# Opioid prescriptions have been falling since 2012



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Now the data is in; opiod prescriptions have been falling since 2012.

_But for each of the past three years â 2013, 2014 and 2015 â prescriptions have declined, a review of several sources of data shows._
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/h...tions-drop-for-first-time-in-two-decades.html

So why the recent big political push on this issue? For whatever reason, politicians want to strip medical doctors of the power to prescribe pain killers when they think it's indicated. I'd like to know why.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Now the data is in; opiod prescriptions have been falling since 2012.
> 
> _But for each of the past three years &#8212; 2013, 2014 and 2015 &#8212; prescriptions have declined, a review of several sources of data shows._
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/h...tions-drop-for-first-time-in-two-decades.html
> ...


I haven't heard of any law passed to do it. It likely was a regulation put out by this administration. The reason? Because they can. The goal was probably to reduce the number of prescriptions written by doctors knowing they were for drug addicts. In the emergency room here now you cannot be given opiates no matter what you come in complaining of. If you are admitted to the hospital a specialist has to prescribe them. Same with family practice doctors. They can't prescribe them. You must see a specialists to get them. I see their point but their goal will not be met. Our local ER is seeing more people coming in wacked out on illegal drugs than ever before and also a boom in patients self treating by heavy alcohol consumption.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

This is a simple issue to me. Who do I want to decide if I should or shouldn't be taking a medication; my doctor or my congressman?

But all this press about opoids has a purpose. They're softening us up for something.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Now the data is in; opiod prescriptions have been falling since 2012.
> 
> _But for each of the past three years â 2013, 2014 and 2015 â prescriptions have declined, a review of several sources of data shows._
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/h...tions-drop-for-first-time-in-two-decades.html
> ...


I'm guessing the number of prescriptions has dropped slightly, but the number of overdoses has increased dramatically partly due to counterfeit street drugs

While the number of prescriptions now are lower than all time highs, they are still the most abused class of prescription medications

The rise in deaths is driving the headlines:


> So far, fewer prescriptions have not led to fewer deaths: *fatal overdoses from opioids have continued to rise*, taking more than 28,000 lives in 2014, according to the most recent federal health data.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> While the number of prescriptions now are lower than all time highs, they are still the most abused class of prescription medications


So the problem isn't prescriptions? Then I wonder why they talk curbing prescription writing is the solution?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

All the tighter restrictions do is make it an ordeal for people to get their prescription refilled. If the number of scrips is dropping, so is the street supply. Just this once, leave well enough alone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> So the problem isn't prescriptions? Then I wonder why they talk curbing prescription writing is the solution?


Prescriptions are a large part of the problem.
Some Dr's write thousands per year for people who really don't need them

The new guidelines are trying to get the Dr's to not just hand them out automatically without trying other treatments first.

There's nothing that will prevent you from getting the pills if you really need them.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

I believe doctors started being more cautious about prescribing those drugs because it was getting so much attention that they were being over-prescribed and the feds were cracking down on pill-mill doctors. Many people were already addicted and switched to heroin when they could no longer get their doctors to prescribe pills. Like many solutions thought up by politicians, it is too little too late, not likely to actually solve the problem they're supposedly trying to solve, and will inconvenience innocent bystanders.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

It might come as a complete surprise to some that prescription opioid abuse is a huge problem. People get family members to complain of pain while they are at the doctor, just to get a scrip. Around here, it's the only way some old people can get their grass cut. Probably some of the drop is from people that see how bad the problem is and don't want the stuff. People get a wisdom tooth pulled, or whatever, and the doctor wrote a prescription, most people take a few, and when the pain subsides, they put the rest in the medicine cabinet, for hard times. People get break ins now and nobody looks for the jewelry box, they go straight for the medicine cabinet. 

Other people, get hooked after their first bottle, get a refill and go back with something hurting. If you get hooked, something will hurt when you try to come off. At one time, it seemed like some doctors knew this, and they would cash co-pay checks all day long writing painkiller scrips for phantom back or knee pain. People knew which doctors to go to, too.

I've seen whole families addicted to painkillers, Gramps never could recover from the pain of that shoulder surgery, Ma had a "real bad back", Skippy was in a "real bad wreck" and "still hurt something awful". They go back and forth to doctors, and say, "they just can't find what's wrong with me, just give me some painkillers and send me home." I'm not a doctor, but I know what's wrong with them, they are addicted to painkillers. They start running out and everybody is pilfering everybody else's stash. Then it turns into a cops episode. If the doctor tries to cut them off, his name is mud. They will go find another doctor, get another scrip, and oh happy day, return of familial ties.

What I like is when Gramps is suddenly Hugh Heffner with his knee-replaced old self and has a 20 year old girlfriend riding in the pickup with him. She gives him the old milk and cookies routine, takes his mind off his knee, swipes the oxy and goes partying with her friends in Gramps's truck. Classic.

It's really sad, if you haven't seen it I don't know what to say. Maybe it's just an Appalachian thing.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Now the data is in; opiod prescriptions have been falling since 2012.
> 
> _But for each of the past three years â 2013, 2014 and 2015 â prescriptions have declined, a review of several sources of data shows._
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/h...tions-drop-for-first-time-in-two-decades.html
> ...


One of the reasons they're in decline is because doctors are refusing to prescribe them, due to the risks of addiction. So... That's why. I have friends with serious chronic pain caused by military service, who thankfully live in states where cannabis is legalized, because even the VA docs are being careful about opioid abuse. This is spinal, too. So the pain is not something he can just ignore. He now smokes marijuana with an extremely low THC count, and a high concentration of whatever it is in cannabis that numbs pain. He is much happier, and completely functional.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

My BIL uses opioid prescription. His back is so out of whack it aint funny. Three years ago it was easy to get a script. Every year it gets harder to find a Dr. that will or can prescribe them. They (Drs.) blame it on the ACA but I think there is more to it than that. 

He now has to drive 90 miles to see a Dr. once a month just to get them. Three years ago it was across town.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> My BIL uses opioid prescription. His back is so out of whack it aint funny. Three years ago it was easy to get a script. Every year it gets harder to find a Dr. that will or can prescribe them. They (Drs.) blame it on the ACA but I think there is more to it than that.
> 
> He now has to drive 90 miles to see a Dr. once a month just to get them. Three years ago it was across town.


I guess this is like third hand information....but from what my one friend said (back injury followed by botched surgery) the prescriptions dried up for him in 2009, 2010, and the doc told him point blank it was because of the risk of addiction. ACA could be making it worse, maybe, but I'm with you on it being more than that.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

They're dropping because doctors are not writing them. Used to be if I was in great pain, I'd get one pill at the E.R. and then they'd write a script for a weeks worth.
Last time I was in with great pain (torn meniscus) they gave me one at the ER and told me to see an Orthopedic Surgeon. 
I was OK, for a few hours, then right back to the pain -- Thanks Congress critters.
Regulate the doctors that are prescribing them like candy, not the people who need a few days worth.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I've had my share of ER trips. Joined the chainsaw club, impaled on a split 2x6, rode a three wheeler upside down, (boy those things were fun), got beat up by a mad bull. Have had percoset, vicadin, oxycodone, and several muscle relaxers. I never saw where they did much for pain. Just made me feel stupid and still hurt just as much. I guess everybody is different. Benadryl makes most people sleepy, always wound me up, so I might be an oddity.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I never noticed that they were any fun if you only took the perscibed amount, and i never did take more, except they made coffee taste better.

Maybe they are trying to get everybody switched over to pot, so nobody will notice what is going on around them. Those I have known who liked their pot a lot seemed to be the perfect citizens for an ambitious government, because as long as the pot didn't run out they really didn't much care what the government or anybody else did.

Get enough potheads out there, they can take over the world as long as Jimmy Hendrix keeps playing on the loudspeakers......Joe


----------



## nyhunter (Nov 14, 2014)

Huge herion problem and ppl are first getting hooked to the prescribed pills. If it hasnt affected someone you know consider yourself lucky.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

joebill said:


> I never noticed that they were any fun if you only took the perscibed amount, and i never did take more, except they made coffee taste better.


I've always had trouble with pain meds. They upset my stomach and leave me with a headache. I can't imagine taking them for a good time.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

I tell my doctors not to write any pain prescriptions. Waste of paper. I will not fill it.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

I took Percocet and mostly Vicodin in 85 count bottles a time for 3 years and never got addicted, not sure why, but consider myself lucky.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Now the data is in; opiod prescriptions have been falling since 2012.
> 
> _But for each of the past three years â 2013, 2014 and 2015 â prescriptions have declined, a review of several sources of data shows._
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/h...tions-drop-for-first-time-in-two-decades.html
> ...


I realize and sympathize that this is an issue that hits home with you, but you seem to go out of your way to look away from the obvious.
The first paragraph of the link.........

*"WASHINGTON â After years of relentless growth, the number of opioid prescriptions in the United States is finally falling, the first sustained drop since OxyContin hit the market in 1996.

For much of the past two decades, doctors were writing so many prescriptions for the powerful opioid painkillers that, in recent years, there have been enough for every American adult to have a bottle. But for each of the past three years â 2013, 2014 and 2015 â prescriptions have declined, a review of several sources of data shows."*



The DEA set new guidelines in 2014, the word was out among doctors a year or two before that, what was coming.
So yes, the Rx started declining.........after a *peak* in 2012.
One of the things that caught their attention was the increase in young adults and pediatrics - not exactly normal for the aches and pains of a person of many years. :shrug:


I know you don't like it, but I think you're smart enough to know WHY this has happened. Most of the country knows why.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> The DEA set new guidelines in 2014, the word was out among doctors a year or two before that, what was coming.
> So yes, the Rx started declining.........after a *peak* in 2012.


