higher expenses for some employers.
The Kaiser survey includes both big and small companies using employer-sponsored coverage representing about 60 percent of all insured Americans of working age. The annual growth in premiums, according to the survey, had slowed in recent years to 5 percent, rising just 3 percent in 2010, in part due to the lingering effects of the recession. After years of double-digit increases, the moderation was a welcome relief.
The unexpected increase in premiums raises questions about whether health care costs are, in fact, stabilizing at all, as people have postponed going to the doctor or dentist and have put off expensive procedures. “No one quite knows,” said Mr. Altman.
Throughout this year, major health insurers have defended higher premiums —and higher profits — saying that their expenses would rise once the economy recovered and people believed they could again afford medical care. ]The struggling economy will probably keep suppressing demand for medical care, particularly as people pay a larger share of their own medical bills through higher deductibles and co-payments, according to benefits consultants and others. About three-quarters of workers now pay part of the bill when they go see a doctor, and nearly a third have a deductible of at least $1,000 if they have single coverage, up from just one in 10 in 2006, according Kaiser.
Although demand for care appears to be growing relatively slowly, insurers and benefit consultants also say prices for medical care continue to climb as prescription drug makers and hospitals charge more. “If they’re a popular brand or anchor hospital, they’re going to negotiate a significant increase if they can,” said Edward A. Kaplan, a benefits expert with the Segal Company, which recently surveyed insurers about medical costs.
The question for employers and insurers is whether the lackluster economy, as well as recent efforts by employer and insurers to better manage the medical care of workers, will keep premiums increasing at a more moderate level. Early responses to a survey by Mercer, a consulting firm, suggest employers are expecting the cost of providing health benefits to go up about 5 percent next year, according to Beth Umland, Mercer’s director of research for health and benefits. These companies may be factoring in the more pessimistic view of the economy, she said, where any recovery seems further off than it did a few months ago.
Employers are reporting that their workers are using less medical care, said Ms. Umland, but they and insurers have been slow to estimate costs that reflect the lower demand. “It always takes a while for underwriting to catch up with reality,” she said.
Some small business say they expect their premiums to moderate, but only because of changes in their work force — partly caused by younger, healthier employees — that make it less likely that the companies will incur high medical claims. “Up until last year, we saw very hefty increases -- double digits,” said Heather Gombos, an executive for R. M. Jones & Company and affiliated businesses in New Britain, Conn. , a group that insures about 50 of its 80 employees.
Family coverage is now running $12,000 a year, Ms. Gombos said, and she is waiting to see what rate increases her insurer proposes for the coming year. She thinks premiums will not rise as sharply in 2012. “What it comes down to is we’ve had some good luck,” she said.
Some businesses say they anticipate relief from higher costs in the coming year for a variety of reasons. At Ogilvy & Mather, the New York advertising firm, the company believes its efforts to encourage wellness and better oversee its employees’ health through an on-site medical clinic are paying off. "We are not anticipating any cost increase for employer and employee," said Gerri Stone, the senior partner who oversees the firm’s benefits strategy.
Ms. Stone acknowledged that the firm’s 3,600 employees were relatively young and healthy, helping it avoid some of the sharp increases experienced by other businesses. "We’ve never gone into the double digits," she said. Family coverage runs about $16,000 a year, she said.
Insurers and benefits consultants say, however, it is difficult to predict whether health care demand will again take off when the economy rebounds or whether some other factor is at play. "We’ve seen a moderation in the increase in health services, particularly in discretionary services," said Tom Richards, an executive with Cigna. While he attributes some of the moderation to the poor economy, he says the increase in cost-sharing by employees and programs that more closely monitor their health could be having a more permanent impact.
The question, he said, is "what is the economy going to be and what is the new normal."
Obama administration officials argue that new regulations are forcing insurers to be more circumspect about raising rates. Insurers seeking to raise premiums next year by more than the 10 percent maximum will have to publicly justify their rate increases, and the new law requires the companies to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical care. If they end up taking too much in premiums, they will have to refund the money to consumers.
But employers and others say much more still needs to be done to control overall costs, especially when workers’ wages are essentially flat. Of the $15,073 in average premiums paid for family coverage, Kaiser found that employees paid $4,129 towards the cost, in addition to whatever out-of-pocket costs they shouldered.
