Do we really care what Hollywood thinks?

Jeff, I wish I was as sure as you seem to be that I will always have health coverage.

Big companies who do nothing but, funnel our health care dollars into their pockets are behind this propaganda. These death merchants pay off politicians to con the working poor into working against their own interests. It's not patriotic to waste our health care dollars supporting corporate middlemen. By the way if you are looking for death panels, they meet in insurance company board rooms. These people kill everyday when they refuse to cover people just like us!

By the way, I don't care what Will Ferrell thinks about anything. His last movie was terrible, I want my $8 back for "Land of the Lost" too.

Charlie, not everybody who opposes government run health care is a dupe of politicians and big insurance companies.

There's a solid argument to be made, you know, for less government.

"I was born in a welfare state
Ruled by bureaucracy
Controlled by civil servants
And people dressed in gray
Got no privacy, got no liberty
Cos the twentieth century people
Took it all away from me."

-- the Kinks.
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrmQB38aT5U]

At least you didn't post a link or You-tube video. They are easier to get than health care coverage.

I'll meet you half way, only 80% have been duped.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1146

I asked myself the same question everytime Ronald Reagan opened his yap... Go figure! We've had a B-movie actor for president. A championship wrestler for state governor. A baseball team owner for president. I guess America does care what Hollywood thinks.

C.M. -- you forgot about Arnold.

.....Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Drew Carrey, Freddie Prinze jr. , Bo Derek, Charlton Heston, Chuck Norris , Heather Locklear, Jean Claude van Damme, Kelsey Grammer, Lauren Bush, Matt LeBlanc, LL Cool J, Patricia Heaton, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Shannon Doherty, Sylvester Stallone, Tom Selleck and Tom Clancy all supported the GOP candidates at one time or another.
....remember Fred Grandy, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood - all elected officials.

Jeff, I'm glad you posted that video. It is funny and to the point. You saved me from posting it and then Howard would have to fix it so it fits this screen.
I would have mentioned that MoveOn.org was responsible for it, as you know I don't mind giving the origin of my information.
What Will makes or any of the Hollywood people mentioned in the above posts mean little to me. When they are practicing their craft, they are paid the going rate for what they do.
Actors are not coming between my doctor and my medical care. The CEOs of the insurance companies ARE coming between our citizens and their medical care. They are paid a hefty sum for doing just that. Yep, they are paid the going rate to make sure that they keep the bottom line in the black, and they do that by dropping people who have pre-existing conditions or come down with a catastrophic disease. They aren't worried about whether they are making a box office hit. They hit people, who can least afford it, when they are the most vunerable.
The actors, in Hollywodd, will never bankrupt a family, the CEOs can and do on a daily basis.
The title of your post indicates that you do care what Hollywood thinks.

Jeff, I understood your reason for posting. You don't like these rich Hollywood types talking about Health Care. Well, I don't like greedy insurance companies and scumbag politicians that will do or say anything for a donation.

As for health care, if Republicans really cared, they would bring forth another option. All I have heard about so far are silly amendments. All states the start with the letter "U"..

Charlie,
You still seem to miss Jeff's point.
It's not actors talking about health care.
It's about rich actors telling us how bad other rich people are.

It's like the fool telling me about going green as he flies around the country in his private jet.

John,
I think we understood the point Jeff tried to make.
The point is what an actor makes isn't part of the equation. They are citizens and have a right, just as you or I, to voice an opinion.
As I stated before, an actor's salary doesn't effect the health care of any citizen in our country. The insurance CEO's who keep their bottom line black by denying coverage to those who need it most or by dropping coverage to those who have paid their premiums and now need the safety net of insurance do effect our citizens.
If they are the subject of ridicule, and if that is offensive to those who find no problem with the way they do business, then so be it.

Jeff, if I made a youtube video with a clever parody how many views do you think I would get? I watched this video get posted across facebook and twitter like a Santa Anna wild fire yesterday afternoon and then saw it played on Keith Olberman at 9:00. Some folks just naturally have a bigger microphone because of fame and fortune. Should they not be allowed their right of expression? The first amendment is pretty cool. We can all express our thoughts and points of views and after making a public expression another guy can come along with a rebuttal.