OK, so if the 2014 standards are working, why the big political push now?

I still say they're softening us up for something.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> OK, so if the 2014 standards are working, why the big political push now?
> 
> I still say they're softening us up for something.


Well, I agree they are up to something, I'm not sure exactly what.
My best guess is now that Obamacare is in effect, it's about cutting costs. That started almost immediately and I would expect it to continue as the expense of the program increases.
But what you may have missed, is this "new" push started a few years ago. YOU may just now be seeing it, but it actually started at the peak of Rx's back in 2012.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> My best guess is now that Obamacare is in effect, it's about cutting costs.


But the thing is that opiods are cheap. If 120 generic Lortab tablets keep a subscriber happy, who's to care? Alma went through all that and more each month. I figured it was nobody's business but hers and her doctor's. I just gave her one when it looked like she was in pain.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> But the thing is that opiods are cheap. If 120 generic Lortab tablets keep a subscriber happy, who's to care? Alma went through all that and more each month. I figured it was nobody's business but hers and her doctor's. I just gave her one when it looked like she was in pain.


You may not be able to see past the single patient, taking as prescribed, only when needed and being the perfect example with no harm to anyone at all.
I get that and it makes you feel like you're paying for someone else's sins.

But there is more going on in the world than just that.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...w/the-soaring-cost-of-the-opioid-economy.html

There are more costs associated than just the $17 cost at the pharmacy.
And if you look at the total numbers like the CA state costs, it's easy to see why even under the best circumstances, Rx opioids are on the table for cost cutting by medical programs.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> You may not be able to see past the single patient, taking as prescribed, only when needed and being the perfect example with no harm to anyone at all.
> I get that and it makes you feel like you're paying for someone else's sins.
> 
> But there is more going on in the world than just that.
> ...


When you start multiplying out $17 for everyone in a large state you also have to multiply insurance premiums and subtract copays. My Obamacare insurance had a $20 copay for generics, so I would have paid $17 for a $17 prescription. Besides, the insurance company was getting almost $600/month to insure me.

In the grand scheme of things a $17 prescription isn't an expensive prescription at all.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> When you start multiplying out $17 for everyone in a large state you also have to multiply insurance premiums and subtract copays. My Obamacare insurance had a $20 copay for generics, so I would have paid $17 for a $17 prescription. Besides, the insurance company was getting almost $600/month to insure me.
> 
> In the grand scheme of things a $17 prescription isn't an expensive prescription at all.


That's true.
If it was only one person, one script, in the whole country, it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.
It would be ludicrous to make it an issue at all.
But as is the case, it's $10 billion a year adding tens of thousands per case (as the CA worker's comp claims showed) and other associated costs like rehab treatments and deaths.
If you only see the individual, it's only $17........... :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> That's true.
> If it was only one person, one script, in the whole country, it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.
> It would be ludicrous to make it an issue at all.
> But as is the case, it's $10 billion a year adding tens of thousands per case (as the CA worker's comp claims showed) and other associated costs like rehab treatments and deaths.
> If you only see the individual, it's only $17........... :shrug:


$10 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to all medical costs. Remember, medical care is about 1/3 of out entire economy (it shouldn't be, but it is).


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> $10 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to all medical costs. Remember, medical care is about 1/3 of out entire economy (it shouldn't be, but it is).



In that case, can anyone spare a "drop"?
:bouncy:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I don't think insurance companies care about the cost of opiods. I don't think insurance companies care how many people are addicted, and I don't even think they care how many overdose & die. Why should they?

The insurance companies aren't asking for this. This is about government regulation. For some reason the government is taking an interest in opioids.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I don't think insurance companies care about the cost of opiods. I don't think insurance companies care how many people are addicted, and I don't even think they care how many overdose & die. Why should they?
> 
> The insurance companies aren't asking for this. This is about government regulation. For some reason the government is taking an interest in opioids.


Correct.
It takes some people awhile to figure out that if it's not coming out of their own pockets, they don't care very much.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Correct.
> It takes some people awhile to figure out that if it's not coming out of their own pockets, they don't care very much.


I believe that if the insurance companies thought loading their subscribers up on generic opioids would make them happy that they would consider it well worth the price.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Opioids should be OTC for all adults. Why should government get to pick what we can put into our bodies, or, when we may do it?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> $10 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to all medical costs. Remember, medical care is about 1/3 of out entire economy (it shouldn't be, but it is).


$10 billion here, $10 billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money! :icecream:

Hardly a drop in the bucket even when overall you are talking trillions.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Opioids should be OTC for all adults. Why should government get to pick what we can put into our bodies, or, when we may do it?


I don't mind getting a prescription from a doctor. What I mind is the government deciding if I can have a prescription.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I don't mind getting a prescription from a doctor. What I mind is the government deciding if I can have a prescription.



Reminds me of the saying, "I'm from the government ......... and I'm here to help."

I think you were one of the ones telling us how great it would be when the government took over healthcare.
Having buyer's remorse?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Reminds me of the saying, "I'm from the government ......... and I'm here to help."
> 
> I think you were one of the ones telling us how great it would be when the government took over healthcare.
> Having buyer's remorse?


Let's not pretend this has anything to do with Obamacare. The government has taken an interest in regulating prescription medications for a very long time.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Let's not pretend this has anything to do with Obamacare. The government has taken an interest in regulating prescription medications for a very long time.


Yes, they have, a very long time.
I figured you would only see the Obamacare portion of my question, since it you made no secret about your support of it.
The elephant in the room is the question of ever expanding, government control - and the burden of paying for it.
You can't escape the simple fact that when you support the creation of federal agencies and vote for more federal authority, you reap what you sow.
Now that the tree of paradise is bearing rotten fruit, you are looking for the pruning shears, huh?

Well, what would you like to see happen now?
Just prune the branch that's in your way, or do you see the continual problem with the overgrowth?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, they have, a very long time.
> I figured you would only see the Obamacare portion of my question, since it you made no secret about your support of it.
> The elephant in the room is the question of ever expanding, government control - and the burden of paying for it.
> You can't escape the simple fact that when you support the creation of federal agencies and vote for more federal authority, you reap what you sow.
> ...


Sounds like everything negative about the medical and insurance industries from here on out is going to be blamed on Obamacare.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Sounds like everything negative about the medical and insurance industries from here on out is going to be blamed on Obamacare.


If that's your opinion, ok.
Part of our discussion was going back to the turn of the 20th century before you, me or Obama was born.
That's when the feds started regulating medicine.
Maybe some of it was necessary, some not. But what started out as a few licenses or inspections has morphed into 1/3 of our economy, so they say.
Did it all happen at once?
Heck no, I saw the first signs in the early 80's and see it for what it is today.

But watching you and others cheer on this latest gov't intrusion, and now seemingly surprised that it turned bad, is puzzling, considering it was easy to see.
:shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Medical science was much different in 1900. In fact it's very different from medicine in the 1950s & 1960s. Back in the 1950s they didn't do heart surgery, cancer was a death sentence (no exceptions), and they hadn't even dreamed of CAT scans. Those advances are expensive, but we're willing to pay it because it saves the lives of our loved ones.

But we're still paying more than we should. That's largely because the USA medical system is profit based. Nobody in the world pays what we pay, and nobody gets less for their money than us.

The equipment & procedures in Europe are similar to ours, but cost a fraction of what we pay. That's largely due to better regulation of medical services.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Medical science was much different in 1900. In fact it's very different from medicine in the 1950s & 1960s. Back in the 1950s they didn't do heart surgery, cancer was a death sentence (no exceptions), and they hadn't even dreamed of CAT scans. Those advances are expensive, but we're willing to pay it because it saves the lives of our loved ones.
> 
> But we're still paying more than we should. That's largely because the USA medical system is profit based. Nobody in the world pays what we pay, and nobody gets less for their money than us.
> 
> The equipment & procedures in Europe are similar to ours, but cost a fraction of what we pay. That's largely due to better regulation of medical services.



All true. In fact, I bet we agree with the advancements medical procedures, it's faster and less painful.

Now, read your thread title again and explain why the high reliance on pain killers would reinforce the idea that we're still the best and have our heath and quality of life at the top of our list?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Medical science was much different in 1900. In fact it's very different from medicine in the 1950s & 1960s. Back in the 1950s they didn't do heart surgery, cancer was a death sentence (no exceptions), and they hadn't even dreamed of CAT scans. Those advances are expensive, but we're willing to pay it because it saves the lives of our loved ones.
> 
> But we're still paying more than we should. That's largely because the USA medical system is profit based. Nobody in the world pays what we pay, and nobody gets less for their money than us.
> 
> The equipment & procedures in Europe are similar to ours, but cost a fraction of what we pay. That's largely due to better regulation of medical services.


