How to Reduce Healthcare Costs by 80% Overnight (Without Spending $2 Trillion)

http://bytestyle.tv/node/66

Dr. Mary Ruwart has a plan that would reduce healthcare costs by 80% overnight... without costing taxpayers $2 trillion. So why isn't anyone talking about this?

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• shelly roche
• how to
• reduce healthcare costs
• healthcare reform
• mary ruwart
• obama
• healthcare
• insurance
• regulations
• news
• politics
• activism
• sick
• fat
• healthy

[printo69]

We dont need the FDA, they just hinder advancements in the pharmaceutical industry, not promote them. With non-profit 3rd parties like USP or Gold Standard, verifying the claims by drug companies can be done. Also pharmacists (which is what I am) would play a stronger role in the drug market. A pharmacist would not dispense medication unless he is sure of what the drug does, because theyre liable. So drug companies would have to go through 3rd parties & provide lit if they want to sell drugs

[thomaserossi]

FDA is a sham. They tried to force Cheerios to remove their "heart smart" advertisements because Cheerios isn't a drug. It had nothing to do with the fact that Cheerios reduces cholesterol levels, because it does. The reason is the FDA changed their qualifications.

General Mills refused on account that it was the FDA that allowed them to advertised as "heart smart" in the first place.

Welcome to fascism!

[organichik]

Maybe SOME OF THE 40% of uninsured Americans simply don't want your stinking Insurance. Some of us are a lot wiser than you think and can actually live without doctors and drugs.

[DaveDoggOwns]

If you're just going to assume that everyone is too stupid to require third party verification for the safety of drugs or is evil and will knowingly sell consumers harmful substaces then why then do you assume the people in the government are going smart and moral? If the population is stupid and evil then the government is going to be stupid and evil; especially if the government is democratic.

[DaveDoggOwns]

@RealLifeProduct Who needs the free market when you can delay the entrance of drugs and kill hundreds of thousands as a result? For every "regulation" you think is saving people's lives I can name just as many that is resulting in people getting killed because of needless delaying. Also, your arguement assumes everyone is either stupid or evil. If people in the marketplace are stupid and/or evil then why is the gvernment not stupid and/or evil?

[peroron2000]

85% of the cost of health care is due to "wasteful, unnecessary regulation"? Where does this 85% number comes from first of all, but the next question is what regulation is un-necessary? Does she envision some kind of strange world where anyone can just package up anything they want and sell it? No need to test its effects or publish its ingredients? Like we had in 1900, patent medicines. Baby medicine contained morphine as did many other remedies. Is this the world she wants us to return to?

[ByzantiumCA]

Hmmm ... someone who works for a DRUG COMPANY wants LESS government regulation on DRUGS. Anyone sense a possible conflict of interest there? I love Shelly Roche when she is telling the government to keep HANDS OFF small farmers. But pharmaceutical companies are a whole different breed than small farmers. Drug companies DO NOT need our sympathy or protection. They are doing just fine getting USA strung-out on "medications" and buying congress.

[RealLifeProduct]

Who needs regulation when you can test the drugs on humans and if thousands die then we know the drug doesn't work. I say we just test the drugs on the people who don't want regulation seeing they are so willing to deregulate.

[wanealy]

First off, you don't convince someone by calling him a moron before you even lay out your argument.

Second: provide the numbers. Even if you include state mandates, an 80 percent reduction in costs is absurd. And by the way, the study has to be relatively unbiased: if it comes from an industry funded group, I don't buy it.

Third, if you believe Big Pharma is NOT a special interest group, I have some swamp land to sell you

[YIRMASTER]

wanealy you're a moron! The point is the prices wouldn't have gotten that high to begin with without state mandates.

BTW, do you know what a state mandate is?

For state legislators, [mandates are] used as a special interest tool to reward lobbyists with a specific mandate and let someone else pay for it"

I wonder why Obama's scratch that, Pelosi's health care plan doesn't address special interest added costs. Some are good but there are many abused and wasteful mandates that drive up cost

[wanealy]

Stupidest video I've seen in years. First off, I would LOVE to see how she arrived at those numbers. Second of all, she asks us to trust her because she works for (wait for it...) the PHARMACEUTICAL industry ?!? Third, her argument assumes that with less regulations, profit making institutions like hers would have an incentive to lower their costs? It assumes that these corporations would voluntarily take the savings they make to lower their prices instead of increasing profits. Right.

[goffnett]

I'll take Fox over Ted Turner or the GE cronies at NBC,  unfortunately we don't have other options. Fox speaks for Rupert Murdoch, he seems to be the best of the rest of the leftist scumbag that are so simple minded that they want to create a civil war between homosexuals and conservative beauty pageant contestants. A herd of adult men that sound like gossiping old hags. I'll stay with Rupert Murdoch until a better choice is available.