SCOTUS and Affordable Care Act

You know, Ron Ron hit it on the spot here. FREE MARKET MEDICINE.

Let's eliminate the patent act that gives brand a seven year monopoly and let FREE MARKET MEDICINE and generics take over FROM THE GET-GO.

who needs that much money for research? Jonah Salk came up with a vaccine against polio and distributed it for free, without a second thought. It's time (yay Randian invective time) for the leaches of capital, the parasites who feast on the ideas of greater men and women to be done their great free market justice, and watch prices fall from under their floor with beautiful free market competition. The head of marketing at Pfizer didn't develop atorvastatin.

Just because they made it "Lipitor" doesn't mean they contributed one bit to the advancement of humanity.

While we're at it, the FDA shouldn't exist, because, you know, bio-equivalence of generics to brand drugs, and all those other pesky bio-metrics aren't worth a lick. Sugar pills are the future! Paperwork slashed by 68%!

 

Roberts did limit the commerce clause in his decision (namely the Medicare provision), though I think he knew the **** would hit the fan if he did both and struck down the ACA.

He likely delayed a deeply bitter and violent partisan war for 10 years with his switch, the first time he's ever sided with the "liberal" court.

I felt like quoting this because it's way better than quoting elsewhere.

 

He didn't delay it. He just kept it from the USSC.

 

It's still in the USSC. It's already bitter, but violent? Faith in our government institutions is a tricky thing...

 

The FDA is actively promoting a monopoly in healthcare treatment in favor of the pharmaceutical establishment:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0zBBfN5mQa8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

No.
If you want to see a true government healthcare monopoly, be glad Obama didn't push for universal or single-payer.

 

More accurately...he did not delay it. He ensured it would happen. If Congress had to come up with a new idea, it would have had to be at least in some way bipartisan.

Now we get the pissing contest regarding whether the law is good policy for what it will cost.

 

Try watching that and then re-reading what I actually posted.

 

Two hour video? No thanks.
Unless someone cliffnotes it. Lol.

 

It's a story about a Houston [Sugar Land] Doctor [practicing medicine from late 70's to now] who discovers a new drug/treatment with a high success rate in the treatment of traditionally terminal cancers who is sued over and over again by different government entities while his patent rights are stollen right out from underneath him by a pharmaceutical giant. His treatment works so well that the cancer goes into remission to essentially never come back at astronomically higher rates ever seen. Traditional cancer therapy is essentially a five year death sentence with extremely high costs to insurance companies with extremely low success rates of remission. Cancer has had many cures, this is one of them, but there is a vested interest by the established medical community to never really find or promote a cure. Much more profitable to keep treating illness vs eradicating it.

I dare ya, watch it and learn something not fed to you by the media establishment sponsored by the establish medical community for a change.

 

Public option was the road to single payer.

Individual mandate is a scary proposition.

Massive expansion of medicaid in a time of historic deficits.

Beyond that it is a collection of small initiatives that should have been done a while ago.

 

Too bad the GOP went crazy at the idea of a public option. It was certainly something Obama and the Democrats wanted.

Hopefully there is still a road to the Public Option.

 

The metal in my back? Don't worry about me. I have excellent insurance. Better that the majority of people here, in fact. My point was about a friend who was in the "high risk pool," which is a bull **** way to deny coverage to people in need, that in many cases are more than willing to pay a reasonable amount for health insurance, but can't get it because of pre-existing conditions. And it doesn't matter that with meds, they can live a normal, productive life, and have no need to go to a hospital for that pre-existing condition. They are denied coverage anyway. The Affordable Care Act will insure that those people get covered at a reasonable cost. Why anyone would be against that is a puzzle to me.

 

Right, so I was talking about Sweet Tard 4 2. IT was in response to Major, who was also talking about him.

 

OK, just so long as you don't think I'm an android.

 

I didn't before, but now...............

 

What a great thread this was!

And thanks to the Supreme Court more coverage for women start tomorrow!

Eight More Ways Women Will Benefit Under Obamacare Starting Tomorrow

When eight Obamacare regulations go into effect tomorrow, 47 million women will benefit from the guaranteed coverage of preventive services — including contraception coverage — without co-pays. The new rules will require most insurance plans to begin including the services at no additional cost at the next renewal date that falls on or after August 1, according to a news release from the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Center for American Progress graphic breaks down what will be covered and how women will benefit:

 

crickets!

This is what will be guaranteed to women starting tomorrow!

Women in every income bracket...

- can get annual wellness visits
- Screenings for gestational diabetes
- Screening for human Papilloma virus
- Screening for sexually transmitted infections
- Counseling for HIV
- Counseling for domestic violence
- Breastfeeding supplies and support
- Contraception methods and counseling

— all without co-pays or deductibles.

 

It's like it doesn't register in your brain that these things aren't free. If their insurance is forced to cover more mark, then who do you think foots that bill? nobody? ThinkProgress writes 'at no additional cost' and mark just eats it up. I guess doctors are volunteering these services.

 

So work to break Big Pharma interests in judicial and legislative environments in ways that don't involve threatening a regulatory agency that has ensured that the notion of safe food and medication is assumed in America.

The basis of the pharmaceutical industry is very susceptible to anti-trust law...probably the most powerful economic law there is out there.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/07/30/gvsc0730.htm