Well make up your mind. A few posts back you didn't want the government managing pain pills. But now, what's wrong with our system is not enough micromanagement by the govt? Circular logic there, it doesn't compute.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Medical science was much different in 1900. In fact it's very different from medicine in the 1950s & 1960s. Back in the 1950s they didn't do heart surgery, cancer was a death sentence (no exceptions), and they hadn't even dreamed of CAT scans. Those advances are expensive, but we're willing to pay it because it saves the lives of our loved ones.
> 
> But we're still paying more than we should. That's largely because the USA medical system is profit based. Nobody in the world pays what we pay, and nobody gets less for their money than us.
> 
> The equipment & procedures in Europe are similar to ours, but cost a fraction of what we pay. That's largely due to better regulation of medical services.


Well, it's largely do to witholding and slowing down of services, actually. Obamacare and supporting insurance network is rapidly running up a stump, as predicted by most folks who didn't want it in the first place, so get ready for the next big move, either forward or backwards.

The idea that you don't have to buy it until you get sick to get covered is a big joke, plus the fact that they have to insure you even after you begin falling apart a chunk at a time.

As per opioids, between my daughter and my doctor, I have had a few discussions about those little pills, and I have a pretty good idea that a whole lot of folks actually make their living sellling their pills on the street. My doc is constantly on the watch for that, and evferybody who gets pain meds is subject to having their labs measured to make sure they are actually taking them.

As for government interest, we all know that there is no power in the word "yes". the power comes from being able to make folks think that the govenment can take away your pain meds. All the power is in the "no" word, which brings folks into line. 

Same with medical care. If government controls that, they can control your diet, vises, habits, everything you do. If you are in the way, all of a sudden your insurance card may stop working. It's a great opportunity, just waiting for the right time to get used.....Joe


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Well make up your mind. A few posts back you didn't want the government managing pain pills. But now, what's wrong with our system is not enough micromanagement by the govt? Circular logic there, it doesn't compute.


Paying for medical care is one thing, telling doctors how to practice medicine is another.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Paying for medical care is one thing, telling doctors how to practice medicine is another.


But that's what the aca is all about, control.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Paying for medical care is one thing, telling doctors how to practice medicine is another.


It's the golden rule in action. The guy with the gold makes the rules. Government, being infested with humans, is no more immune to human failings than any other institution so infested.

Want perfection and selflessness? go find some unicorns to run the show.

In short, I'm amazed that you are surprised, but I wholeheartedly welcome you to reality.

You are making progress, and I salute you!.....Joe


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Paying for medical care is one thing, telling doctors how to practice medicine is another.


That is how the system "works". Obama eluted to it before the ACA was passed when he said that sometimes older Americans should forgo expensive, live saving procedures, in favor of pain management. Did you think he was asking for volunteers? 

When ANYONE pays for a service, they get the major say in what that service will be. As the Federal Government has its own legal team, that can and does make all of the rules, themselves, they can and will tell you when you are worth saving and when you are worth no more than a few pills, and do so with impunity.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Under ACA most plans are either HMOs or PPOs. Do all you anti ACA people hate all HMOs/PPOs or is it just Obamacare? All insurance companies have guidelines for medications, procedures, etc. It's absolutely nothing new.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Under ACA most plans are either HMOs or PPOs. Do all you anti ACA people hate all HMOs/PPOs or is it just Obamacare? All insurance companies have guidelines for medications, procedures, etc. It's absolutely nothing new.


Can't speak for everyone, but, mostly, I hate force, in this area. I am now required, by law, to purchase a product for the simple act of existing. That, and the predictions of the ACA being a thinly veiled attempt to cause the collapse of the health insurance industry, and usher in single payer, seem to be coming to fruition.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Can't speak for everyone, but, mostly, I hate force, in this area. I am now required, by law, to purchase a product for the simple act of existing. That, and the predictions of the ACA being a thinly veiled attempt to cause the collapse of the health insurance industry, and usher in single payer, seem to be coming to fruition.


So your rant that essentially said that Obama will deny old people treatment and only give them pain management is just because you were forced to buy insurance? I'm confused. 

The conspiracy theory is a bit much as well. Was that because you are forced to buy insurance, or just for dramatic effect?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> So your rant that essentially said that Obama will deny old people treatment and only give them pain management is just because you were forced to buy insurance? I'm confused.
> 
> The conspiracy theory is a bit much as well. Was that because you are forced to buy insurance, or just for dramatic effect?


Obama did say that. Here he is saying it: [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y[/ame]

The government does force me to buy insurance. The ACA is doing great damage to the insurance industry. Many, in government, wish for single payer. These are facts, not "conspiracy theories".


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I am not being forced to buy health insurance. I opted out in Jan.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

TripleD said:


> I am not being forced to buy health insurance. I opted out in Jan.


Please explain? Are you on Medicare? If so, you have been forced to purchase that healthcare coverage throughout your working life.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Please explain? Are you on Medicare? If so, you have been forced to purchase that healthcare coverage throughout your working life.


I'm self employed ( landlord) I will just pay the fine....


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

TripleD said:


> I'm self employed ( landlord) I will just pay the fine....


Excellent, but don't you mean "tax"?!!:hysterical:


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Excellent, but don't you mean "tax"?!!:hysterical:


You are correct. The tax beats $886 per month.....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Obama did say that. Here he is saying it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y
> 
> The government does force me to buy insurance. The ACA is doing great damage to the insurance industry. Many, in government, wish for single payer. These are facts, not "conspiracy theories".


I never said he didn't say it. I'm saying all insurance companies can do the same thing, particularly HMOs and PPOs, which are the most common type and comprise most of the ACA. 

I see, you just have a flair for the dramatic: 



Farmerga said:


> That, and the predictions of the ACA being a thinly veiled attempt to cause the collapse of the health insurance industry, and usher in single payer, seem to be coming to fruition.


The diabolical plan of single payer healthcare is coming to fruition. mmmmmwwwwahahahahahaha. Got it. 

Ask TripleD how he opted out. Problem solved.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TripleD said:


> You are correct. The tax beats $886 per month.....


So you don't have any type of health insurance? Do you own personal property? What happens if you are in an accident and don't have insurance? I know that when my grandmother was in the nursing home and medicare ran out, medicaid picked up and my uncle lost a portion of their farm to offset the costs. 

Doesn't that make you (and others that don't carry health insurance) nervous that you could lose your property?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> So you don't have any type of health insurance? Do you own personal property? What happens if you are in an accident and don't have insurance? I know that when my grandmother was in the nursing home and medicare ran out, medicaid picked up and my uncle lost a portion of their farm to offset the costs.
> 
> Doesn't that make you (and others that don't carry health insurance) nervous that you could lose your property?


I am single with no children. All my property is in a LLC. I will just have to pay the bills if they come due.....


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I never said he didn't say it. I'm saying all insurance companies can do the same thing, particularly HMOs and PPOs, which are the most common type and comprise most of the ACA.
> 
> I see, you just have a flair for the dramatic:
> 
> ...


And if they try, in a free market, we can change insurance companies, sue them, etc. With the government running cover for them, those options run right out of the window. And, as per usual, you didn't understand what I wrote, or, mischaracterized it. I said that the evidence points to these things happening. You can ignore the evidence, or, whatever, that is on you. 

While I admire what TripleD has done, he didn't, exactly, opt out of the ACA, he simply refused to participate and is going to except punishment. It is kind of like me saying that I am going to opt out of the speed limit laws, when driving.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> And if they try, in a free market, we can change insurance companies, sue them, etc. With the government running cover for them, those options run right out of the window. And, as per usual, you didn't understand what I wrote, or, mischaracterized it. I said that the evidence points to these things happening. You can ignore the evidence, or, whatever, that is on you.
> 
> While I admire what TripleD has done, he didn't, exactly, opt out of the ACA, he simply refused to participate and is going to except punishment. It is kind of like me saying that I am going to opt out of the speed limit laws, when driving.


No, opting out of speed limit laws is illegal. What TripleD is doing is legal, at least for now. 

I completely understood, and didn't mischaracterize anything you said. Perhaps you'd like to think that rather than own what you said, but sadly that's not the case.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TripleD said:


> I am single with no children. All my property is in a LLC. I will just have to pay the bills if they come due.....


Does an LLC protect you against liens and judgments from medical bills? Our farm is an LLC to protect our personal assets, but I didn't realize it protects against liens and such. 

I guess there is always bankruptcy if you don't own much personal property...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Under ACA most plans are either HMOs or PPOs. Do all you anti ACA people hate all HMOs/PPOs or is it just Obamacare? All insurance companies have guidelines for medications, procedures, etc. It's absolutely nothing new.


Yes. the whole idea behind an HMO is that you give up a lot of the management of your healthcare and give it to a private insurance company. They decide if and when you see a specialist and get procedures. If they decide you don't need it then you'll either pay for it yourself or go without having it.

I faced this about 4 years ago with Alma. She was with a Medicare Advantage HMO (the same one I am with today). They decided that she was getting old and expensive, so she had to go. They try to eliminate expensive subscribers by denying care. I countered by taking her to the county hospital rather than a private hospital, where everyone received a basic level of care. I switched her away from the HMO during the next open enrollment period, but it was too late. She passed away only 6 weeks after switching insurance.

But if we want to control healthcare costs we need to consider who gets which procedures. If we do that then someone is going to get left out. I suppose these are difficult decisions that the next generation will have to face.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, opting out of speed limit laws is illegal. What TripleD is doing is legal, at least for now.
> 
> I completely understood, and didn't mischaracterize anything you said. Perhaps you'd like to think that rather than own what you said, but sadly that's not the case.


