Politics debate

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
An unsubsidized public option would never work math wise because the people who “need” it could never afford to pay the premiums required to keep it solvent
say, for example, someone could buy into medicare, at cost, at any age. Would likely be cheaper than if I went to a private insurer for individual coverage, no? Yes there is the problem of the high risk pool buying into medicare thus increasing its cost for all

Members don't see this ad.
 
and while we are at it, why not let the public buy into one of these pension plans that federal employees get. lol
 
say, for example, someone could buy into medicare, at cost, at any age. Would likely be cheaper than if I went to a private insurer for individual coverage, no? Yes there is the problem of the high risk pool buying into medicare thus increasing its cost for all
not really if you still expect to bar pre-existing condition exclusions. Anyone with a real actuary as an advisor would tell you it still costs money to treat those patients and the money has to come from somewhere

The only "advantage" the medicare plan is the fact that the govt basically uses force to require hospitals to take their patients which someone like bcbs doesn't get to do
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Health care is in shambles. And pharmacy more than anything will be affected by it due to factors such as saturation.

From job safety perspective, which party winning will benefit us the most?

Socialist medicine ie. Medicare for all, or Trump removing Obama care altogether?

Or either way, we are - - - -ed ???
NO party will help you or help the pharmacist profession. We are suffereing from Within our own system of pharmacy schools and Greed. We have to help ourselves and go to congress and propose a Law that limits pharmacy schools in every state.

Also do you think you are safe because you find a so called Niche ? hospital pharmacists are trying to specialize more and more, thinking this will provide more job security. Wrong......
As AI takes over the healthcare more and more, do you really think you will make the same amount of relatively high salary you are making now ? Think again.

Reason that there is over supply of pharmacists is Corruption and Greed within the pharmacy educational system. It is destroying the profession as we know it. We must unite and fight this. We must go to Congress and put a limit to number of school of pharmacies in each state. Who will join me ?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
NO party will help you or help the pharmacist profession. We are suffereing from Within our own system of pharmacy schools and Greed. We have to help ourselves and go to congress and propose a Law that limits pharmacy schools in every state.

Also do you think you are safe because you find a so called Niche ? hospital pharmacists are trying to specialize more and more, thinking this will provide more job security. Wrong......
As AI takes over the healthcare more and more, do you really think you will make the same amount of relatively high salary you are making now ? Think again.

Reason that there is over supply of pharmacists is Corruption and Greed within the pharmacy educational system. It is destroying the profession as we know it. We must unite and fight this. We must go to Congress and put a limit to number of school of pharmacies in each state. Who will join me ?
I was with you till you said congress lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I was with you till you said congress lol

Well, we have to start somewhere. It would be useless to go to state level. We can write to the president and then propose a congressional hearing. and then do our best to convince the senators and congress men. This is how the laws and policies are changed and made better. Profession of pharmacy has existed for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years, do you want to see it disappear ? or salaries cut so severely, you will be making same amount of money as pharmacy technicians ? This very real. Short sighted pharmacist just can't see this coming, it will be their downfall.

I am trying to do what i can. I never been in love with this profession of pharmacy but i chose to practice in this profession. So i feel obligated to do what i can to save it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You have to start with drug pricing. The second drug prices are fixed walgreens will lose the power to purchase drugs for half the price your able to.
 
You have to start with drug pricing. The second drug prices are fixed walgreens will lose the power to purchase drugs for half the price your able to.
The govt that can fix drug prices can decide you aren’t allowed to make more than $30k as a pharmacist. Be careful what you wish for
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It has been suggested that this point of view is propaganda spread by the GOP as a means of voter suppression. Low voter turnout may increase republican success, but the data isn’t totally clear cut: Sanders' Shaky Turnout Claim - FactCheck.org

The Gop didn't start that "propaganda", it's absolutely true there is no difference between 99% of the politicians in each party. Sure, they are very cleaver in making people think there is a difference, and the politicians will talk a good talk about their difference, but when you look at their voting records, it's clear their is no difference. One of the games they play is only bring up important issues for vote, when the other is in power, so they know the issue won't actually pass. It's amazing how all the "pro-life" Republicans squelched Ron Paul's Right to Life bill twice in the 00's, when this bill clearly could have passed if all the "pro-life" Republicans had actually been "pro-life." And all the "sensible gun control" Democrats, amazing how they didn't pass any sensible gun control during the recent past when they clearly had the numbers too. I also used to think the voting Democrat or Republican actually made a difference, but once I started looking at the voting pattern's in the 90's, and even before then, I realized it doesn't. It's all a game.