Bea and Charlie are right. It is the CEO's and insurance company boards that are the root cause of American families filing for bankruptcy every 30 seconds in this country. It is the CEO's with the record profits that take 31 cents of every health care dollar. Money that funds their corporate jets and lavish lifestyles that could be used to treat sick people. Movie stars aren't denying health care they're making movies. Is Will Farrell's 31 million dollar salary excessive? Probably, but he doesn't effect my life one iota, other than making me laugh every once in a while.

Since you don't agree with Will Ferrell's opinions or feel that his expression is hypocritical when he too lives a lavish lifestyle, you simply can make the choice not to buy that movie ticket or video. Until we have viable health care reform I am stuck handing a percentage of every dollar over to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield corporation in return for plenty of denials of prescriptions that my doctor has written and at least two procedure denials that my doctor ordered. At 50 it would be a crap shoot for me and my husband to decide to boycott health insurance.

Health care security is a moral issue.

Bea and Charlie are right. It is the CEO's and insurance company boards that are the root cause of American families filing for bankruptcy every 30 seconds in this country. It is the CEO's with the record profits that take 31 cents of every health care dollar.

What about the lawyers?? People not concerned about your health, rather about how much money you can make them. We need reform on all these BS lawsuits. My suggestion is if you bring a case to court, and you lose, the attorney is liable for all associated costs. Period. That would cut down on the malarkey!

What about the pharmaceutical companies?? I'm not that old, but I recall a time it was illegal to advertise drugs! How much money do these monster companies spend each year so people can self-diagnose themselves?

How about suppliers of medical equipment?? I recently had several surgeries, one of which was a temporary ileostomy. The cost of the supplies dwarfed what the surgeon and anestesiologist nade COMBINED! A simple wax protective barrier....a box of 10 was $221!!! Thank God I had insurance. BTW, this medical supply company let me ordr as much as I wanted, as often as I wanted, since I had "excellent insurance that doesn't ask questions"(a quote from a rep at said company)

If we just fixed what we already have in place, and make changes like allowing co-ops for small businesses, purchasing insurance across state lines, and tort reform, we could go back to being the envy of the free world instead of the laughing stock!

I believe we all agree change is neccessary, so let's come together to work on the solution. The bickering and finger pointing is unproductive, and we are better than that!

Isn't there a difference though between an actor making millions from making movies and an insurance company CEO making millions from denying sick people health care that they paid for in premiums?

I don't think these entertainers are complaining that other folks are rich, they're complaining about how they got rich.

Insurance company CEO's, pharmaceutical companies,and medical equipment suppliers, have run their rackett long enough. They have rode on the backs of the sick for too long. When I think of all the thousands of dollars we have invested in our health insurance, over the years, it makes me sick. While i believe healthcare needs reform, I'm not keen on the public option. I was hoping for something better for the US and its people.. I wish The Prez Gods Speed and Guidence, in figuring out this mess...

Yeah those pharma, and medical supply companies are scumbags their racket is hiring genius medical researchers, investing in research and development, innovation, inventing new drug products, curing deseases, perfecting artificial body parts, and saving lives. The government should take over every aspect of everything cause they would make sure its run more efficiently. Wackos.

John, I understand perfectly. I also don’t care what Will Ferrell has to say. All Will Ferrell can do is dupe me into going to one of his stupid movies. Like I said, I want my money back for the last one.

Although, I do care what greedy insurance companies do with my money that should be spent on Health Care. Bud has made some fantastic points and I agree with him, this is about coming to an agreement. What is really obvious is that the big money from these insurance companies is corrupting our system. Those who are taking money from these death merchants are refusing to work out a deal. Because of that we are probably not going to find middle ground like Bud is talking about.

