Forums | MacLife

radarman wrote:

DevoDoc wrote:

daemon wrote:

Designer drugs might include HGH. Also, v*agr*, and similar. Also, the various anti-allergen things.

Anything 'designed' to act on a very particular 'problem'. As opposed to painkillers or other broad spectrum treatments.

So we shouldn't create drugs that target specific diseases? Gee, that drug that cures prostate cancer is really expensive, let me give you some broad spectrum chemotherapy.

(I know that wasn't your argument, daemon.)

I always thought that designer drugs were slight alterations to illegal drugs to make them legal.

More like undetectable.

Alan Grayson is a firebrand.

You could look it up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/30 … 4012.shtml

Last edited by daemon (2009-10-01 4:11 am)

unshavenyak wrote:

The allegations against Physicians and other Health Care Decision Makers wanting a public option to pad their bottom line is non-sense.

Pharmaceutical companies are supporting a public option as well. It's pretty clear that for everyone except the insurance companies, the American private system is needlessly complex and expensive.

Do you have a link to info re Pharma. Cos.
I'd really like to read up on that.

DukeofNuke wrote:

unshavenyak wrote:

The allegations against Physicians and other Health Care Decision Makers wanting a public option to pad their bottom line is non-sense.

Pharmaceutical companies are supporting a public option as well. It's pretty clear that for everyone except the insurance companies, the American private system is needlessly complex and expensive.

Do you have a link to info re Pharma. Cos.
I'd really like to read up on that.

I did, but the links'd be much earlier in these healthcare threads. Sorry. It was my understanding, tho.

daemon wrote:

They traded a $110m or so in ads supporting something, and no Medicare based price negotiation in the final bill. Or something like that.

They'd stand to collect that ad investment back in 6 months or less, I bet.

kos and fdl and tpm are all over it.

Not sure where it stands now.

AP's been updating much of the night. As of now, seemingly on update of yours (AP sourcing all) and more complete,

Obama-backed health bill gains ground

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Health care legislation backed by President Barack Obama all but cleared a major hurdle in the Senate early Friday as Democratic liberals and moderates on a key committee closed ranks behind the most sweeping set of changes in a half-century.

Obama hailed the developments in the Senate Finance Committee as a milestone, and said in a written statement, "we are now closer than ever before to finally passing reform that will offer security to those who have coverage and affordable insurance to those who don't."

The legislation is designed to spread health insurance to millions who now lack it, and cracks down on industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

More than $400 billion in federal subsidies would help defray premium costs for lower-income families and help small businesses offer coverage to their workers. Most policies would be required to cover preventive care as well as treatment for medical illness and vision, dental and mental health needs.

It was past 2 a.m. in the East - and Obama's top health care adviser, Nancy-Ann DeParle in attendance - when Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, announced that work had been completed on all sections of the legislation.

"This bill will lower taxes for more than 42 million Americans and reduce the federal deficit," he said. "This bill will protect Medicare benefits for seniors. This bill will significantly expand health coverage."

A final vote was delayed until next week so budget officials can certify the legislation does not add to federal deficits. Given the Democrats' 13-10 majority only the final margin is in doubt.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said she has not yet decided how to vote. "I've got a lot to think about," she said. All other Republicans on the committee have criticized the bill and are certain to oppose it.

The full Senate already is scheduled to begin a historic debate at mid-month on legislation to meet one of Obama's principal campaign promises - and a goal of presidents since Harry Truman sat in the White House at mid-20th century.

The legislation was built on the wreckage of failed bipartisan negotiations among six members of the committee, and tilted at several points to appeal to Democratic moderates more than liberals. Baucus said that was the only strategy that could succeed in gaining 60 votes in the Senate, needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster.

As a result, it lacks a provision to permit the government to sell insurance in competition with private industry. Instead, it allows non-profit cooperatives to fill that role.

Unlike legislation taking shape in the House and a bill that passed a different Senate committee earlier in the year, it does not require businesses to offer insurance to their employees. Instead, companies that do not would be required to offset the cost of any federal subsidies their workers receive when they buy their own insurance in a new federally regulated exchange that would be established.

On the other side of the Capitol, Democratic House leaders have struggled in recent days to agree on a bill to send to the floor for a vote later this month. Aides have said the pace of progress could accelerate following the Finance Committee's work.
..

They made a number of major changes in the final hours.

One would allow a new commission designed to wring savings from Medicare to recommend cuts in federal subsidies paid to low-income seniors who have prescription drug coverage under the program.

Other last-minute modifications were designed to build support among the Democratic rank and file and blunt any impact on millions of working class families.

One change would exempt millions of people from a requirement to purchase insurance that is currently in the bill and reduce the penalties on millions more who defy the mandate.

Another would narrow the impact of a proposed tax on high cost insurance policies.
..

Links to related stories on page.

I'm abit late seeing the controversial iSinglePayer is now in the App Store.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/0 … inglepayer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 9100704101

So the CBO has given this bill the thumbs up, saying it will expand coverage.

IIRC, an earlier bill didn’t get the nod from them, and the CBO claimed it wouldn’t do anything for coverage, but I thought the previous bill had more measures designed to ensure more people were insured.

And I wonder if the right will champion the CBO’s analysis of this new bill like they’ve been championing their prior analyses.

Looking through the CBO letter about the Baucus bill, there is one striking fact that most of the media is overlooking. The CBO claims in the report that they did not score the full bill. They admit to completely ignoring a huge provision that is projected to reduce the cost of the bill by roughly $44 billion, but would deprive millions of Americans of health insurance.

h/t FDL