“We’re going to continue to have this yawning gap,” said Helen Darling, the chief executive of the National Business Group on Health, which represents employers that provide health coverage to their workers. Health care costs continue to climb much faster than overall inflation, she noted.
“The health economy acts as if it’s a boom economy,” she said." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/b...his-year-study-shows.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
" Health Insurance Costs Rising Sharply This Year, Study Shows
By REED ABELSON Published: September 27, 2011
The cost of health insurance for many Americans this year climbed more sharply than in previous years, outstripping any growth in workers’ wages and adding more uncertainty about the pace of rising medical costs.
A new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group that tracks employer-sponsored health insurance on a yearly basis, shows that the average annual premium for family coverage through an employer reached $15,073 in 2011, an increase of 9 percent over the previous year.
“The open question is whether that’s a one-time spike or the start of a period of higher increases,” said Drew Altman, the chief executive of the Kaiser foundation.
The steep increase in rates is particularly unwelcome at a time when the economy is still sputtering and unemployment continues to hover at about 9 percent. Many businesses cite the high cost of coverage as a factor in their decision not to hire, and health insurance has become increasingly unaffordable for more Americans. Over all, the cost of family coverage has about doubled since 2001, when premiums averaged $7,061, compared with a 34 percent gain in wages over the same period.
How much the new federal health care law pushed by President Obama is affecting insurance rates remains a point of debate, with some analysts suggesting that insurers have raised prices in anticipation of new rules that would, in 2012, require them to justify any increase of more than 10 percent.
In addition to increases caused by insurers getting ahead of potential costs, some of the law’s provisions that are already in effect -- like coverage for adult children up to 26 years of age and prevention services like mammogram screening -- have contributed to higher expenses for some employers.
The Kaiser survey includes both big and small companies using employer-sponsored coverage representing about 60 percent of all insured Americans of working age. The annual growth in premiums, according to the survey, had slowed in recent years to 5 percent, rising just 3 percent in 2010, in part due to the lingering effects of the recession. After years of double-digit increases, the moderation was a welcome relief.
The unexpected increase in premiums raises questions about whether health care costs are, in fact, stabilizing at all, as people have postponed going to the doctor or dentist and have put off expensive procedures. “No one quite knows,” said Mr. Altman.
Throughout this year, major health insurers have defended higher premiums —and higher profits — saying that their expenses would rise once the economy recovered and people believed they could again afford medical care. ]The struggling economy will probably keep suppressing demand for medical care, particularly as people pay a larger share of their own medical bills through higher deductibles and co-payments, according to benefits consultants and others. About three-quarters of workers now pay part of the bill when they go see a doctor, and nearly a third have a deductible of at least $1,000 if they have single coverage, up from just one in 10 in 2006, according Kaiser.
Although demand for care appears to be growing relatively slowly, insurers and benefit consultants also say prices for medical care continue to climb as prescription drug makers and hospitals charge more. “If they’re a popular brand or anchor hospital, they’re going to negotiate a significant increase if they can,” said Edward A. Kaplan, a benefits expert with the Segal Company, which recently surveyed insurers about medical costs.
The question for employers and insurers is whether the lackluster economy, as well as recent efforts by employer and insurers to better manage the medical care of workers, will keep premiums increasing at a more moderate level. Early responses to a survey by Mercer, a consulting firm, suggest employers are expecting the cost of providing health benefits to go up about 5 percent next year, according to Beth Umland, Mercer’s director of research for health and benefits. These companies may be factoring in the more pessimistic view of the economy, she said, where any recovery seems further off than it did a few months ago.
Employers are reporting that their workers are using less medical care, said Ms. Umland, but they and insurers have been slow to estimate costs that reflect the lower demand. “It always takes a while for underwriting to catch up with reality,” she said.
Some small business say they expect their premiums to moderate, but only because of changes in their work force — partly caused by younger, healthier employees — that make it less likely that the companies will incur high medical claims. “Up until last year, we saw very hefty increases -- double digits,” said Heather Gombos, an executive for R. M. Jones & Company and affiliated businesses in New Britain, Conn. , a group that insures about 50 of its 80 employees.
Family coverage is now running $12,000 a year, Ms. Gombos said, and she is waiting to see what rate increases her insurer proposes for the coming year. She thinks premiums will not rise as sharply in 2012. “What it comes down to is we’ve had some good luck,” she said.
