I am well aware that insurance and pharma are in conference with the president. I also know that pharma has agreed to assist the elderly with their prescription costs. I also know that many pharma companies offer a “compassionate use” where medications are provided at little to no cost to the customer. I happen to know because I have to use trhose services. I also know that by using “compassionate use” there is ALWAYS a gap in medication. I have to wait until my prescription is done to get a refill. I cannot get that refill prior to the entire consumption of the prvious medication. When I get the script, I must mail that out to the company. That takes at least 3-4 days. Then it gets processed which takes usually 1-2 weeks, Then the medication is mailedto me which is yet another 3-4 days. So I effectivly have to go without life-savinbg medication for about a 3 week period. Now think if I was a diabetic and needed insulin. I wouldn’t have insulin for 3 weeks. for a person that requires daily insulin, (often multiple times a day), 3 weeks without IS life and death. Now the compassion of pharma and their desire to help is applaudable but NOT ENOUGH.
Insurance companies are comingto the point where they are dropping the pre-existing condition clause. Great and about time they did that, but again the issue isn’t about getting “coverage” it is that coverage should be coverage and not just acceptance. I’m not saying that my pre-existing condition be covered, because as it is pointed out, that encourages abuse ofthe system. What should happen though is that medical needs (other than the pre-existing), be covered which they are not at present. Being HIV I might get a cold but left untreated, that cold can turn to pneumonia which leads to a week or more in the hospital which I have no ability to pay. You get that cost which could have been avoided by the insurance company treating the cold in the first place.

As to who gets more bribe money, I am aware that both parties get bribe money, I also happen to believe in common sense. Insurance stands to lose its monopoly, it loses its ability to raise prices whenever they choose. They risk having a competitor come in and offer what they already offer butfor a lower price which threatens the bottom line. It makes common sense for insurance to back the opponents of reform, (in this case that means republicans). Insurance and pharma are making concessions in the hopes that if they show their willingness to “change” there will be a perception that there is no need for reform and the market will “fix” itself but above all they maintain their monopoly under their terms. All of that is great and applaudable but again NOT ENOUGH!
If they had truly wanted to change their buisness practise they would have already. The fact is that using common sense and historical records, it becomes clear that they aren’t doing this out of the goodness of their hearts but because they MUST, (which is also the reason that republicans are even talking about reform now— because they MUST).

Again the issue isn’t whether the government can do a better job, but that government cannot possibly do any worse. Insurance has been a large part of the problem of healthcare delivery and the spiking costs. MOST of what is paid as premiums to an insurance company are not used for medical services but are pocketed as profit. In fact 450% profits means that less than 1/4 of any given premium is actually used for medical coverage. Not because that is the neccessity but because some insurance guy wants to take a 6 month vacation to the Meditteranean.

Everyone here can vilify me as much as they want to. Just because I use common sense instead of economic terms and all sorts of language that regular people do not understand, I am somehow less, that I don’tread papers, that I ignore (fill in the blank). What I see is yet again the desertion of REGULAR americans by our government. I see MILLIONS terrified until they are blinded to the realities of what being un-insured meands and how it affects life. If republicans can admitthat the cost of medical care affects the standard of living then why is it so hard for republicans/conservatives to understand that having NO insurance absolutly DESTROYS any standard of living? I got myself off of welfare and off of Social Security, (although my HIV certainly qualifies me for disability today), because I feel as if I am a productive and capable adult. I have responsibilities which I meet as best I can but I also know that there is NO WAY I will ever be financially secure, that I will never be counted as lower middle class, that as hard as I work, I will never have anything to show for it. Because of un-insurance I am incapable of owning a car, renting a descent house or apartment free from drug-infested and crime-infested areas. AND this is the system that you wish to continue so that more people can be forced into poverty.

The system is responsible for the mess we are in now and I am supposed to trust that same system? Common sense will tell you that if you do the same things you get the same results. So trusting in the system, leaving reforms up to the system will get us exactly where we are now. The only difference being that the number of uninsured will be higher, medical care will be more expensive and less available. I don’t want, or think it fair, to pay 5 or 6 times for one single product. That is exactly what people are doing under insurance today.
1) We pay our taxes which funds the majority of pharma R&D
2) Pharma includes a surcharge in its pricing to cover the 100% cost of R&D, (when they didn’t pay 100% of the cost)-(in other words a fraudulent charge)
3) We the consumer pay them again when we purchase the drug.

Pharma gets paid by the taxpayer/consumer at least twice and pharma pays itself because they charge for costs that never occured in the first place.

What they should do is allow conservatives to continue to kill healthcare reform and hound that issue until 2016. Run on the very provable fact that conservatives have sided with buisness AGAINST the American public. As for special interests…… conservatives are going to be demanding a huge payout from insurance and insurance will pay them off. Insurance will then turn around and increase OUR premiums. The ones who are losing the money of “special interest” is the democratic party…. only conservatives will be reaping the blood money paid by insurance companies.

So let conservatives kill reform YET AGAIN, and make sure that every voter knows that their family’s financial hardship and their health concerns are the direct results of conservatives in office who care more about bribes than they do about the American citizen.

You sum up in a few hundred words what all the others cannot because you are not looking at the problem through ideological glasses.

Congratulations. Well-done.

Keep it up.

They are on the run.

My name is Scott Stevens and I am a staunch advocate for CDH and have helped thousands of businesses and individuals implement CDH strategies since my days working on the MSA pilot project in '96. I have enjoyed hearing your presentations at the CDHC conferences I've attended (and spoken at) in the past, and read your blog regularly. Recently, a large prospective government client of mine shared this attack on CDH…HSAs in particular, and was hoping you could provide an eloquent rebuttal? Perhaps you already have?

Thanks so much.

Again, this is an oversimplification probably full of
holes. But if we never begin to move this discussion away from argument and forward to possible solutions… not much will change and we will end up with yet another government program, ill advised, poorly run and hugely wasteful. I’m a republican who voted for Obama, and I continue to think he is our best chance for innovation. He’s not there yet, but if we all start doing some of the heavy lifting with him instead of all the rancor, (construction rather than destructive thinking) perhaps there is still a chance that a meanful plan can still be forthcoming.

Eric L. Stilson