Whatever, I am done suffering you.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Does an LLC protect you against liens and judgments from medical bills? Our farm is an LLC to protect our personal assets, but I didn't realize it protects against liens and such.
> 
> I guess there is always bankruptcy if you don't own much personal property...


An LLC set up properly is its own (person) . It protects all assets placed into it against anything other than a government tax lien . Then the veil of the LLC can be pierced. I own no personal property except house hold belongings.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Whatever, I am done suffering you.


And I completely understand why you're doing that too.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> And I completely understand why you're doing that too.


Perhaps, but would you ever admit it?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> But that's what the aca is all about, control.





Farmerga said:


> That is how the system "works". Obama eluted to it before the ACA was passed when he said that sometimes older Americans should forgo expensive, live saving procedures, in favor of pain management. Did you think he was asking for volunteers?
> 
> When ANYONE pays for a service, they get the major say in what that service will be. As the Federal Government has its own legal team, that can and does make all of the rules, themselves, they can and will tell you when you are worth saving and when you are worth no more than a few pills, and do so with impunity.


Americans have spoken, they are willing to assign a lot of the management of healthcare over to an HMO in exchange for low copays & deductibles. It's a fact. The HMO act was passed over 40 years ago. There are more Americans insured by an HMO than there have ever been.

The difference, as you point out, is that the government is now taking more interest in managing healthcare than it did in the past. But is that a good or bad thing? I would argue that having the insurance company manage your healthcare without government intervention is worse, since their decisions will be based solely on how much money it will save the insurance company.

I'm not opposed to the idea of assigning the management of my healthcare to the insurance company in exchange for low copays. In fact I'm a member of an HMO right now. But my health is good. If my situation changes I'll get other insurance. Here's a basic rundown of my HMO. I saw an ophthalmologist last week for free, and I'll be seeing a neurologist next week for free. Not bad...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hLb4Gsa-d0[/ame]


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Americans have spoken, they are willing to assign a lot of the management of healthcare over to an HMO in exchange for low copays & deductibles. It's a fact. The HMO act was passed over 40 years ago. There are more Americans insured by an HMO than there have ever been.
> 
> The difference, as you point out, is that the government is now taking more interest in managing healthcare than it did in the past. But is that a good or bad thing? I would argue that having the insurance company manage your healthcare without government intervention is worse, since their decisions will be based solely on how much money it will save the insurance company.
> 
> ...


The question has never been if the government can/should regulate insurance companies. The questions are should the Federal government regulate them?, Should the government expand their role from referee to active player in the industry? Should people be forced to participate in purchasing insurance. IMO, the answer, to all three questions, is no.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The question has never been if the government can/should regulate insurance companies. The questions are should the Federal government regulate them?, Should the government expand their role from referee to active player in the industry? Should people be forced to participate in purchasing insurance. IMO, the answer, to all three questions, is no.


Americans want affordable healthcare. The only way they're going to get it is by assigning the management of their healthcare to someone else, whether it be to an insurance company or the government. Americans want more of that, and are willing vote for it.

You evidently think pointing out that we are losing control of our healthcare is going to make people take pause. I doubt that. They want affordable healthcare more than they want control of their healthcare.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> The question has never been if the government can/should regulate insurance companies. The questions are should the Federal government regulate them?, Should the government expand their role from referee to active player in the industry? Should people be forced to participate in purchasing insurance. IMO, the answer, to all three questions, is no.


I agree with you on all points. Look what an mess the VA is. My deal is here BCBS is the major provider for the ACA in N.C. My cost went from $345 to $886 per month in three years. I paid my own way till then.

If a plan was available to me for $ 300 per month and I paid the first 10k out of pocket I would buy it in a minute.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Americans want affordable healthcare. The only way they're going to get it is by assigning the management of their healthcare to someone else, whether it be to an insurance company or the government. Americans want more of that, and are willing vote for it.
> 
> You evidently think pointing out that we are losing control of our healthcare is going to make people take pause. I doubt that. They want affordable healthcare more than they want control of their healthcare.


No, sheeple are stupid and there are more of them than there are people like me. They will plod along, thinking that government actually has their best interests at heart up to and until (and some even after) it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Federal Government is a corrupt, evil organization that has no real interest in the well being of the average citizen beyond what resources they can squeeze out of them.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

TripleD said:


> I agree with you on all points. Look what an mess the VA is. My deal is here BCBS is the major provider for the ACA in N.C. My cost went from $345 to $886 per month in three years. I paid my own way till then.
> 
> If a plan was available to me for $ 300 per month and I paid the first 10k out of pocket I would buy it in a minute.


That is a good point. I was against the ACA because of the force of government aspect, and the obvious realization that the government can't/is not interested in making things cheaper. If one wants affordable healthcare, one should run screaming from the ACA and any other government "attempt" to make healthcare cheaper.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> That is a good point. I was against the ACA because of the force of government aspect, and the obvious realization that the government can't/is not interested in making things cheaper. If one wants affordable healthcare, one should run screaming from the ACA and any other government "attempt" to make healthcare cheaper.


The government can make healthcare less expensive. I can think of several way that could happen. And we know it's possible, since it's less expensive in the rest of the world.

But the medical lobby is powerful to the point where congress has no interest in making medical care less expensive.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> The government can make healthcare less expensive. I can think of several way that could happen. And we know it's possible, since it's less expensive in the rest of the world.
> 
> But the medical lobby is powerful to the point where congress has no interest in making medical care less expensive.


It's much less about the insurance (which is the most common type of policy) and more about which administration implemented it. In my opinion.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> The government can make healthcare less expensive. I can think of several way that could happen. And we know it's possible, since it's less expensive in the rest of the world.
> 
> But the medical lobby is powerful to the point where congress has no interest in making medical care less expensive.


Yeah, you could regulate it until it almost stops moving, increase wait times, restrict life saving treatments to only those who the government deems valuable to society. You could also depend on a rich super power to do the lions share of R & D for new medical tech/medications. (well, we can't, but, other countries can)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's much less about the insurance (which is the most common type of policy) and more about which administration implemented it. In my opinion.


The idea of assigning management of our healthcare in exchange for low copays is not new. It dates back to the 1970s, when Nixon signed the HMO bill. Imagine that, a republican...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHTte8jRLk[/ame]


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Yeah, you could regulate it until it almost stops moving, increase wait times, restrict life saving treatments to only those who the government deems valuable to society.


Restricting life saving treatments to only those who the government deems valuable to society may sound harsh, but to a large extent the realities of our current system are even more harsh. You don't seem disturbed with the idea that only those who can afford it receive life saving treatments. Is that any more fair?

Are you ok with the idea that the wealthy live while the poor die because they can't afford medical care?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> The idea of assigning management of our healthcare in exchange for low copays is not new. It dates back to the 1970s, when Nixon signed the HMO bill. Imagine that, a republican...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHTte8jRLk


Being that occurred prior to my birth, I really couldn't say too much about it. Nixon did several terrible things to our nation, not including the Watergate incident.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Being that occurred prior to my birth, I really couldn't say too much about it. Nixon did several terrible things to our nation, not including the Watergate incident.


I wouldn't characterize the HMO Act has a terrible thing. What it did was to require certain employers to offer, as an option, an HMO alternative to traditional insurance. People could decide for themselves if an HMO was right for them.

But the HMO was the first health insurance to cover routine care, like office visits and prescriptions. People liked the idea. In fact they liked it so much that virtually all insurance eventually offered some degree of routine care coverage.

I think we can conclude that people like the idea of managed healthcare. I don't know why managed healthcare seems fundamentally evil to conservatives, but it's still what a lot of Americans want.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

You wrote;

"The difference, as you point out, is that the government is now taking more interest in managing healthcare than it did in the past. But is that a good or bad thing? I would argue that having the insurance company manage your healthcare without government intervention is worse, since their decisions will be based solely on how much money it will save the insurance company."

Not really so. Insurance companies know that profits are not only dependant upon cost saving, but sales. Customer satisfaction is a REQUIREMENT for a profitable insurance company. It matters not a whit to government, because;
A...you can't fire your government 
and
B... your government will only place the blame on the insurance company, big pharma, big medicine, your slothfull way of living, etc.

All this is a pretty convincing argument for everybody, to the extent possible, paying his or her own way. Yeah, I know, not always possible, and we have always helped those who need it, but when people are relying on somebody else to pay the mundane stuff like pain meds, doctor visits, etc, the cost is sure to be outlandish.

It is fairly common for medical procedures to go down in price over time, if they are the procedures that insurance or medicare will NOT pay for. Stuff like Lasic for the eyes, cosmetic surgery, procedures where they set up a clinic for that one thing and run them through like Jiffylube does cars. I was without insurance most of my life, and the bills get a lot more reasonable when you dig out the cash or checkbook.

Also, I'm sure doctors would be very happy to treat the indigent for income tax considerations. After all, it's charity. I knew a doctor back in the 1960's who had his sister working as a bookeeper. She wrote a detailed letter about that idea which got passed around congress for a while. Made sense to a lot of folks in congress and a lot of doctors, but the end result was that he got audited by the IRS every year after that until he retired.