I do vote, and always have, each and every election. But I always vote 3rd party, unless there is no 3rd party option.


Healthcare never has been and never will be a free market. We have some sort of bastard hybrid of all the negatives and none of the benefits of both free market and subsidized industry with our healthcare.

This. Our current system offers the worst of the free market and healthcare for all, instead of offering us the best of the 2.
 
Take away the “societal benefit” arguments here for a moment and ponder this. By voting for a Medicare for all program as a pharmacist, you are essentially voting yourself out of a job and out of the profession.

Retail didn’t build an empire by processing Medicare scripts all day
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Health care is in shambles. And pharmacy more than anything will be affected by it due to factors such as saturation.

From job safety perspective, which party winning will benefit us the most?

Socialist medicine ie. Medicare for all, or Trump removing Obama care altogether?

Or either way, we are - - - -ed ???

IMO, a far-left win will benefit us. Our bread and butter used to be dispensing fees. If Medicare4All passes and they also abolish PBMs at the same time and have direct Medicare to pharmacy payment along with drug prices being negotiated by Medicare, the cost of the drugs should go down at the manufacturer level, there would still be a markup at the wholesale level, and another markup at the retail level, while still saving the consumer and Medicare a lot of money.

We would probably also benefit by a lot more treatments and people being covered.

We would also benefit by the profession becoming unionized.

We would also benefit by the country not wasting money on stupid ass wars for profit.

We would also benefit from massive student loan forgiveness. If the government can bail our the banks and auto industry, they can bail out a whole generation of student loans. Otherwise, congratulations, you're gonna have a generation of people who won't be buying homes until they hit their mid 40s. Like I already know, my only chance of buying a home is my wife (yes, I got married this summer), she's also pharmacist but she still has to take the foreign equivalency exam, naplex, etc.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
IMO, a far-left win will benefit us. Our bread and butter used to be dispensing fees. If Medicare4All passes and they also abolish PBMs at the same time and have direct Medicare to pharmacy payment along with drug prices being negotiated by Medicare, the cost of the drugs should go down at the manufacturer level, there would still be a markup at the wholesale level, and another markup at the retail level, while still saving the consumer and Medicare a lot of money.

We would probably also benefit by a lot more treatments and people being covered.

We would also benefit by the profession becoming unionized.

We would also benefit by the country not wasting money on stupid ass wars for profit.

We would also benefit from massive student loan forgiveness. If the government can bail our the banks and auto industry, they can bail out a whole generation of student loans. Otherwise, congratulations, you're gonna have a generation of people who won't be buying homes until they hit their mid 40s. Like I already know, my only chance of buying a home is my wife (yes, I got married this summer), she's also pharmacist but she still has to take the foreign equivalency exam, naplex, etc.

That's some strong stuff you're smoking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
IMO, a far-left win will benefit us. Our bread and butter used to be dispensing fees. If Medicare4All passes and they also abolish PBMs at the same time and have direct Medicare to pharmacy payment along with drug prices being negotiated by Medicare, the cost of the drugs should go down at the manufacturer level, there would still be a markup at the wholesale level, and another markup at the retail level, while still saving the consumer and Medicare a lot of money.

We would probably also benefit by a lot more treatments and people being covered.

We would also benefit by the profession becoming unionized.

We would also benefit by the country not wasting money on stupid ass wars for profit.

We would also benefit from massive student loan forgiveness. If the government can bail our the banks and auto industry, they can bail out a whole generation of student loans. Otherwise, congratulations, you're gonna have a generation of people who won't be buying homes until they hit their mid 40s. Like I already know, my only chance of buying a home is my wife (yes, I got married this summer), she's also pharmacist but she still has to take the foreign equivalency exam, naplex, etc.

