BF2S Forums Healthcare Reform 2017

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its funny that Uzique questions the occasional missile strike but not $6bn of 'aid' every single year.
I'm sure the US could use that money to solve the opioid crisis in about six months if they could be bothered.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Why look after your own citizens when you can pay for Israelis to study the Torah for life?

Dilbert_X wrote:

"Experts say the United States is in the throes of an opioid epidemic. In 2017, an estimated 1.7 million individuals in the United States suffered from substance use disorders related to prescription opioid pain relievers and 652,000 suffered from a heroin use disorder."
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/18/heal … index.html

So thats $3529 per prescription opioid abuser or $9202 per heroin user.
With that kind of money and a little motivation, say a carrot on a stick, I'm confident a blind donkey could resolve the opioid use problem quite quickly.
But its more important for drug companies to make money and to fund 10% of the Israeli population to exercise their choice to not work.

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

"Experts say the United States is in the throes of an opioid epidemic. In 2017, an estimated 1.7 million individuals in the United States suffered from substance use disorders related to prescription opioid pain relievers and 652,000 suffered from a heroin use disorder."
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/18/heal … index.html

So thats $3529 per prescription opioid abuser or $9202 per heroin user.
With that kind of money and a little motivation, say a carrot on a stick, I'm confident a blind donkey could resolve the opioid use problem quite quickly.
But its more important for drug companies to make money and to fund 10% of the Israeli population to exercise their choice to not work.

That money wouldn't even pay for the bureaucracy of caseworkers that would be assigned to them.

Jay wrote:

That's a rounding error on state budgets.

A federal judge ruled on Monday that the Trump administration cannot force pharmaceutical companies to disclose the list price of their drugs in television ads, dealing a blow to one of the president’s most visible efforts to pressure drug companies to lower their prices.

Judge Amit P. Mehta, of the United States District Court in the District of Columbia, ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services exceeded its regulatory authority by seeking to require all drugmakers to include in their television commercials the list price of any drug that costs more than $35 a month. The rule was to take effect this week.

At least five Supreme Court justices, including two of the Court’s six conservatives, have indicated that they are leaning toward upholding the bulk of the Affordable Care Act, clashing with Republicans who argue that the entire law is unconstitutional.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested during oral arguments Tuesday that the law’s individual mandate, which required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty, can be separated from the rest of the law, known as Obamacare.

“It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the law in place,” Kavanaugh said Tuesday.

Roberts appeared to agree, noting that the Republican-controlled Congress did not nix the entire Affordable Care Act when it reduced the individual mandate penalty to $0 in 2017.

“Congress left the rest of the law intact when it lowered the penalty to zero,” Roberts said. “I think it’s hard for you to argue Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down if the same Congress that lowered the tax penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act.”

In 2012, Roberts cast the deciding vote that upheld the individual mandate in the 2010 law, calling the mandate a tax and citing Congress’ power to impose taxes.

The Chief Justice added during Tuesday’s arguments that while GOP lawmakers may have hoped the Supreme Court would strike down the law, “that’s not our job.”

The Affordable Care Act on Thursday survived a third major challenge in the Supreme Court.

A seven-justice majority ruled that the plaintiffs had not suffered the sort of direct injury that gave them standing to sue.
...
Striking down the Affordable Care Act would have expanded the ranks of the uninsured in the United States by about 21 million people — a nearly 70 percent increase — according to recent estimates from the Urban Institute.

The biggest loss of coverage would have been among low-income adults who became eligible for Medicaid under the law after most expanded the program to include them. But millions of Americans would also have lost private insurance, including young adults whom the law allowed to stay on their parents’ plans until they turned 26 and families whose income was modest enough to qualify for subsidies that help pay their monthly premiums.