Latest Drugwonks' Blog
AdvaMed’s Stephen J. Ubl, on Chairman Max’s Mark:
“Exempting Class I devices does not address the arbitrary nature of this tax. It will still cover scores of consumer products and medical devices used by millions of Americans every day. For instance, contact lenses and solution and battery powered breast pumps for nursing mothers will still be taxed.”
And, in a further feat of legislative legerdemain, maxi pads are not taxed, while scented maxi pads are.
“Exempting Class I devices does not address the arbitrary nature of this tax. It will still cover scores of consumer products and medical devices used by millions of Americans every day. For instance, contact lenses and solution and battery powered breast pumps for nursing mothers will still be taxed.”
And, in a further feat of legislative legerdemain, maxi pads are not taxed, while scented maxi pads are.
Time to get out and dust off your Part 15 mojo for the November 12-13 "Promotion of Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools" meeting.
It's about time.
According to the announcement:
"... FDA recognizes that the Internet possesses certain unique technological features and that some online tools that may be used for promotion offer novel presentation and content features. Another emerging issue involves the reporting of adverse event data because such information may initially be revealed using social media platforms in the context of Internet promotion for FDA-regulated medical products."
The complete announcement can be found here.
Groovy baby.
Writing in the Chicago-Sun Times Jesse Jackson claims that government healthcare is a proven success.
He starts off by saying of the VA, “Despite its many faults, it is very popular, as virtually any veteran will tell you.”
How many veterans do you suppose Jesse Jackson knows? Enough for him to assert that “virtually any veteran” will tell us that the VA is paradise on earth?
He goes on to list a litany of gratuitously partisan – not to mention fallacious - arguments in favor of the president’s health care overhaul.
Jackson then makes the following claims regarding the insurance reforms proposed:
“They can't refuse you insurance if you are already sick. They can't cut off your insurance if you get sick. They can't discriminate against women in health-care rates. These are big deals. And insurance companies have been ready to accept them so long as they could continue to ratchet up rates on millions of new customers. That's why they hate the public option so much. It would derail their gravy train.”
Scott Harrington argues in the Wall Street Journal that policy rescissions aren’t as widespread a problem as some would have us believe.
Equally absurd is the notion that discriminatory pricing is somehow “unfair” in the area of insurance. The potential medical risks are different for men compared to women. And, of course, insurance premiums are based on risks.
Several factors account for the price disparity in premiums for males and females:
1. Well, for one, males and females have different bodies, thus different reproductive systems.
2. Generally speaking, women tend to visit the doctor more often than men for check-ups and tests.
3. High use of oral contraceptives.
The good news is that women generally pay less for auto insurance, as young males are more likely to be reckless and irresponsible drivers.
On the issue of life insurance, males also tend to pay more than women.
And, if that’s not enough, you still have ladies’ night at bars and clubs, ladies!
You see, discriminatory pricing is all around us. It’s a function of that beautiful thing called a free market.
We need less commentators reducing the health care debate to this sort of childish thinking and more focused on advancing the best ideas for reform.
Reverend Jackson would be wise to focus on other issues and leave health care policy to the experts.
Can I get an Amen?
I thought I was hearing things this morning when I watched this video of President Obama speaking to college students at the University of Maryland yesterday and he said this:
“We are the only nation on Earth that leaves millions of people without health insurance.”
Wow. I’ll let the absurdity of that statement speak for itself.
Now, for a politician who advocates big government, college students probably represent the optimal target audience. Many are still living with their parents, receiving government loans or other entitlements, and have yet to face the realities of life. In other words, they’re heavily insulated from the costs of big government due to their minimal experience in life.
There is another point President Obama made in his concluding remarks that needs some clarification.
“Health care is about more than the details of a policy. It’s about what kind of country you want to be. Young people, it's about what kind of country you want to be. We are the only nation on Earth that leaves millions of people without health insurance. We spend more than any country on Earth, and we're not any healthier for it. So this is about what kind of country you want your children to grow up in.”
When the president says we are not any healthier for our higher level of spending on health care, will somebody please ask him what exactly he means by that?
Aside from that, this debate is very much about what kind of country we want our children to grow up in.
Medicare is on an unsustainable financial path. Not too far into the future, there will be only two workers for every Social Security recipient.