Thinking does not always pay.....Joe


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I wouldn't characterize the HMO Act has a terrible thing. What it did was to require certain employers to offer, as an option, an HMO alternative to traditional insurance. People could decide for themselves if an HMO was right for them.
> 
> But the HMO was the first health insurance to cover routine care, like office visits and prescriptions. People liked the idea. In fact they liked it so much that virtually all insurance eventually offered some degree of routine care coverage.
> 
> I think we can conclude that people like the idea of managed healthcare. I don't know why managed healthcare seems fundamentally evil to conservatives, but it's still what a lot of Americans want.


If that is what people want, I have no problem with the free market providing it. What I do have a problem with is being forced to purchase a product by government.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Restricting life saving treatments to only those who the government deems valuable to society may sound harsh, but to a large extent the realities of our current system are even more harsh. You don't seem disturbed with the idea that only those who can afford it receive life saving treatments. Is that any more fair?
> 
> Are you ok with the idea that the wealthy live while the poor die because they can't afford medical care?


I am ok with people, VOLUNTARILY, participating in the insurance coverage of their choice, if they want insurance coverage. I am for people voluntarily giving money to charities that would provide live saving treatments to those who cannot afford them. 

I am against force of government. Simple, clear, logical.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I am for people voluntarily giving money to charities that would provide live saving treatments to those who cannot afford them.


I would be in favor of that to, provided that it took care of the problem. But I don't believe that charities could ever accomplish what insurance accomplishes. There simply aren't enough donations to charities for that to be possible.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Americans have spoken, they are willing to assign a lot of the management of healthcare over to an HMO in exchange for low copays & deductibles. It's a fact. The HMO act was passed over 40 years ago. There are more Americans insured by an HMO than there have ever been.
> 
> The difference, as you point out, is that the government is now taking more interest in managing healthcare than it did in the past. But is that a good or bad thing? I would argue that having the insurance company manage your healthcare without government intervention is worse, since their decisions will be based solely on how much money it will save the insurance company.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't characterize it so much as "willing", but rather signing on because that's all that they can afford, or else not understanding in the first place how much control they have given over to the HMO...until it's too late. I'm amazed you signed up for an HMO yourself, since you believe they were willing to let Alma die to save themselves money. 

"For free". Make me laugh. Nothing is free, don't you get that? Look past the end of your own nose once in a while. Somebody, somewhere is always paying a cost. There is no such thing as "free".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> "For free". Make me laugh. Nothing is free, don't you get that? Look past the end of your own nose once in a while. Somebody, somewhere is always paying a cost. There is no such thing as "free".


Well, no copay. Actually, I've paid for it. Being a Medicare Advantage HMO, I paid for most of it during my working years, but I still pay about $105/month. Regardless, when I see a doctor for no copay it seems free to me.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> I'm amazed you signed up for an HMO yourself, since you believe they were willing to let Alma die to save themselves money.


I understand the HMO beast. As long as my health holds out the HMO will be fine. At the first sign of trouble I'll look for something else. That's the saving grace; the open enrollment period.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Now with all the bullying doctors those who need the pain meds cant get them.
for those with chronic pain there is no need to seek medical help you wont get it.:hair


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

TripleD said:


> I am single with no children. All my property is in a LLC. I will just have to pay the bills if they come due.....


I did the same, I have not had health insurance since 1993. Have never had a need for it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

D-BOONE said:


> Now with all the bullying doctors those who need the pain meds cant get them.
> for those with chronic pain there is no need to seek medical help you wont get it.:hair


I don't follow you. Doctors seem to be losing this one.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> I did the same, I have not had health insurance since 1993. Have never had a need for it.


I went for a long time without insurance also. It's not just your health holding out. It's also the possibility of injury on the job or in a traffic accident. You never know...

I made it until Obamacare without a major incident. Others may not be so lucky.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Nevada said:


> I went for a long time without insurance also. It's not just your health holding out. It's also the possibility of injury on the job or in a traffic accident. You never know...
> 
> I made it until Obamacare without a major incident. Others may not be so lucky.


True, lot of luck. When I sawzalled my finger to the bone, twice, I got my first aid kit out, patched myself up and went back to work. Those 90,000 pound log trucks coming at you on a two lane narrow road are a risk.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

elevenpoint said:


> True, lot of luck. When I sawzalled my finger to the bone, twice, I got my first aid kit out, patched myself up and went back to work. Those 90,000 pound log trucks coming at you on a two lane narrow road are a risk.


Not really they have to by law carry $750,000 and there is legislation to increase it to 4 million in liability insurance.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

coolrunnin said:


> Not really they have to by law carry $750,000 and there is legislation to increase it to 4 million in liability insurance.


Why I like dirt roads, no traffic.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I would be in favor of that to, provided that it took care of the problem. But I don't believe that charities could ever accomplish what insurance accomplishes. There simply aren't enough donations to charities for that to be possible.


 Without the government force, most people would still have insurance, so, the charities would only have to provide for those, who can't afford insurance AND have some major health issue. People tend to help when asked, they resist when forced.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Without the government force, most people would still have insurance, so, the charities would only have to provide for those, who can't afford insurance AND have some major health issue. People tend to help when asked, they resist when forced.


That isn't my experience. I know of at least five people that have health insurance because of Obamacare. Do you have a cite or is it just your opinion? 

Charity will never again make up for government assistance. It's a different time and most are different people. Just from reading on this forum, it's obvious that many people would never donate (willingly) to help someone else.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> That isn't my experience. I know of at least five people that have health insurance because of Obamacare. Do you have a cite or is it just your opinion?


Here are some numbers. The number of uninsured was tiny prior to the ACA: https://wallethub.com/edu/rates-of-uninsured-by-state-before-after-obamacare/4800/ 




> Charity will never again make up for government assistance. It's a different time and most are different people. Just from reading on this forum, it's obvious that many people would never donate (willingly) to help someone else


 I reject that. It is government assistance that has reduced charitable giving, even with that reduction, Americans gave ~$230billion to charity last year. And that is just what was claimed on tax forms.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Here are some numbers. The number of uninsured was tiny prior to the ACA: https://wallethub.com/edu/rates-of-uninsured-by-state-before-after-obamacare/4800/
> 
> 
> I reject that. It is government assistance that has reduced charitable giving, even with that reduction, Americans gave ~$230billion to charity last year. And that is just what was claimed on tax forms.


Regardless, I still know people that only have insurance because of Obamacare. 

What are the stats for government programs to help the poor? I'll bet it's significantly higher than $230 billion. Yes, it is: the amount spent on safety net programs in 2015 was $362 billion (and that doesn't include medicaid/CHIP and ACA subsidies- it's another $392 million) according to this site: http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go 

Do you think that Americans will triple what they gave last year to make up for government assistance? I don't. I've read way too many "Suck it up, buttercup" and "Hunger can be a great motivator" and "I did it, so can they" on this forum alone to think that the majority of Americans will donate willingly.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Regardless, I still know people that only have insurance because of Obamacare.
> 
> What are the stats for government programs to help the poor? I'll bet it's significantly higher than $230 billion. Yes, it is: the amount spent on safety net programs in 2015 was $362 billion (and that doesn't include medicaid/CHIP and ACA subsidies- it's another $392 million) according to this site: http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
> 
> Do you think that Americans will triple what they gave last year to make up for government assistance? I don't. I've read way too many "Suck it up, buttercup" and "Hunger can be a great motivator" and "I did it, so can they" on this forum alone to think that the majority of Americans will donate willingly.


I don't think they would have to triple what was given, but, if the need is there, Americans will step up, that is a fact. There are those who need to "suck it up" and there are those for whom hunger can be a great motivator. Private charity can and does help those who cannot help themselves. Government throws money at people no matter if they are capable of helping themselves, or, not.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> I don't think they would have to triple what was given, but, if the need is there, Americans will step up, that is a fact. There are those who need to "suck it up" and there are those for whom hunger can be a great motivator. Private charity can and does help those who cannot help themselves. Government throws money at people no matter if they are capable of helping themselves, or, not.


I absolutely agree that _some_ Americans will step up, but I don't agree that voluntary giving will ever be enough to keep even the kids healthy and fed. 

Please tell me where all the jobs are for those Americans that can "suck it up"? If you cut government programs won't there also be a loss of jobs from that area? Will they become farmers? Factory workers? Where will they work? Won't unemployment sky rocket? Who will pay to train/educate all these people?

Reality is a witch kitty, isn't it?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I absolutely agree that _some_ Americans will step up, but I don't agree that voluntary giving will ever be enough to keep even the kids healthy and fed.
> 
> Please tell me where all the jobs are for those Americans that can "suck it up"? If you cut government programs won't there also be a loss of jobs from that area? Will they become farmers? Factory workers? Where will they work? Won't unemployment sky rocket? Who will pay to train/educate all these people?
> 
> Reality is a witch kitty, isn't it?


They can do those jobs that Americans don't want to do. Pick fruit, work in fast food, work construction, dig ditches, etc. Perhaps not easy jobs, perhaps not fun jobs, but, there are jobs out there.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Good luck guys..

Expect insurers to seek significant premium increases under President Barack Obama's health care law, in a wave of state-level requests rippling across the country ahead of the political conventions this summer.

Insurers say the law's coverage has been a financial drain for many of them, and they're setting the stage for 2017 hikes that in some cases could reach well into the double digits.