In the absence of compromise, I’ll take what BHO decides is the right thing to do. My beloved, foreign born, socialist President is the only one who seems to have my interests at heart.

reply to Richard
Yeah those pharma, and medical supply companies are scumbags their racket is hiring genius medical researchers, investing in research and development, innovation, inventing new drug products, curing deseases, perfecting artificial body parts, and saving lives. The government should take over every aspect of everything cause they would make sure its run more efficiently. Wackos.

investing in research and development

A good deal, dare I say a majority, of R&D is already government subsidized.

curing diseases

Money is made treating disease, not curing.

perfecting artificial body parts

Thanks to the armed forces

Bud,
You are right about much R&D being government subsidized, but the key point is they are not government run.

And the R&D people are still free to say yes or no to the money.

And the R&D people are still free to say yes or no to the money.

And how many do you believe say "no"? This is another area where there is a feeling of "entitlement". These big drug companies take money for research, yet charge big money under the guise of recouping the money they invested. Some even go as far as holding "exclusive rights", preventing any generics from being manufactured for a definite period of time.
While I do not begrudge anyone the right to make a buck, if the government subsidized you in the first place, then there should be no exclusive deals taking place.

Cut it out Pfizer invests more money in R&D than any other company or institution in the world.The discovery of new drugs and their development into useful pharmaceuticals is central to the concept of medical progress. The U.S. pharmaceutical and biotech industries invested nearly $39 billion in research and development in 2008, with Pfizer leading the way with $7.7 billion and 12,500 scientists

Phil,
I agree with you.
One point that bothers me is the idea of taxing people who do have health insurance.

If Charlie's (or anybody) company decided they needed to give him a better deal to keep him and gave him the best health plan they could, some in Congress want to tax Charlie for getting a good deal.

Then they want to exempt some unions from the tax. I don't like that one bit.

I think $7.7 billion was also their marketing budget. Try and pick up any mainstream magazine that doesn't have half of it's ads about pharms! Pfizer also spends a GREAT deal of money wining,dining and sixty nining doctors and office personnel. It's broke and it needs fixing!

John, they tax people who don't have children in public schools, so a precedent is set.

Not that I'm defending either.

Come on Bud don't you like their boner pill.

Yeah, especially when my 5 year old says," Daddy, whats an erection?". Can't watch any sports without a cialis or viagara commercial.

If Obama really wanted competition,He claims we need to have it across state lines,then he could sign an executive order to do so Today...Why doesn't he..He says they can cut 500 billion out of Medicade ,then why not do it today..Claims 47 million don't have insurance ,only problem with that number is it included illegal aliens..The new claim is 30 million...What's the truth..Does he really want more competition in the market place ..Do today..Doesn't cost a dime...Maybe after we do the aboved mention,we could get a better picture of what is really needed to help those who don't have insurance...Maybe we should let Wal Mart run and sell health care,They know how to get cost down and still make money..

Good Post Jeff...The rich pointing the finger at the rich ..Don't you just love it...

Richard,
Richard,
Ralph Nader and James Love testified before the Special Committee on the Aging of the United States Senate on 2/14/1993. http://www.cptech.org/pharm/pryor.html
I would suggest you read the entire testimony, but here are the highlights.
This is just a window of how much federal money is spent on R&D in the pharmaceutical industry. It was true in 1993 and still holds up in 2009.

The testimony included:
1. What is the extent of the federal government's role in the funding of new drug development?
2. Do federal laws and policies regarding the allocation of property rights from federally funded drug R&D protect the public interest?

3. What changes in federal laws and policies are needed to ensure that drugs developed with federal funds are priced fairly?

4. What new analytical and management approaches are needed to control prices of drugs developed with federal funds?

The Summary of Comments:

Our comments today will address the following points.

According to the National Institutes of Health, the federal government funds 42 percent of all national expenditures on health care research, compared to 47 percent from private industry.

The federal government's role in the development of new drugs spans a wide range of activities, encompassing nearly all aspects of drug development, such as the discovery of new therapeutic agents, clinical testing of drugs in humans, and the development and refinement of manufacturing techniques. The notable exception concerns the final step of drug development, which is the request for an FDA New Drug Application (NDA), which is required before the drug can be commercially marketed.

The federal government plays a particularly important role in the highest risk research projects, including basic research, where commercial payoffs are least certain.