Some businesses say they anticipate relief from higher costs in the coming year for a variety of reasons. At Ogilvy & Mather, the New York advertising firm, the company believes its efforts to encourage wellness and better oversee its employees’ health through an on-site medical clinic are paying off. "We are not anticipating any cost increase for employer and employee," said Gerri Stone, the senior partner who oversees the firm’s benefits strategy.
Ms. Stone acknowledged that the firm’s 3,600 employees were relatively young and healthy, helping it avoid some of the sharp increases experienced by other businesses. "We’ve never gone into the double digits," she said. Family coverage runs about $16,000 a year, she said.
Insurers and benefits consultants say, however, it is difficult to predict whether health care demand will again take off when the economy rebounds or whether some other factor is at play. "We’ve seen a moderation in the increase in health services, particularly in discretionary services," said Tom Richards, an executive with Cigna. While he attributes some of the moderation to the poor economy, he says the increase in cost-sharing by employees and programs that more closely monitor their health could be having a more permanent impact.
The question, he said, is "what is the economy going to be and what is the new normal."
Obama administration officials argue that new regulations are forcing insurers to be more circumspect about raising rates. Insurers seeking to raise premiums next year by more than the 10 percent maximum will have to publicly justify their rate increases, and the new law requires the companies to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical care. If they end up taking too much in premiums, they will have to refund the money to consumers.
But employers and others say much more still needs to be done to control overall costs, especially when workers’ wages are essentially flat. Of the $15,073 in average premiums paid for family coverage, Kaiser found that employees paid $4,129 towards the cost, in addition to whatever out-of-pocket costs they shouldered.
“We’re going to continue to have this yawning gap,” said Helen Darling, the chief executive of the National Business Group on Health, which represents employers that provide health coverage to their workers. Health care costs continue to climb much faster than overall inflation, she noted.
“The health economy acts as if it’s a boom economy,” she said." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/b...his-year-study-shows.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Government mandated healthcare is most definitely tyranny. Especially when the enormous pharmaceutical lobby dominates the government. As for anyone who thinks ocare will lower costs, heres the guru behind it coming clean
"obamacare architect: expect steep increase
Medical insurance premiums in the United States are on the rise, the chief architect of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul has told The Daily Caller.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber, who also devised former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s statewide health care reforms, is backtracking on an analysis he provided the White House in support of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, informing officials in three states that the price of insurance premiums will dramatically increase under the reforms.
In an email to The Daily Caller, Gruber framed this new reality in terms of the same human self-interest that some conservatives had warned in 2010 would ultimately rule the marketplace.
“The market was so discriminatory,” Gruber told TheDC, “that only the healthy bought non-group insurance and the sick just stayed [uninsured].”
“It is true that even after tax credits some individuals are ‘losers,’” he conceded, “in that they pay more than before [Obama's] reform.”
Gruber, whom the Obama administration hired to provide an independent analysis of reforms, was widely criticized for failing to disclose the conflict of interest created by $392,600 in no-bid contracts the Department of Health and Human Services awarded him while he was advising the president’s policy advisers.
Gruber also received $566,310 during 2008 and 2009 from the National Institutes of Health to conduct a study on the Medicare Part D plan. (RELATED: Full coverage of the health reform law)
In 2011, officials in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado ordered reports from Gruber which offer a drastically different portrait in 2012 from the one Obama painted just 17 months ago.
“As a consequence of the Affordable Care Act,” the president said in September 2010, ”premiums are going to be lower than they would be otherwise; health care costs overall are going to be lower than they would be otherwise.”
Gruber’s new reports are in direct contrast Obama’s words — and with claims Gruber himself made in 2009. Then, the economics professor said that based on figures provided by the independent Congressional Budget Office, “[health care] reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums.”
During his presentation to Wisconsin officials in August 2011, Gruber revealed that while about 57 percent of those who get their insurance through the individual market will benefit in one way or another from the law’s subsides, an even larger majority of the individual market will end up paying drastically more overall.
“After the application of tax subsidies, 59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent,” Gruber reported.
The reason for this is that an estimated 40 percent of Wisconsin residents who are covered by individual market insurance don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage requirements. Under the Affordable Care Act, they will be required to purchase more expensive plans.
Asked for his own explanation for the expected health-insurance rate hikes, Gruber told TheDC that his reports “reflect the high cost of folding state high risk pools into the [federal government's] exchange — without using the money the state was already spending to subsidize those high risk pools.”