And now the geniuses in Washington want to turn even more control of the health sector over to the government. Make no mistake about it, the quality of our medical care will undoubtedly diminish. The overall quality of life, standard of living and opportunities for many of the young people in attendance at the University of Maryland will diminish.
Over at State House Call, Greg Scandlen explains the irony of young Americans’ support for President Obama’s health care agenda:
Oddly, the key population to be hit with the effect of mandatory coverage are young adults, which are also the biggest supporters of Obama and health reform generally. The recent Census Bureau survey notes that 28.6% of young adults from 18 to 24 years old are uninsured, as are 26.5% of those from 25 to 34. That is double the rate of those of age 45 to 64.
Many of these people are in very good health, so don't feel a strong need for coverage, but in the proposals before Congress, they will not be allowed to benefit from their good health and will pay the same premium as people who are very sick.
These young people often have other priorities for their money. They are looking for a mate or starting a family. They are setting up their household from scratch and need to buy furniture, or save for the down payment on their first house. They are getting rid of the beat-up Toyota they used in college and buying a decent car to get to their new jobs. They are buying clothing that is suitable for the workplace.
Many of these people are in very good health, so don't feel a strong need for coverage, but in the proposals before Congress, they will not be allowed to benefit from their good health and will pay the same premium as people who are very sick.
These young people often have other priorities for their money. They are looking for a mate or starting a family. They are setting up their household from scratch and need to buy furniture, or save for the down payment on their first house. They are getting rid of the beat-up Toyota they used in college and buying a decent car to get to their new jobs. They are buying clothing that is suitable for the workplace.
Scandlen concludes:
Man, if this thing passes, these folks are in for a rude awakening. But, I guess growing up involves a whole series of disillusionments. This will be just one of many for the new generation.
Indeed.
Opposition to Health Care Plan Hits New High of 56%
Friday, September 18, 2009
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.
Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.
Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it.
Date | Approve | Disapprove |
Sep 16-17 | 43% | 56% |
44% | 53% | |
42% | 55% | |
45% | 52% | |
51% | 46% | |
48% | 48% | |
47% | 49% | |
46% | 51% | |
44% | 53% | |
43% | 53% | |
42% | 53% | |
47% | 49% | |
44% | 53% | |
46% | 49% | |
50% | 45% |
But the overall picture remains one of stability. While the numbers have bounced a bit following nationally televised appearances by the president to promote the plan, opposition has generally stayed above 50% since early July. Support has been in the low to mid 40s.
The number who Strongly Oppose the plan has remained above 40% and the Strongly Favor totals have been in the mid-20s. This suggests public opinion is hardening when it comes to the plan that is currently working its way through Congress.
However, now just 48% say that health care reform plan is at least somewhat likely to pass this year, a figure that has been trending down in recent days. That figure includes 17% who say passage is Very Likely.
Rasmussen Reports has been tracking support for the health care plan on a daily basis since the president's speech to Congress last week intended to revitalize the troubled initiative.
From the pages of Washington Monthly:
RUMBLINGS ABOUT A BLUE DOG BETRAYAL.... Rep. Bill Cassidy (R) of Louisiana told a conservative talk-show host this morning that Blue Dogs Democrats have been quietly reaching out to conservative Republicans about a GOP-friendly health care reform plan.
"I'm having Democrats come to me, to speak to me as to what House Republicans are putting up," Cassidy told a conservative news radio program. "And when I mention our patient-centered plan...they want to have more conversations regarding that."
Cassidy was referencing the bill H.R. 3400, introduced by some House GOP lawmakers as an alternative to the bill favored by most Democrats.
"Some of my Democratic colleagues are approaching me now, saying we are not going to vote for H.R. 3200, can we talk about some of our ideas," Cassidy explained. "I'm very encouraged by this."
This isn't the first time this has come up, but it's gone almost entirely overlooked, in part because it seems hard to believe.
Last week, The Hill had a report, citing "GOP sources," claiming that Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the leading Blue Dog on health care policy, has been "keeping a back channel open" to Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) about a possible reform deal. The sources said Ross and Boustany have "secretively ... been in talks for weeks."
And as far back as July, Boustany claimed that Blue Dogs and conservative Republicans were having "conversations" about a center-right compromise that would effectively reject everything Democrats had proposed.