In the area of federal expenditures on human use clinical trials, a relatively advanced area for drug research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will spend an estimated $868.8 million in fiscal year 1993, a 75 percent increase over NIH's 1989 expenditures of $495.5 million. By comparison, the members of the Pharmaceutical Manufactures Association (PMA) reported spending $1,555 million in clinical trials in 1989 (the most recent year for which data are available).

Federal support for the development of new drugs is focused on those drugs which represent the greatest gains in therapeutic value or which are used to treat the most serious illnesses.

While the FDA approves hundreds of drugs for marketing every year, the number of new or important drugs is relatively small. In 1991 the FDA approved 327 new and generic drugs and biologic products. Thirty of the approvals were for new molecular entities (NMEs) -- drugs distinctly different in structure from those already on the market. Only five of these drugs received an FDA efficacy rating of A, which is reserved for drugs which afford "significant therapeutic gain." Nine of the NMEs received an FDA classification of E, which is reserved for drugs that treat "severely debilitating or life threatening illness," including four of the five Class A drugs. Two drugs received FDA Class AA priority status for the treatment of AIDS.

All five 1991 FDA Class A drugs were developed with federal funds.

Six of the nine 1991 FDA Class E drugs were developed with federal funds.

Both 1991 FDA Class AA drugs for AIDS were developed with federal funds.

For the group, seven of the ten 1991 FDA NME priority drugs (Class A,E or AA), were developed with federal funds.

Among the FDA NME priority drugs approved in 1991, those that were developed with federal funding were priced considerably higher than those developed without federal funding.

Drugs developed without federal funding were priced at $321 to $2,376 (based upon a full year or completed course of treatment, whichever was less).

Drugs developed with federal funding were priced at $368 to $546,000 (based upon a full year or completed course of treatment, whichever was less).

Among the seven priority drugs developed with federal funding, five were priced at more than $7,000 and only one was priced less than $1,000.

The federal government has played an enormous role in the development of new cancer drugs. There have been 37 new cancer drugs discovered and approved for marketing since the National Cancer Institute's new drug program began in 1955. Of the 37 cancer drugs, 34 were developed with federal funding.

One firm, Bristol-Myers Squibb, has benefitted the most from the NCI new drug program. Of the 34 cancer drugs developed with federal funding, 11 are marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, including the recent blockbuster drug Taxol.

In comparing the relative contributions of the government and the private sector in the development of new drugs, it is important to recognize ways that industry spokesman manipulate the data. For example, studies of the industry's costs of developing new drugs typically adjust nominal expenditures for inflation, risk and the opportunity cost of capital. In contrast, the government's costs of drug development are frequently presented in nominal terms, without any adjustments for inflation, risk or the opportunity cost of capital. As a result, many observers have a grossly distorted view of the economic value of the government's drug research investments. For example, some studies report industry Phase I investments at 11 times the initial nominal cash outlays, while government agencies often report drug development costs that only reflect nominal cash outlays to contractors, and ignore the government's costs of intramural research

Mark, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the regulation of insurance companies a state function and not federal?
Isn't that why there is a problem with selling insurance across state lines.
How can the president sign an executive order on something that is the jurisdiction of the each state's governor?

An employment health care benefit should not be taxed. And if taxed, special unions should not be exempt.

Of course, Obama said he wouldn’t do that during the election campaign when McCain brought it up, but Obama won, so he can “change his mind” now.

Bea,
Obama wants to regulate health insurance companies, that's what this is really all about. Federal control, not state.

If insurance regulation is a state issue, then Obama should leave this alone, right?

John,
The regulation that Mark about which Mark is speaking is the option to purchase insurance across state lines. While it sounds sensible, it isn't possible right now because each state has different regulations.

Obama doesn't want to take over the insurance companies, he is trying (God forbid, anyone attempt this) to make health care affordable for everyone and not just the privileged few.

You may be one of that elite group, but there are many who can't. I'm not talking about illegals, I'm talking about middle class, working families that are going without insurance for a myriad of reasons. I'm talking about those denied insurance for pre-existing conditions or those dropped by insurance companies because they proved to be too high a risk.