Gruber’s Wisconsin presentation, previously available on the website of Wisconsin’s Office of Free Market Health Care, disappeared from the state government’s Web servers shortly after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker issued a Jan. 18 executive order scrapping the agency’s mission
"obamacare architect: expect steep increase
Medical insurance premiums in the United States are on the rise, the chief architect of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul has told The Daily Caller.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber, who also devised former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s statewide health care reforms, is backtracking on an analysis he provided the White House in support of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, informing officials in three states that the price of insurance premiums will dramatically increase under the reforms.
In an email to The Daily Caller, Gruber framed this new reality in terms of the same human self-interest that some conservatives had warned in 2010 would ultimately rule the marketplace.
“The market was so discriminatory,” Gruber told TheDC, “that only the healthy bought non-group insurance and the sick just stayed [uninsured].”
“It is true that even after tax credits some individuals are ‘losers,’” he conceded, “in that they pay more than before [Obama's] reform.”
Gruber, whom the Obama administration hired to provide an independent analysis of reforms, was widely criticized for failing to disclose the conflict of interest created by $392,600 in no-bid contracts the Department of Health and Human Services awarded him while he was advising the president’s policy advisers.
Gruber also received $566,310 during 2008 and 2009 from the National Institutes of Health to conduct a study on the Medicare Part D plan. (RELATED: Full coverage of the health reform law)
In 2011, officials in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado ordered reports from Gruber which offer a drastically different portrait in 2012 from the one Obama painted just 17 months ago.
“As a consequence of the Affordable Care Act,” the president said in September 2010, ”premiums are going to be lower than they would be otherwise; health care costs overall are going to be lower than they would be otherwise.”
Gruber’s new reports are in direct contrast Obama’s words — and with claims Gruber himself made in 2009. Then, the economics professor said that based on figures provided by the independent Congressional Budget Office, “[health care] reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums.”
During his presentation to Wisconsin officials in August 2011, Gruber revealed that while about 57 percent of those who get their insurance through the individual market will benefit in one way or another from the law’s subsides, an even larger majority of the individual market will end up paying drastically more overall.
“After the application of tax subsidies, 59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent,” Gruber reported.
The reason for this is that an estimated 40 percent of Wisconsin residents who are covered by individual market insurance don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage requirements. Under the Affordable Care Act, they will be required to purchase more expensive plans.
Asked for his own explanation for the expected health-insurance rate hikes, Gruber told TheDC that his reports “reflect the high cost of folding state high risk pools into the [federal government's] exchange — without using the money the state was already spending to subsidize those high risk pools.”
Gruber’s Wisconsin presentation, previously available on the website of Wisconsin’s Office of Free Market Health Care, disappeared from the state government’s Web servers shortly after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker issued a Jan. 18 executive order scrapping the agency’s mission
This will happen. Most definately
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxB6fwgRVkQ&feature=related
This Larry King interview... with Ron Paul supposedly never aired.
This Larry King interview... with Ron Paul supposedly never aired.
Link for above article http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/11/obamacare-architect-expect-steep-increase-in-health-care-premiums/
Also, our lovely country is the only one where it is mandated by congress that we can't negotiate for lower rates on drugs. Awesome.
And then we have idiots like this running against ron paul.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...defends-drug-companies-in-health-care-speech/
1 Santorum defendsdrug companies in health care speech
Posted at 7:37 pm by: CNN's Adam Aigner-Treworgy Categories: 2012, Rick Santorum
Woodland Park, Colorado (CNN) – In what his campaign billed as a “major speech on health care,” Rick Santorum found himself Wednesday defending a profit-driven health care system to a woman who said her son requires expensive medication to stay alive.
The former Pennsylvania senator also detailed the deficiencies he sees in his rivals’ health insurance records.
Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
One of the feistiest exchanges came in response to a young child’s question on the cost of medical care in America. Urged on by his mother, a boy asked what Santorum would do to lower medical costs, but before he could finish his question, the candidate said such things should be left up to the market.
“We can make medicine cheaper by using markets,” Santorum said. “That’s how you make medicine cheaper is that you have free people going out there and competing against each other and competition drives up quality and drives down costs.”