For example in Virginia, a state that reports early, nine insurers returning to the HealthCare.gov marketplace are seeking average premium increases that range from 9.4 percent to 37.1 percent. Those initial estimates filed with the state may change.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ob...companies-set-hike-obamacare-premiums-n564226


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

no really said:


> Good luck guys..
> 
> Expect insurers to seek significant premium increases under President Barack Obama's health care law, in a wave of state-level requests rippling across the country ahead of the political conventions this summer.
> 
> ...


One must ask, was the ACA built to do this? If it was, we were defrauded by government. If it wasn't, it is further proof that Government is incapable of managing anything. Either scenario is plausible.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

no really said:


> Good luck guys..
> 
> Expect insurers to seek significant premium increases under President Barack Obama's health care law, in a wave of state-level requests rippling across the country ahead of the political conventions this summer.
> 
> ...


Whoa ! I thought the premiums were supposed to be about the price of my cell phone bill ?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> They can do those jobs that Americans don't want to do. Pick fruit, work in fast food, work construction, dig ditches, etc. Perhaps not easy jobs, perhaps not fun jobs, but, there are jobs out there.


Aren't conservatives supposed to be the realists? Dang. Those are minimum wage jobs, correct? I'm not sure that fruit/vegetable picking even pays that much. Nope, "Annually, the average income of crop workers is between $10,000 to $12,499 for individuals and $15,000 to $17,499 for a family. To give you an idea, the federal poverty line is $10,830 for an individual or $22,050 for a family of four (in 2009)." From: http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-worker-issues/low-wages/

What about the people that aren't physically able to do heavy manual labor? My guess is that they would apply for Social Security Disability, and that would just move benefits paid to SSA. Fast food is part time _and_ low pay. 

I wish that all people could totally support themselves too, but I understand that it will never happen.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> One must ask, was the ACA built to do this? If it was, we were defrauded by government. If it wasn't, it is further proof that Government is incapable of managing anything. Either scenario is plausible.


IMHO it poorly planned, with the hope that the young and healthy would run to it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Aren't conservatives supposed to be the realists? Dang. Those are minimum wage jobs, correct? I'm not sure that fruit/vegetable picking even pays that much. Nope, "Annually, the average income of crop workers is between $10,000 to $12,499 for individuals and $15,000 to $17,499 for a family. To give you an idea, the federal poverty line is $10,830 for an individual or $22,050 for a family of four (in 2009)." From: http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-worker-issues/low-wages/
> 
> What about the people that aren't physically able to do heavy manual labor? My guess is that they would apply for Social Security Disability, and that would just move benefits paid to SSA. Fast food is part time _and_ low pay.
> 
> I wish that all people could totally support themselves too, but I understand that it will never happen.


So, instead of taking those "low paying" jobs, they should just rely on stolen government money for their support?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

no really said:


> IMHO it poorly planned, with the hope that the young and healthy would run to it.


I would say that simple incompetence is more likely.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> I would say that simple incompetence is more likely.


Yep, lots of incompetence. Now there is a chance that it will become unaffordable for all but the very wealthy or very poor that get the bigger subsidies. Consequently it could crash the system, what is left of it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> So, instead of taking those "low paying" jobs, they should just rely on stolen government money for their support?


Sigh. My point was that people cannot survive on those jobs without outside help. In my opinion, that help will never come _entirely_ from voluntary donations. The US isn't a third world country, and would never allow people to subsist and allow kids to go without medical care and proper food. 

I'm a realist, I just can't see benefit programs ending without a TEOTWAWKI scenario.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

no really said:


> Yep, lots of incompetence. Now there is a chance that it will become affordable for all but the very wealthy or very poor that get the bigger subsidies. Consequently it could crash the system, what is left of it.


My Dr. thinks it was set up to (crash the system) and go to single payer. Four years ago there were five family medical practices in this county. Now only one remains . The next county over where I have been going 20yrs there were six. Now only one remains.

He says the doctors are being pushed into joining group offices with hospital names.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. My point was that people cannot survive on those jobs without outside help. In my opinion, that help will never come _entirely_ from voluntary donations. The US isn't a third world country, and would never allow people to subsist and allow kids to go without medical care and proper food.
> 
> I'm a realist, I just can't see benefit programs ending without a TEOTWAWKI scenario.


You may have a point if there were any evidence that these programs work. They breed dependency and have held poverty rates at the approximately the same level since their inception. In fact, they halted the downward trend in the poverty rate.

The problem is that these programs, along with other over-reaching, ever more expensive government programs may bring about TEOTWAWKI.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> You may have a point if there were any evidence that these programs work. They breed dependency and have held poverty rates at the approximately the same level since their inception. In fact, they halted the downward trend in the poverty rate.
> 
> The problem is that these programs, along with other over-reaching, ever more expensive government programs may bring about TEOTWAWKI.


They work well enough so there are only hungry/food insecure, not starving, kids in the US. Kids have access to basic healthcare no matter their parents income level. Those are both good things.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> They work well enough so there are only hungry/food insecure, not starving, kids in the US. Kids have access to basic healthcare no matter their parents income level. Those are both good things.


And they would still have all of those things without them.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> And they would still have all of those things without them.


Maybe in a fantasy world where people haven't said on this forum alone, "Suck it up, buttercup" and "Hunger can be a great motivator" and "I did it, so can they." It's ludicrous to think that the same people that made those statements (this being a cross section of society) are going to donate $900+ million a year to fund benefit programs voluntarily. 

This is giving me a headache feel free to continue by yourself.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Maybe in a fantasy world where people haven't said on this forum alone, "Suck it up, buttercup" and "Hunger can be a great motivator" and "I did it, so can they." It's ludicrous to think that the same people that made those statements (this being a cross section of society) are going to donate $900+ million a year to fund benefit programs voluntarily.
> 
> This is giving me a headache feel free to continue by yourself.


This forum is a cross section of society? Really? No, the people here are usually to the extremes of society. 

I am going to assume that you meant $900 + billion, not million. We are already 1/4 of the way there with the excuse in place that "the government will take care of it". First off, there is no need for that much money. likely less than half would be needed as the Federal Government is not efficient in getting aid to where it is really needed. Charities are far more careful as to where the money goes. The government simply wishes to use our money to subjugate people and purchase votes. Charities have no such motives.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> This forum is a cross section of society? Really? No, the people here are usually to the extremes of society.
> 
> I am going to assume that you meant $900 + billion, not million. We are already 1/4 of the way there with the excuse in place that "the government will take care of it". First off, there is no need for that much money. likely less than half would be needed as the Federal Government is not efficient in getting aid to where it is really needed. Charities are far more careful as to where the money goes. The government simply wishes to use our money to subjugate people and purchase votes. Charities have no such motives.


Okay.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Regardless, I still know people that only have insurance because of Obamacare.


Sure. I was definitely in that category before I turned 65 and qualified for Medicare. From what I've read in the news, I'm only one in 16 million who have insurance courtesy of the ACA.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Sure. I was definitely in that category before I turned 65 and qualified for Medicare. From what I've read in the news, I'm only one in 16 million who have insurance courtesy of the ACA.



Really? We turned an important industry wrong side out, spent billions of taxpayer dollars, screwed over millions more people who already had satisfactory health insurance, just for the benefit of 16 million out of our 320+ million population? That illustrates what a train wreck it is right there!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> Really? We turned an important industry wrong side out, spent billions of taxpayer dollars, screwed over millions more people who already had satisfactory health insurance, just for the benefit of 16 million out of our 320+ million population? That illustrates what a train wreck it is right there!


Not just that, but, how many, of the alleged 16 million people, lost their preferred coverage BECAUSE of the ACA?


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

But they told me that putting the government in charge instead of those nasty insurance companies would be better... Surely government employees wouldn't lie to me?

Loki


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hoddedloki said:


> But they told me that putting the government in charge instead of those nasty insurance companies would be better... Surely government employees wouldn't lie to me?
> 
> Loki


I can tell you from personal experience that an insurance company is willing to let a member die if it improves their bottom line. The government doesn't have that same motivation.

But I'll tell you what, if I ever hear of the government being as ruthless as an insurance company I'll change my mind.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

OK, this is probably the end of family practice doctors prescribing main meds.

*Prince Died From Opioid Overdose*
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/prince-died-opioid-overdose-sources/story?id=39558294

Your doctor will probably have to refer you to a pain clinic where an anesthesiologist who is licensed to prescribe opioids can give them to you. That's just the way it will be from here on out.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> OK, this is probably the end of family practice doctors prescribing main meds.
> 
> *Prince Died From Opioid Overdose*
> http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/prince-died-opioid-overdose-sources/story?id=39558294
> ...


If they were going to change laws based on drug overdoses of the famous, I think it would have already happened. Prince is just the latest in a very long line of those. 

But if they do, more people will have a strong motivation to get them on the street. Exacerbating the problem they were trying to fix, that's the goobermint way!


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Nevada said:


> OK, this is probably the end of family practice doctors prescribing main meds.
> 
> *Prince Died From Opioid Overdose*
> http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/prince-died-opioid-overdose-sources/story?id=39558294
> ...


Nobody really believed exhaustion or the flu, did they?


----------



## rzrubek (May 13, 2004)

Nevada said:


> OK, this is probably the end of family practice doctors prescribing main meds.
> 
> *Prince Died From Opioid Overdose*
> http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/prince-died-opioid-overdose-sources/story?id=39558294
> ...


That's already how it is. I have to go every three months.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> If they were going to change laws based on drug overdoses of the famous, I think it would have already happened. Prince is just the latest in a very long line of those.
> 
> But if they do, more people will have a strong motivation to get them on the street. Exacerbating the problem they were trying to fix, that's the goobermint way!