At this point, the only people talking about this publicly seem to be conservative Republicans. Whether there's anything to this is entirely unclear. Maybe this has to do with a negotiating ploy. It might even be little more than a psych-out.
But if Cassidy's comments this morning were accurate, Blue Dogs could be part of a rather massive betrayal. If the conservative Democrats decide, en masse, that they'll support a conservative Republican approach to reform -- premised on the notion that American families already have too much insurance -- but not a Democratic package, the consequences would be devastating.
RUMBLINGS ABOUT A BLUE DOG BETRAYAL.... Rep. Bill Cassidy (R) of Louisiana told a conservative talk-show host this morning that Blue Dogs Democrats have been quietly reaching out to conservative Republicans about a GOP-friendly health care reform plan.
"I'm having Democrats come to me, to speak to me as to what House Republicans are putting up," Cassidy told a conservative news radio program. "And when I mention our patient-centered plan...they want to have more conversations regarding that."
Cassidy was referencing the bill H.R. 3400, introduced by some House GOP lawmakers as an alternative to the bill favored by most Democrats.
"Some of my Democratic colleagues are approaching me now, saying we are not going to vote for H.R. 3200, can we talk about some of our ideas," Cassidy explained. "I'm very encouraged by this."
This isn't the first time this has come up, but it's gone almost entirely overlooked, in part because it seems hard to believe.
Last week, The Hill had a report, citing "GOP sources," claiming that Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the leading Blue Dog on health care policy, has been "keeping a back channel open" to Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) about a possible reform deal. The sources said Ross and Boustany have "secretively ... been in talks for weeks."
And as far back as July, Boustany claimed that Blue Dogs and conservative Republicans were having "conversations" about a center-right compromise that would effectively reject everything Democrats had proposed.
At this point, the only people talking about this publicly seem to be conservative Republicans. Whether there's anything to this is entirely unclear. Maybe this has to do with a negotiating ploy. It might even be little more than a psych-out.
But if Cassidy's comments this morning were accurate, Blue Dogs could be part of a rather massive betrayal. If the conservative Democrats decide, en masse, that they'll support a conservative Republican approach to reform -- premised on the notion that American families already have too much insurance -- but not a Democratic package, the consequences would be devastating.
Ceci Connolly's piece on the marvels of the Baucus bill captures the complete disengagement of the political process and parasite class involved in health care reform from the essential fabric of representative government. As long as "stakeholders" are numb and happy, all is well. Screw the people who will be forced to pay more money for a small number of health plan choices that are more expensive yet demonstrate no greater benefit than less costly forms of coverage, accept cuts in Medicare and Medicaid without regard to individual need.
It seems that since Obama became President, Washington has become more detached from public sentiment... Ceci just channels the delusion such disregard is not only acceptable but essential to being politically effective...
Read the article here.
It seems that since Obama became President, Washington has become more detached from public sentiment... Ceci just channels the delusion such disregard is not only acceptable but essential to being politically effective...
Read the article here.
Check out the video below.
Peter Pitts Discusses economic incentives for healthy living.
Peter Pitts Discusses economic incentives for healthy living.
My favorite quote about liberalism is from Lionel Trilling: (“We must be aware of the dangers which lie in our most generous wishes. Some paradox of our nature leads us, when once we have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make them the objects of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion.”)
Thus stands the clueless observation of Drew Altman who maintains that by such time in the future the annual cost of health care will be $30k a year:
For the worker share of the premium alone, the average amount paid by families increased from $1,543 in 1999 to $3,354 in 2008.
But that's according to the Book of Kaiser which believes that all health care coverage should include all the benefits and first dollar amounts that the Kaiser Foundation social engineers deem ok. Which is why the Baucus bill eliminates choice of any coverage other than the most expensive Kaiser model
Meanwhile, consumer expenditure data shows that Americans on average spent $945 a year on health insurance premiums in 1999 or two percent of the average pretax income. In 2007 the average was $1545 a person or a whopping 3 percent of pretax income. In both cases, that amount was less than what a person spent, on average, for dining out or entertainment.
Drew tells us that... the average cost of a family health insurance policy in 2009: $13,375....premiums in 2019 will average a whopping $30,803, a very scary number.
Let's set aside the mythical nature of that number, how it reflects pretax wage increases on the one hand and a one size fits all benefit package replete with mandated services on the other. Let's set aside the fact that the average yearly family premium in the individual health market with a $2000 deductible with the same benefits Drew drools for is $4500. SOURCE: eHealth, Inc.