As Santorum was outlining his small-government, free-market approach to rising health care costs, another woman chimed in that she can no longer afford medication she desperately needs because the cost has become so exorbitant.
“The only reason new drugs are developed is because Americans actually do pay for the cost of that research,” Santorum said. “And so when you say oh, I’ll go and get my drugs in Canada, that’s great. Go get your drugs in Canada and if everybody did that, you’d have no new drugs. You have that drug and maybe you’re alive today because people have a profit motive to make that drug.”
Using a somewhat confusing metaphor, Santorum tried to explain the need for a profit motive by comparing health care consumption to technology consumption.
“People have no problem going out and buying an iPad for $900,” he said. “But paying $900 for a drug, they have a problem with it. It keeps you alive. Why? Because you have been conditioned to thinking that health care is something that you should get and not have to pay for. Drug companies, health care companies need to have a profit motive, because if they don’t, then how are we going to regulate costs? We are gonna ration care.”
The mother of the original questioner tried once more to plead her case, explaining that she’s paid $1.3 million a year to keep her son alive, and while she’s willing to go bankrupt for her child, it pains her to see his friends die in the hospital because their parents cannot afford the treatment.
Finding himself in the unenviable position of defending oft-derided drug companies, Santorum stuck to his guns.
“He’s alive today because drug companies thought that they would make money in providing that care and if the drug company didn’t think they could make any money by providing that care, I hate to put it in these terms, but that drug wouldn’t be here,” he said, adding that he sympathized with the mother, “we either believe in markets or we don’t.”
Asked by a reporter after the event about what alternatives people in such tough circumstances have, Santorum suggested that charity was a better option than government intervention.
“Even in the tough cases, even at the ones that pull at your heart strings, we’ve got to believe in people and markets and churches and families and charity instead of government, and that’s what I believe” he said.
Earlier in his remarks, while highlighting the similarities between the health care plan Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts and the controversial plan passed by President Obama, Santorum came out against the widely-popular provision that requires insurance companies to offer plans regardless of preexisting conditions.
“I have family members who have preexisting conditions, and I’m not for preexisting condition clauses,” Santorum said.
To justify his position, he described a hypothetical situation wherein healthy Massachusetts residents opt not to buy insurance, instead paying a fine. Then when they get sick, they purchase insurance, immediately dropping it again once they get better.
“What happens to the cost of health insurance,” Santorum asked the crowd, many of whom answered that costs would rise. “There’s a reason for preexisting conditions clauses. You want people to get insurance, and if they don’t, then they shouldn’t be free riding on everybody else. That’s exactly what’s going to happen with Obamacare.”
Santorum said this similarity between “Obamacare” and “Romneycare” would mean that “Barack Obama, in a debate or in this election, is going to destroy Mitt Romney on the issue of health care.” Both plans are wrong, he argued, because both represent top-down management of an issue that should be left up to families.
Also, our lovely country is the only one where it is mandated by congress that we can't negotiate for lower rates on drugs. Awesome.
And then we have idiots like this running against ron paul.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...defends-drug-companies-in-health-care-speech/
1 Santorum defendsdrug companies in health care speech
Posted at 7:37 pm by: CNN's Adam Aigner-Treworgy Categories: 2012, Rick Santorum
Woodland Park, Colorado (CNN) – In what his campaign billed as a “major speech on health care,” Rick Santorum found himself Wednesday defending a profit-driven health care system to a woman who said her son requires expensive medication to stay alive.
The former Pennsylvania senator also detailed the deficiencies he sees in his rivals’ health insurance records.
Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
One of the feistiest exchanges came in response to a young child’s question on the cost of medical care in America. Urged on by his mother, a boy asked what Santorum would do to lower medical costs, but before he could finish his question, the candidate said such things should be left up to the market.
“We can make medicine cheaper by using markets,” Santorum said. “That’s how you make medicine cheaper is that you have free people going out there and competing against each other and competition drives up quality and drives down costs.”
As Santorum was outlining his small-government, free-market approach to rising health care costs, another woman chimed in that she can no longer afford medication she desperately needs because the cost has become so exorbitant.
“The only reason new drugs are developed is because Americans actually do pay for the cost of that research,” Santorum said. “And so when you say oh, I’ll go and get my drugs in Canada, that’s great. Go get your drugs in Canada and if everybody did that, you’d have no new drugs. You have that drug and maybe you’re alive today because people have a profit motive to make that drug.”