Obama just likes to be on TV he really isn't doing anything but talkin. He doesn't have a plan he has a list ideological concepts he likes and wants to conduct a massive social experiment and we're the lab rats.

Richard,
Keep throwing those GOP talking points.
You are behind the times, they gave up on the president's television exposure a few days ago.

Let me save you the trouble, these are the GOP talking points they want you to focus on.

■As the American people struggle to make ends meet, too many also live with the challenge of affording basic health care for themselves and their families. Any time a child or a parent goes without the care they need, it is a personal crisis for that family.

■Republicans want to make quality health care coverage affordable and accessible for every American, and let those who like their current health care coverage to keep it. Republicans support health care reform that puts patients and their health first, and protects the important doctor-patient relationship.

■Democrats are pushing for a government takeover of health care that would have devastating consequences for families and small businesses. A government takeover of health care will raise taxes, ration care, and let government bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by families and their doctors.

■Republicans want to empower doctors and patients by making health care more affordable, more accessible, and more accountable. The American people deserve the peace of mind that comes with knowing they have the health care their families need, when they need it.

■The Democrats' government-takeover of health care will deny access to medical care and life-saving treatments. More than 100 million Americans would lose their current health care under the Democrats' government-run plan.

■Government mandates in health care already encourage waste, fraud and abuse that result in higher costs and more families without care.

■We cannot allow politicians and special interests to stand between patients and the care they need. The American people deserve the freedom to choose the health care that is best for their families.

http://www.gop.gov/talking-points/09/05/11/gop-health-care-talking-poin…

OK then the best talkin point is how is he or are we going to pay for the additional 30 to 50 million people to aquire health insurance and make it more affordable. It's a farce. It can't be done, unless he's also so omnipotent that he is able to alter the basic principles of math at the same time.

Bea..I saw on CNN were Wolf Blitzer asked Axelrod why not have Obama just propose a law to do so.....He Axelrod agreed he could do it,but that they want the whole plan not just some small part of it..So i am wrong on just signing an order....

I didn't give up Bea, I actually enjoyed the "stupid human" tricks on the Letterman show the other night. He missed his calling, should have been a comedian. Oh, wait, I guess that's what he's doing

Posted by bud prevost on September 23, 2009 - 12:42pm
I didn't give up Bea, I actually enjoyed the "stupid human" tricks on the Letterman show the other night. He missed his calling, should have been a comedian. Oh, wait, I guess that's what he's doing

The President is a stupid human? Gee, and I was just saying how intelligent your earlier post was and how I liked that you gave put a personal face on part of the problems.
Well, to each his own. You believe whatever you want. That comment isn't worth the effort.

Bea,
For pre existing conditions, why not an insurance pool? They do that now for drivers who can not get regular car insurance or at affordable prices.

Right now Obama’s plan is to force companies to have somebody with a chronic condition be able to buy insurance. That alone tells you they are going to use the insurance much more than the average person, and like a bad driver, may not be able to afford the premium even if allowed to buy.

A “health risk pool” may very well solve the problem without Obama running it.

Bea, you obviously didn't stay up late Monday night to watch the President on Letterman. I did, and I wish I hadn't. Do you think I like feeling this way? I was taught growing up that the office of President was a respected position, held by people of the highest standards. I wish I felt better about this administration. I will say, while I may have a sarcastic remark here and there, I have never wished ill will on Obama, nor do I wish him to fail at his job. I am an American, and I want to be patriotic.

I tend to take very little stock in what is said or campaigned for by folks (actors & actresses) whose job is to play "make believe". They are so out of touch with reality that it is not worth the time or effort. But that's just me.....

Castro praises Obama at the UN today,and Gaddafi calls him our son of islam,we got troubles..He his heading in the direction those two dictators like to see,tells me he's more like them then we think...Weres Move on .org and Will Ferell on this..they want to take down capitialism...Force company's to take the pay they dictate...People better wake up..

Don't forget comrade Chavez loves BHO too!

Come on Mark! Join us!! We won't take your money, it's rich people we socialists are after! Wake up people! Join the revolution!