Instead, let's focus on Drew's solution for making the scary number go away:
"One obvious implication is that we need to get more serious about reaching agreement on ways to slow the rate of increase in health care costs. But consensus on measures that would put a real dent in the health cost trajectory has been hard to achieve. Even simple first steps, such as comparative effectiveness research to collect data on what works and what does not in medical practice, have proven controversial, requiring language in draft legislation disavowing that they will ever be linked to payment."
www.kff.org/pullingittogether/091509_altman.cfm
Poor Drew. America lacks the will to require government to ration care explicitly. But he should take heart that much of Congress has bought into to the element of the liberal vision: a one size fits all, overpriced health plan that will be hard to pay for and three times as expensive as what most of us would choose if we actually had the choice.
It's not about cost. It is about coercion.
Thus stands the clueless observation of Drew Altman who maintains that by such time in the future the annual cost of health care will be $30k a year:
For the worker share of the premium alone, the average amount paid by families increased from $1,543 in 1999 to $3,354 in 2008.
But that's according to the Book of Kaiser which believes that all health care coverage should include all the benefits and first dollar amounts that the Kaiser Foundation social engineers deem ok. Which is why the Baucus bill eliminates choice of any coverage other than the most expensive Kaiser model
Meanwhile, consumer expenditure data shows that Americans on average spent $945 a year on health insurance premiums in 1999 or two percent of the average pretax income. In 2007 the average was $1545 a person or a whopping 3 percent of pretax income. In both cases, that amount was less than what a person spent, on average, for dining out or entertainment.
Drew tells us that... the average cost of a family health insurance policy in 2009: $13,375....premiums in 2019 will average a whopping $30,803, a very scary number.
Let's set aside the mythical nature of that number, how it reflects pretax wage increases on the one hand and a one size fits all benefit package replete with mandated services on the other. Let's set aside the fact that the average yearly family premium in the individual health market with a $2000 deductible with the same benefits Drew drools for is $4500. SOURCE: eHealth, Inc.
Instead, let's focus on Drew's solution for making the scary number go away:
"One obvious implication is that we need to get more serious about reaching agreement on ways to slow the rate of increase in health care costs. But consensus on measures that would put a real dent in the health cost trajectory has been hard to achieve. Even simple first steps, such as comparative effectiveness research to collect data on what works and what does not in medical practice, have proven controversial, requiring language in draft legislation disavowing that they will ever be linked to payment."
www.kff.org/pullingittogether/091509_altman.cfm
Poor Drew. America lacks the will to require government to ration care explicitly. But he should take heart that much of Congress has bought into to the element of the liberal vision: a one size fits all, overpriced health plan that will be hard to pay for and three times as expensive as what most of us would choose if we actually had the choice.
It's not about cost. It is about coercion.
What were the town hall meetings and tea parties all about? Healthcare reform? Sure. But the anger exhibited by our fellow citizens was clearly grounded in a much broader frustration over the continuing growth of government. The current debate over healthcare reform was a lightening rod -- and the results have been explosive.
And that's not surprising when you consider that healthcare reform, as positioned by the President and many senior members of Congress, would represent the biggest increase in the size and expense of government in our lifetime.
Many who favor such programs point to Great Britain and their National Health Service (the NHS) as a desirable model of single-payer delivery. But small government it ain't. Consider this: the NHS is the single largest employer in Great Britain. In fact, it's the world's fourth largest employer -- only the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Wal-Mart, and the Indian Railways directly employ more people.
Americans believe that the healthcare reform packages being considered by Congress would result in ever bigger government. They're right. Whether or not that's the right thing to do is another matter.
And that's not surprising when you consider that healthcare reform, as positioned by the President and many senior members of Congress, would represent the biggest increase in the size and expense of government in our lifetime.
Many who favor such programs point to Great Britain and their National Health Service (the NHS) as a desirable model of single-payer delivery. But small government it ain't. Consider this: the NHS is the single largest employer in Great Britain. In fact, it's the world's fourth largest employer -- only the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Wal-Mart, and the Indian Railways directly employ more people.
Americans believe that the healthcare reform packages being considered by Congress would result in ever bigger government. They're right. Whether or not that's the right thing to do is another matter.
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.