The problem is not that people are getting addicted, or even that they're overdosing. Those are just the excuses. The problem is that some people are preoccupied with the notion that someone might be getting high. The thought of that makes some people crazy.

Since it's emotionally driven, using logic won't work. You could explain that some people really need the drugs for legitimate purposes, but it wouldn't help. Still, the thought that someone might be getting high haunts them.

Don't try to understand it, because it's not logical. There's no way to explain it. Just recognize that people become preoccupied with the darnedest things, even other people's sex lives. That's just the way it is.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rzrubek said:


> That's already how it is. I have to go every three months.


Your primary physician is still licensed to prescribe controlled substances, but the reporting requirements take too much time. Sending patients to a pain clinic is a simple enough alternative.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> *The problem is not that people are getting addicted, or even that they're overdosing. Those are just the excuses.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sadly, I think you sincerely believe that to be true.

At the moment, my guess would be about half and half, legitimate use to illegitimate.......and that's a conservative estimate based on watching the arrest reports.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> At the moment, my guess would be about half and half, legitimate use to illegitimate.......and that's a conservative estimate based on watching the arrest reports.


I can't imagine it's anywhere near that. But I'll wait for your references.

This is always part of the strategy; make the problem seem a whole lot worse than it is.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I can't imagine it's anywhere near that. But I'll wait for your references.
> 
> This is always part of the strategy; make the problem seem a whole lot worse than it is.




I did make the guess off the cuff, albeit one from experience - seeing it first hand.
But I didn't expect to find an actual stat on it when I looked.........surprise!

https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-even...id-prescription-practices-finds-areas-concern

*"April 05, 2011

An analysis of national prescribing patterns shows that more than half of patients who received an opioid prescription in 2009 had filled another opioid prescription within the previous 30 days. This report also suggested potential opportunities for intervention aimed at reducing abuse of prescription opioids.

Researchers from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), a component of the National Institutes of Health, will publish results of this analysis in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

"More research is needed to see if current practices are working, with a closer look at why so many patients are getting multiple prescriptions within a short period of time," said NIDA Director Nora D. Volkow, M.D. "As a nation, it is important that we all become better informed about effective pain management and the risks of abusing prescription painkillers."

This analysis comes on the heels of a nearly 20 year increase in the use of prescription painkillers. From 1991 to 2009, prescriptions for opioid analgesics increased almost threefold, to over 200 million. According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network system, which monitors drug-related emergency department visits and drug-related deaths, emergency room visits related to the nonmedical use of pharmaceutical opioids has doubled between 2005 and 2009. While these medications are crucial for pain management, their wide availability may also result in leftover pills in family medicine cabinets, increasing opportunities for abuse, as well as a host of serious medical consequences, including addiction. Most abusers report getting these medications from friends and relatives who had been prescribed opioids, or they are abusing their own medications.

This study used data from SDI's Vector One National database, a privately owned national-level prescription and patient tracking service. The sample included 79.5 million prescriptions dispensed in the United States during 2009, which represent almost 40 percent of all the opioid prescriptions filled nationwide. They broke down the prescriptions by physician specialty, patient's age, duration of prescription, and whether or not the patient had previously filled a prescription for an opioid analgesic within the past 30 days. The researchers looked at prescribing practices for younger patients, who are more at risk than older adults for opioid abuse and later addiction.

The records show that approximately 56 percent of painkiller prescriptions were given to patients who had filled another prescription for pain from the same or different providers within the past month. In addition, nearly 12 percent of opioids prescribed were to young people aged 10-29. Most of these were hydrocodone- and oxycodone-containing products, like Vicodin and Oxycontin. Dentists were the main prescribers for youth aged 10-19 years old. Nearly 46 percent of opioid prescriptions were given to patients between ages 40 and 59, and most of those were from primary care providers.

"*




Considering your well voiced opinion on this, I expect a strong rebuttal, but I did attempt to comply with your request.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I can tell you from personal experience that an insurance company is willing to let a member die if it improves their bottom line. The government doesn't have that same motivation.
> 
> But I'll tell you what, if I ever hear of the government being as ruthless as an insurance company I'll change my mind.


The VA is fast approaching the ruthlessness of insurance companies.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> An analysis of national prescribing patterns shows that more than half of patients who received an opioid prescription in 2009 had filled another opioid prescription within the previous 30 days.


I don't have a problem with that. In fact back in 2011 Alma was filling a prescription for Lortab every month. So what?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I don't have a problem with that. In fact back in 2011 Alma was filling a prescription for Lortab every month. So what?




You didn't "get it" did you?
It's ok, I think a lot of people are naive about what the report is saying and I would be the first to admit it doesn't actually say half are abusing the system.
But from your response, I'll assume you don't know what the term "doctor shopping" is, right?


"The records show that approximately 56 percent of painkiller prescriptions were given to patients who had filled another prescription for pain from the same *or different providers* within the past month."

"Within the last month" also doesn't mean necessarily at the END of 30 days, it could be 3 days later. My wife had to sign an affidavit she was NOT receiving any other prescriptions from another doctor at the same time.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> But from your response, I'll assume you don't know what the term "doctor shopping" is, right?


I know what doctor shopping is. I understand prescription drug abuse, and even overdose. I did ambulance and fire/rescue work for 9 years. But I also understand the value of opioids to qualify of life.

What I don't understand is why it's anybody's business but the patients & doctors.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I know what doctor shopping is. I understand prescription drug abuse, and even overdose. I did ambulance and fire/rescue work for 9 years. But I also understand the value of opioids to qualify of life.
> 
> What I don't understand is why it's anybody's business but the patients & doctors.


I think you understand it, but like me, don't agree with the idea of the government being given the authority to protect someone from their self, in matters of personal and private decisions.
In order to change that, however, most if not all the laws of the FDA, DEA etc. would have to be repealed.
Is that something you're in favor of doing?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> In order to change that, however, most if not all the laws of the FDA, DEA etc. would have to be repealed.
> Is that something you're in favor of doing?


The DEA can go. It's done more harm than good. The war on drugs needs to end.

The idea of the FDA regulating the manufacture of medications isn't bad, but having our own FDA results in it being too political. It only exists today to preserve profits. The FDA should be replaced with EU standards, which is done by most of the world. Even Saudi Arabia goes by European Union standards. That's the way to go.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Excellent.
That would include the right NOT to see a doctor, buy prescriptions, or have any health insurance as well, right?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Excellent.
> That would include the right NOT to see a doctor, buy prescriptions, or have any health insurance as well, right?


We don't have control over major medical events, and none of us can stand a half-million dollar illness or injury. Without insurance the government has to absorb the bill. That makes it government business. One way or another, we all need coverage.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> We don't have control over major medical events, and none of us can stand a half-million dollar illness or injury. Without insurance the government has to absorb the bill. That makes it government business. One way or another, we all need coverage.


So, the gov't has an interest in controlling medical costs incurred by patients and you agree with that, but when that extends to prescribing opioids paid thru the insurance, you don't think it's any of the government's business?
And no one has the right to *refuse* medical treatment if that is their decision? That is the government's business as well?
They just shouldn't have any rights on the medical treatment once you are forced to have it?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> So, the gov't has an interest in controlling medical costs incurred by patients and you agree with that, but when that extends to prescribing opioids paid thru the insurance, you don't think it's any of the government's business?


That's one of the little principles left over from Governor Reagan.



farmrbrown said:


> And no one has the right to *refuse* medical treatment if that is their decision? That is the government's business as well?


Under some circumstances that's the law. If you're unconscious you automatically give "implied consent" for treatment. Also, if your behavior is considered strange by a police officer, he can take you into protective custody and compel medical treatment. If course that varies somewhat by state (not much, but some).


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I can tell you from personal experience that an insurance company is willing to let a member die if it improves their bottom line. The government doesn't have that same motivation.
> 
> But I'll tell you what, if I ever hear of the government being as ruthless as an insurance company I'll change my mind.


Promise?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y[/ame]


There are also examples, in the not so distant past, where your beloved Federal Government did decades long secret medical experiments on unsuspecting men. Plus there is that whole "internment camp" deal during WWII. Those things happen within the lifetime of people living today. If you want to see even more ruthless examples, look to the 19th century. What do you suppose they are doing, in secret, today?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Than there is the VA with it's multiple problems.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

no really said:


> Than there is the VA with it's multiple problems.


I don't know if that is a case of ruthlessness or brain numbing negligence. There is lots of evidence to support either case.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> That's one of the little principles left over from Governor Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> Under some circumstances that's the law. If you're unconscious you automatically give "implied consent" for treatment. Also, if your behavior is considered strange by a police officer, he can take you into protective custody and compel medical treatment. If course that varies somewhat by state (not much, but some).


Yes, I am aware of the law in those circumstances. I carry a copy of my DNR in my wallet. The other situation is commonly referred to as the Baker Act.

But what I asked was, do you approve of those uses of government authority when it comes to medical care?
It's awful hard to slide UP a slippery slope, isn't it?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> But what I asked was, do you approve of those uses of government authority when it comes to medical care?


I'm on Medicare, although it's administrated by a private insurance company. Still, because of Medicare the US government is the largest health insurer in the country. They have to make policy about what's covered and what isn't, just as an insurance company has to make policy. I don't see a way around that.