Abolish all PBMs just to put an even bigger one in place (the government)... I'll pass
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
How many pharmacies currently do not accept Medicare/Medicaid?

So expanding those will be the end of pharmacy even though there are likely countless jobs that count on those reimbursements? Sure, that makes sense.
 
How many pharmacies currently do not accept Medicare/Medicaid?

So expanding those will be the end of pharmacy even though there are likely countless jobs that count on those reimbursements? Sure, that makes sense.

Pharmacies count on commercial insurance reimbursement to strongly offset the razor thin to negative reimbursement coming on the government payer side. DIR was born in Medicare part D and that’s pretty much enemy number 1 right now. So yea I’d say expanding and strengthening a program that has been the driving force behind the reimbursement squeeze isn’t going to be good for a pharmacies revenue and profit growth. Profit growth is possible only if wages are able to come down which I doubt people want.
 
On the plus side, I won't ever have to sell a cough syrup ever again

Well unless they want to pay cash.
 
We would also benefit from massive student loan forgiveness. If the government can bail our the banks and auto industry, they can bail out a whole generation of student loans. Otherwise, congratulations, you're gonna have a generation of people who won't be buying homes until they hit their mid 40s. Like I already know, my only chance of buying a home is my wife (yes, I got married this summer), she's also pharmacist but she still has to take the foreign equivalency exam, naplex, etc.

Dude.

You are equating a $10 billion dollar cost of the auto bailout.

And a $15 billion dollar profit in TARP / Bank bailout

With a ONE POINT FIVE ****ING TRILLION DOLLAR bailout of student loans.


IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

It is not imaginable that the student loans will ever be forgiven. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

To put the student loans in perspective from that article.

Forgiving the student loans is equivalent to forgiving EVERY CAR LOAN or EVERY CREDIT CARD BALANCE.

It is unimaginable.
 
Pharmacies count on commercial insurance reimbursement to strongly offset the razor thin to negative reimbursement coming on the government payer side. DIR was born in Medicare part D and that’s pretty much enemy number 1 right now. So yea I’d say expanding and strengthening a program that has been the driving force behind the reimbursement squeeze isn’t going to be good for a pharmacies revenue and profit growth. Profit growth is possible only if wages are able to come down which I doubt people want.
i was always under the belief the Med D drugs were rather profitable, especially 90 day supplies of oddball generics. Medicaid is dependent by state. Have heard that in Texas Medicaid scripts are profitable. I believe it is the private PBMs that hurt pharmacy profits the most.
 
Pharmacies count on commercial insurance reimbursement to strongly offset the razor thin to negative reimbursement coming on the government payer side. DIR was born in Medicare part D and that’s pretty much enemy number 1 right now. So yea I’d say expanding and strengthening a program that has been the driving force behind the reimbursement squeeze isn’t going to be good for a pharmacies revenue and profit growth. Profit growth is possible only if wages are able to come down which I doubt people want.

Then why accept it at all?
 
Dude.

You are equating a $10 billion dollar cost of the auto bailout.

And a $15 billion dollar profit in TARP / Bank bailout

With a ONE POINT FIVE ****ING TRILLION DOLLAR bailout of student loans.


IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

It is not imaginable that the student loans will ever be forgiven. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

To put the student loans in perspective from that article.

Forgiving the student loans is equivalent to forgiving EVERY CAR LOAN or EVERY CREDIT CARD BALANCE.

It is unimaginable.

Then instead of forgiving the student loans, change the law so that unpaid student loans do not negatively affect credit or affect your ability to buy a home or car. Or allow people to declare bankruptcy on student loans. Easy fix.
 
Abolish all PBMs just to put an even bigger one in place (the government)... I'll pass

It doesn't have to be a PBM though. Why not go back to the old way of doing things, billing directly to the insurer instead of having to bill to Caremark/ExpressScripts/Aetna/etc.

The independent I used to work at made more money from Medicare Part D and Medicaid then we did on any commercial insurance plan. I don't know about the rest of the country, but in NYC, the commerical insurance plans were jack ****. With the commercial insurance plans, if you're not collecting copays, you're not making money.
 