Using a somewhat confusing metaphor, Santorum tried to explain the need for a profit motive by comparing health care consumption to technology consumption.
“People have no problem going out and buying an iPad for $900,” he said. “But paying $900 for a drug, they have a problem with it. It keeps you alive. Why? Because you have been conditioned to thinking that health care is something that you should get and not have to pay for. Drug companies, health care companies need to have a profit motive, because if they don’t, then how are we going to regulate costs? We are gonna ration care.”
The mother of the original questioner tried once more to plead her case, explaining that she’s paid $1.3 million a year to keep her son alive, and while she’s willing to go bankrupt for her child, it pains her to see his friends die in the hospital because their parents cannot afford the treatment.
Finding himself in the unenviable position of defending oft-derided drug companies, Santorum stuck to his guns.
“He’s alive today because drug companies thought that they would make money in providing that care and if the drug company didn’t think they could make any money by providing that care, I hate to put it in these terms, but that drug wouldn’t be here,” he said, adding that he sympathized with the mother, “we either believe in markets or we don’t.”
Asked by a reporter after the event about what alternatives people in such tough circumstances have, Santorum suggested that charity was a better option than government intervention.
“Even in the tough cases, even at the ones that pull at your heart strings, we’ve got to believe in people and markets and churches and families and charity instead of government, and that’s what I believe” he said.
Earlier in his remarks, while highlighting the similarities between the health care plan Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts and the controversial plan passed by President Obama, Santorum came out against the widely-popular provision that requires insurance companies to offer plans regardless of preexisting conditions.
“I have family members who have preexisting conditions, and I’m not for preexisting condition clauses,” Santorum said.
To justify his position, he described a hypothetical situation wherein healthy Massachusetts residents opt not to buy insurance, instead paying a fine. Then when they get sick, they purchase insurance, immediately dropping it again once they get better.
“What happens to the cost of health insurance,” Santorum asked the crowd, many of whom answered that costs would rise. “There’s a reason for preexisting conditions clauses. You want people to get insurance, and if they don’t, then they shouldn’t be free riding on everybody else. That’s exactly what’s going to happen with Obamacare.”
Santorum said this similarity between “Obamacare” and “Romneycare” would mean that “Barack Obama, in a debate or in this election, is going to destroy Mitt Romney on the issue of health care.” Both plans are wrong, he argued, because both represent top-down management of an issue that should be left up to families.
bush was evil, but incompetent. I certainly can't say the latter about obama, hes damn near brilliant.
He figured out how to win the drug war. Demand everyone sign up or go to jail, round up all the druggies and force them into rehab.
Oh yeah and if you don't sign up, we will have 30,000 drones, and insane privacy invasion to track you down. we already used a 1.2 million drone to find 6 thousand dollars in cows, what makes you think they won't want your 15,000 in medical payments?
Think the supreme court will help? Doubtful as the next prez mayaaappoint
SacredBreh
Member
Too many middle men that add nothing and take out alot.
Too many middle men that add nothing and take out alot.
Too many middle men that add nothing and take out alot.
SacredBreh
Member
^^^^ absolutely and Unconstitutional..... more armed robbery! Dr. Paul the only choice on so many levels!
Peace
Peace
Ron Paul 3-26-12 Piers Morgan Interview Obamacare Dropping Out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOoL7vJAu48
Ron Paul hammers this chump that obviously backs an AGENDA....21 too I bet...Ron hammered him and actually get rude to him, as rude as Ron Paul will get anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOoL7vJAu48
Ron Paul hammers this chump that obviously backs an AGENDA....21 too I bet...Ron hammered him and actually get rude to him, as rude as Ron Paul will get anyway.
Ron Paul makes so many good points
A. we cant afford healthcare like Switzerland because we have so many wars and world police actions going on.|
B. Redistribution of wealth through force and mandate goes against freedom.
C. The G.O.P. expanded government as much as the democrats.
D. there is way to many middle men in healthcare driving up the price.
E. Ron Paul is not giving up. He is staying in the race. Keeping the debate going.
This one is good too. pwnage.
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsSq0ilvbyk&feature=related
Voter Fraud Against Ron Paul Caught On Camera (3-26-12)
Holy Shit. that's fucked up
Voter Fraud Against Ron Paul Caught On Camera (3-26-12)
Holy Shit. that's fucked up
- Status