But from my observation I can say that people are happy with Medicare policy. Why should I be against that?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

:shrug:


Nevada said:


> I'm on Medicare, although it's administrated by a private insurance company. Still, because of Medicare the US government is the largest health insurer in the country. They have to make policy about what's covered and what isn't, just as an insurance company has to make policy. I don't see a way around that.
> 
> But from my observation I can say that people are happy with Medicare policy. Why should I be against that?


:shrug:
Ummmmmm.........something about the topic of the thread you started?
Gov't interference in your healthcare decisions?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> :shrug:
> 
> :shrug:
> Ummmmmm.........something about the topic of the thread you started?
> Gov't interference in your healthcare decisions?


With or without the ACA, you're never going to get the government out of the business of regulating medicine.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> With or without the ACA, you're never going to get the government out of the business of regulating medicine.


Yes I know. It's been going on for at least a century before that, I wouldn't argue otherwise.
But back to my question and my resulting confusion..........
If you LIKE the government involved in your healthcare, how come now you DON'T like the gov't involved in your healthcare?
:shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> If you LIKE the government involved in your healthcare, how come now you DON'T like the gov't involved in your healthcare?
> :shrug:


The government has been regulating medicine for a long time, so it's about time they started paying for it. I can live with the government picking up the bill.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> The government has been regulating medicine for a long time, so it's about time they started paying for it. I can live with the government picking up the bill.


Yeah............you like them paying the bill.
Ever notice that when someone else pays the tab, they get the privilege of picking the menu?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah............you like them paying the bill.
> Ever notice that when someone else pays the tab, they get the privilege of picking the menu?


I'm willing to give the government say in medical care in exchange for nobody having to die for lack of medical care. We'll have that someday, but there have to be some limits on care to control costs.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I'm willing to give the government say in medical care in exchange for nobody having to die for lack of medical care. We'll have that someday, but there have to be some limits on care to control costs.


So in essence somebody's going to die?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I'm willing to give the government say in medical care in exchange for nobody having to die for lack of medical care. We'll have that someday, but there have to be some limits on care to control costs.


Well I guess there should be no disappointment in not having opioids available.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Well I guess there should be no disappointment in not having opioids available.


No, that's just wrong. That should be a decision between you & your doctor, not a bunch of 60 year old senators in Washington. But drug regulation doesn't relate to Obamacare. The FDA was regulating medications long before the ACA was introduced.

It concerns me because it's difficult to tell what the political motivation to ban opioids might be. We know that Nixon's war on drugs was totally motivated by politics, as a way to discredit blacks and the anti-war left. I don't see that as the motivation for opioids, so I wonder why they're doing it.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> No, that's just wrong. That should be a decision between you & your doctor, not a bunch of 60 year old senators in Washington. But drug regulation doesn't relate to Obamacare. The FDA was regulating medications long before the ACA was introduced.


And the FDA is part of the government, who decides what medications are allowed in the US. Some of those meds that have been used in other nations for many years, with good results are not allowed here. 

Your medications are part of treatment, if the gov can disallow certain treatments as to costly or for whatever reason they can disallow anything. Your doctor may recommend certain things but it can be to gov that veto's them. 

Right or wrong the control is/will be theirs.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Your medications are part of treatment, if the gov can disallow certain treatments as to costly or for whatever reason they can disallow anything. Your doctor may recommend certain things but it can be to gov that veto's them.


That's the odd thing about opioids, generic opioids are as cheap as aspirin. The motivation is something other than cost.


----------



## moonrabbit (Apr 1, 2016)

I am in the camp that all drugs should be legal, what we are doing is not working and has not worked in the history of ever. I do not use drugs at all but have seen addiction in my family and also have seen the societal consequences of the war on drugs both in the US and south of the border in Mexico where hundreds of thousands of people have died in a pointless civil war against poor people, fueled largely by America's consumption of illegal drugs.

I was very moved by a ted talk about addiction recently and if you have a few minutes it's really worth your time: 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9DcIMGxMs[/ame]


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That's the odd thing about opioids, generic opioids are as cheap as aspirin. The motivation is something other than cost.


Just a thought here but there are quite a few older people on opioids they are probably costly in other areas of healthcare, so considered expendable. Same for anyone else that need continuing support of these drugs. It is an ugly picture but it could be one answer.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

no really said:


> Just a thought here but there are quite a few older people on opioids they are probably costly in other areas of healthcare, so considered expendable. Same for anyone else that need continuing support of these drugs. It is an ugly picture but it could be one answer.


That seems kind of backwards, why take away palliative care and keep 'em quite?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> No, that's just wrong. That should be a decision between you & your doctor, not a bunch of 60 year old senators in Washington. But drug regulation doesn't relate to Obamacare. The FDA was regulating medications long before the ACA was introduced.


That's where you see half the problem and are blind to the other half, what I call politically myopic.
If you don't think ACA has anything to do with drug regulation, you missed it in the 3,000+ pages.
No, it's not the first time, nor the final one, but abdicating that much power into the hands of bureaucrats was a mistake and it was predicted before it happened, so there's no excuse.




> It concerns me because it's difficult to tell what the political motivation to ban opioids might be. We know that Nixon's war on drugs was totally motivated by politics, as a way to discredit blacks and the anti-war left. I don't see that as the motivation for opioids, so I wonder why they're doing it.





Nevada said:


> That's the odd thing about opioids, generic opioids are as cheap as aspirin. The motivation is something other than cost.


I've told you what I believe is the motivation, but you don't believe it.
:shrug:





coolrunnin said:


> That seems kind of backwards, why take away palliative care and keep 'em quite?


Well, one thing that would make it logical is the effect that cutting off narcotics suddenly has on a lot of people.
If you're not strong enough to survive the withdrawal or you do it alone, death is a distinct possibility.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

coolrunnin said:


> That seems kind of backwards, why take away palliative care and keep 'em quite?


Simple so they die, they'll either OD on street drugs or the stress of no pain meds kills them.

I was reading about the large numbers of seniors dying from drug overdoses of street drugs.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Well, one thing that would make it logical is the effect that cutting off narcotics suddenly has on a lot of people.
> If you're not strong enough to survive the withdrawal or you do it alone, death is a distinct possibility.


That's not how it's done. The trick is to classify everyone who becomes expensive as a hospice patient. At the first sign of trouble (difficulty breathing, or whatever) they get loaded up on pain meds and medical care is denied. That patient dies quietly with no ambulance ride and no ER. It's quick, simple and inexpensive.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

no really said:


> Simple so they die, they'll either OD on street drugs or the stress of no pain meds kills them.
> 
> I was reading about the large numbers of seniors dying from drug overdoses of street drugs.


But you could save a lot more money just by denying to pay for procedures.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That's not how it's done. The trick is to classify everyone who becomes expensive as a hospice patient. At the first sign of trouble (difficulty breathing, or whatever) they get loaded up on pain meds and medical care is denied. That patient dies quietly with no ambulance ride and no ER. It's quick, simple and inexpensive.


Maybe they're not getting to that point fast enough.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Simple so they die, they'll either OD on street drugs or the stress of no pain meds kills them.
> 
> I was reading about the large numbers of seniors dying from drug overdoses of street drugs.


Letting people die from violent drug withdrawal symptoms is too unsanitary. In a facility it would upset other patients. At home, the family would get upset and call for an ambulance, creating additional expense.

No, the best way is to keep them quiet and wait for them to die from complications of whatever they have.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> No, the best way is to keep them quiet and wait for them to die from complications of whatever they have.


You are forgetting one of the most important lessons about gov't.
Never assume, that they know the "best way" and are willing to do it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> You are forgetting one of the most important lessons about gov't.
> Never assume, that they know the "best way" and are willing to do it.


At present, private insurance companies are in charge of knocking-off patients who become old & expensive.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> At present, private insurance companies are in charge of knocking-off patients who become old & expensive.


Aren't you forgetting about Medicare, Medicaid and the VA?
Remember, the gov't hates competition, lol.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Aren't you forgetting about Medicare, Medicaid and the VA?
> Remember, the gov't hates competition, lol.


Medicare patients don't have that problem. It only happens with Medicare Advantage patients, who really have private insurance.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Medicare patients don't have that problem. It only happens with Medicare Advantage patients, who really have private insurance.


*Sigh*
You're right. It never happens, and no one in the country is addicted to opioids 
and I've been caught lying once again.

Move along people, nothing to see here.......
:bandwagon:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> *Sigh*
> You're right. It never happens, and no one in the country is addicted to opioids
> and I've been caught lying once again.
> 
> ...


We were talking about insurance companies knocking people off because they are old & expensive. That doesn't happen to Medicare patients. Medicare is an 80/20 indemnity health insurance plan, not managed healthcare.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We were talking about insurance companies knocking people off because they are old & expensive. That doesn't happen to Medicare patients. Medicare is an 80/20 indemnity health insurance plan, not managed healthcare.


So not true! Medicare is so very happy when folks die, it saves them money. Ask my neighbor about his wife and the hospice care that was literally forced on them.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

After reading this whole thread, my opioids are hurting. Seth


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> So not true! Medicare is so very happy when folks die, it saves them money. Ask my neighbor about his wife and the hospice care that was literally forced on them.


I got that same treatment from a private insurance company. But who from Medicare was doing the forcing? It's not like Medicare has people in the field.


----------