Wisconsin Medicaid pays either a $11 or $15 dispensing fee. It depends on the pharmacy's volume, the higher reimbursement goes to pharmacies which do less than 35,000 RX per year. Every year in February/March, you have to certify your volume.

The true I'll of the health insurance is its link with employment. That has to change for any meaningful reform to occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It doesn't have to be a PBM though. Why not go back to the old way of doing things, billing directly to the insurer instead of having to bill to Caremark/ExpressScripts/Aetna/etc.

The independent I used to work at made more money from Medicare Part D and Medicaid then we did on any commercial insurance plan. I don't know about the rest of the country, but in NYC, the commerical insurance plans were jack ****. With the commercial insurance plans, if you're not collecting copays, you're not making money.

From a pharmacy perspective that makes sense, but from an insurer perspective it doesn't. The only practical solution I can think of off the top of my head is complete vertical integration - cut out all of the middlemen.

Vertical-Integration1-1024x451.png
 
Times are changing. People are tired of neoliberal economic policies and the unresponsiveness of politicians to the ongoing economic woes of the last 40 years. The growing voter block is the millennials and those following them that experienced the consequences of right-wing economics and are also more aware of the political game behind doors

Look, I know the sentiment here but the Medicare-4-All movement has a lot of grassroot public support than any other policies. If you think I'm wrong, look the Democratic primary, Medicare-4-All literally pushed some corporate Democrats to the Bernie-wing of the party to have a chance at winning the nomination (Warren, Harris, Gillibrand, Booker, etc).
 
what are my fellow conservatives thoughts on public option, assuming it is unsubsidized?

How can you have a public option that isn't subsidized by the taxpayer? This would have to mean government contracted physicians, nurses, pharmacists, etc. How is that different from the VA?
 
How can you have a public option that isn't subsidized by the taxpayer? This would have to mean government contracted physicians, nurses, pharmacists, etc. How is that different from the VA?
public insurance option, not public hospitals/providers.
 
public insurance option, not public hospitals/providers.

So the taxpayer will pay the monthly premiums of those who choose to go that route? Sounds like a great way to increase premiums to $1000+ a month
 
So the taxpayer will pay the monthly premiums of those who choose to go that route? Sounds like a great way to increase premiums to $1000+ a month
not sure i am following you. unsubsidized meaning taxpayer doesnt pay a dime
 
And how do you expect that math to work?
the person purchasing the insurance buys in at cost. the argument could be made that those with preexisting conditions are more likely to join in. ok, realistically, how many people are going to do this, and what is it as a percentage of those already insured. For example, lets say there are currently 90 million people on medicare. The government opens up an option for anyone to buy in at cost. Who is going to want to do that? Only a small number of people who do not have insurance through their employer or medicaid. And if they raise medicare prices due to the preexisting conditions, pass that cost onto them. And to be honest, it might actually work the other way and lower the average cost per person since the existing pool on medicare are already fairly expensive to insure simply due to average age)

As a more simple example, involving pharmacy, look at Goodrx. How much does the pt pay for goodrx? Zero. Yet they get a nice discount due to group leveraging. Now look at medicare, one could theoretically do the same, but add a premium (at cost) for the actual insurance they are receiving onto it
 
Last edited:
And how do you expect that math to work?
the 2 main benefits of what i am suggesting are 1) group pricing leverage of the government available to all and 2) insurance without a middleman (insurance company) making hundreds of billions in profit. let the government insurance me at cost, no loss or profit to them.

What we currently have (Obamacare) is the worst possible choice. Insurance companies are profiting, and taxpayers are subsidizing.
 
the person purchasing the insurance buys in at cost. the argument could be made that those with preexisting conditions are more likely to join in. ok, realistically, how many people are going to do this, and what is it as a percentage of those already insured. For example, lets say there are currently 90 million people on medicare. The government opens up an option for anyone to buy in at cost. Who is going to want to do that? Only a small number of people who do not have insurance through their employer or medicaid. And if they raise medicare prices due to the preexisting conditions, pass that cost onto them. And to be honest, it might actually work the other way and lower the average cost per person since the existing pool on medicare are already fairly expensive to insure simply due to average age)

As a more simple example, involving pharmacy, look at Goodrx. How much does the pt pay for goodrx? Zero. Yet they get a nice discount due to group leveraging. Now look at medicare, one could theoretically do the same, but add a premium (at cost) for the actual insurance they are receiving onto it
The reason people want this option is because they cannot afford to pay the actuarial cost of premiums/deductions of a policy (govt or otherwise) that could cover their expenses

Your plan falls apart with the assumption people can/would pay
 
The reason people want this option is because they cannot afford to pay the actuarial cost of premiums/deductions of a policy (govt or otherwise) that could cover their expenses

Your plan falls apart with the assumption people can/would pay
[/
if i were self-employed, i would probably choose the government public option over a private insurance because it would be a better value. Now, take this a step further. What if employers had the option to purchase this public option for their employees, instead of using a private insurance as is the current status quo. As an employer, i would choose the public option as it would cost me less as well. Of course this all involves private insurance companies being completely dismantled and millions of lost jobs. But if you truly want to lower costs, this is a great way to do it. Right now healthcare is 17% if GDP in the US. Unsustainable if we want to remain competitive.
 
I don’t want govt to have a bigger bully pulpit. That needs to be priority one to avoid

And again, you really overestimate how many uninsured people could pay actuarial rates for medicare coverage
 
I don’t want govt to have a bigger bully pulpit. That needs to be priority one to avoid

And again, you really overestimate how many uninsured people could pay actuarial rates for medicare coverage
You are a conservative and want smaller government. I am the same way. However there are certain areas we need government involvement. Example would be our military. It is inefficient and wasteful but better than us having individual groups of privately funded militias to defend our interests. I would argue the same for healthcare. We need to elect/appoint people who will do it right.
 
You are a conservative and want smaller government. I am the same way. However there are certain areas we need government involvement. Example would be our military. It is inefficient and wasteful but better than us having individual groups of privately funded militias to defend our interests. I would argue the same for healthcare. We need to elect/appoint people who will do it right.
Except you are wrong about what is “right” here. Govt shouldn’t be providing healthcare to the general population
 
Except you are wrong about what is “right” here. Govt shouldn’t be providing healthcare to the general population
What would your solution be, then? As someone stated above, healthcare should not be tied to employment
 
What would your solution be, then? As someone stated above, healthcare should not be tied to employment
Healthcare should be tied to the patient (or private charity) paying for it. This can be directly or through insurance (either personal or employed).

The only reason we have the employment insurance mess is because of govt interference in wages during the war
 
Healthcare should be tied to the patient (or private charity) paying for it. This can be directly or through insurance (either personal or employed).

The only reason we have the employment insurance mess is because of govt interference in wages during the war
sounds like what we had before obamacare. that didnt work either...
 
Not if “works” means everybody had eveything. But that’s not a goal we can do in a country that respects rights
it didnt work in that prices were skyrocketing for all of us.
 
it didnt work in that prices were skyrocketing for all of us.
Which would not have been the case (to the degree it was going up) had govt not been interfering.

Epipens, inhalers needing new propellant, new insulins making older and cheaper ones, emtala, certificate of need, and then the govt requiring covering 25yr old kids, banning preexisting exemptions, ever increasing requirements for things that must be covered

^govt increasing cost
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Which would not have been the case (to the degree it was going up) had govt not been interfering.

Epipens, inhalers needing new propellant, new insulins making older and cheaper ones, emtala, certificate of need, and then the govt requiring covering 25yr old kids, banning preexisting exemptions, ever increasing requirements for things that must be covered

^govt increasing cost
countries with government run healthcare are all cheaper than us. every single one.
 
countries with government run healthcare are all cheaper than us. every single one.
They also limit things, have populations with healthier lifestyles, don’t provide most the research to have the good health improvements, have absurd taxes, and don’t actually have much better outcomes when you really break down the data

But even if it was a hands down better math solution (and it isn’t) it still isn’t a role for govt

But I listed a ton of specific ways govt increases cost above, go through them and explain how those aren’t true
 
Top