U.S. Healthcare

[Phi for All]

How do we pay for it?

 

If Medicare's age limit is removed, and it's offered alongside private insurance, it should gain traction because it's cheaper for both workers and employers. It doesn't have to make a profit for shareholders, so that's between 14-25% savings based on other market margins. As it grows (picking up employees as private health insurers go under), we should realize savings of 7-12% overall just from less administration costs. Having an efficient single-payer system should also have the effect of reducing branding practices among healthcare companies, which also drives up the prices for medical services with name-brand hospitals, name-brand emergency rooms (those are popping up EVERYWHERE near me) and designer drugs. Medicare is very geared towards preventive medicine, which also historically acts to reduce costs.

 

Above all, we have to remember that government sponsored single-payer healthcare insurance will automatically be cheaper because it focuses on health and not profit. If the system can be enhanced so doctor groups get paid faster, it would easily gain AMA approval and support.

[Ten oz]

 

If Medicare's age limit is removed, and it's offered alongside private insurance, it should gain traction because it's cheaper for both workers and employers. It doesn't have to make a profit for shareholders, so that's between 14-25% savings based on other market margins. As it grows (picking up employees as private health insurers go under), we should realize savings of 7-12% overall just from less administration costs. Having an efficient single-payer system should also have the effect of reducing branding practices among healthcare companies, which also drives up the prices for medical services with name-brand hospitals, name-brand emergency rooms (those are popping up EVERYWHERE near me) and designer drugs. Medicare is very geared towards preventive medicine, which also historically acts to reduce costs.

 

Above all, we have to remember that government sponsored single-payer healthcare insurance will automatically be cheaper because it focuses on health and not profit. If the system can be enhanced so doctor groups get paid faster, it would easily gain AMA approval and support.

I like this. Allow people to just buy into Medicare. How would we get around private insurance companies suing the govt claiming there were proce fixing for themselves and creating unfair competition?

 

If Medicare's age limit is removed, and it's offered alongside private insurance, it should gain traction because it's cheaper for both workers and employers. It doesn't have to make a profit for shareholders, so that's between 14-25% savings based on other market margins. As it grows (picking up employees as private health insurers go under), we should realize savings of 7-12% overall just from less administration costs. Having an efficient single-payer system should also have the effect of reducing branding practices among healthcare companies, which also drives up the prices for medical services with name-brand hospitals, name-brand emergency rooms (those are popping up EVERYWHERE near me) and designer drugs. Medicare is very geared towards preventive medicine, which also historically acts to reduce costs.

 

Above all, we have to remember that government sponsored single-payer healthcare insurance will automatically be cheaper because it focuses on health and not profit. If the system can be enhanced so doctor groups get paid faster, it would easily gain AMA approval and support.

I like this. Allow people to just buy into Medicare. How would we get around private insurance companies suing the govt claiming there were proce fixing for themselves and creating unfair competition?

[iNow]

Congress writes the laws. There is more nuance involved than this, but at the most basic level they can simply make it illegal for private insurance companies to sue them.

[Phi for All]

I like this. Allow people to just buy into Medicare. How would we get around private insurance companies suing the govt claiming there were proce fixing for themselves and creating unfair competition?

 

I don't know anybody who likes the concept of a private health insurer who profits by spending as little as they can on their clients. Unlike regular insurance, health insurance has no value to negotiate. You can't determine ahead of time when you'll be sick or what it will cost. It's a risk best handled by pooled resources spent to promote health instead of profit, and that means either the public or the state should own it.

 

The .gov could point out that we gave capitalism over 50 years to figure out healthcare and we're a sick joke for such a rich country. Now it's time for the public universal option.

[John Cuthber]

I like this. Allow people to just buy into Medicare. How would we get around private insurance companies suing the govt claiming there were proce fixing for themselves and creating unfair competition?

 

The govt could counter-sue on the basis that making healthcare unduly expensive kills a lot of people and thus amounts to corporate manslaughter.

At the least, that's a convincing argument to get voter support for change.

[Nature Geek]

Wherever you stand on this issue, I find it almost mind-boggling that the Republicans have spent SEVEN years complaining about the Affordable Care Act, meaning they had seven years to fine-tune their own plan. Instead, they cobble together a bill in a couple of weeks, blow it through committees, still with entire sections filled with things like <insert future content here>, only to watch it die in the House for lack of votes. The incompetence is staggering.

 

It says to me that in fact they never actually had a plan. It was always much easier to be against what Obama was for. If Obama said the sky was blue, they said it was red. But, when they moment of truth came to actual govern, they had no clue as to how to do it.

 

The most ironic thing - the ACA is a Republican plan. Back in Bill Clinton's first term, when Hillary was the "Health Czar", and was trying to come up with a single-payer plan, what eventually was to become the ACA was proposed by Republican Newt Gingrich. It was an alternative that didn't get rid of the insurance companies, and allowed them to still make money, but gave a form of universal coverage. And where was it first tested out - in Massachusetts, by Republican Governor Mitt Romney. And that's why Obama proposed it - he figured the Republicans wouldn't vote against their own plan. But he was wrong; the fact that he agreed with them now made it wrong.

 

But the problem now is that the Republicans came up with their best plan and now have to oppose there very own plan, and have nothing further to propose. A classic hoist on your own petard!

[Phi for All]

The govt could counter-sue on the basis that making healthcare unduly expensive kills a lot of people and thus amounts to corporate manslaughter.

At the least, that's a convincing argument to get voter support for change.

 

Might be a good way to also overturn Citizens United. If you don't want your business up on manslaughter charges, best not to treat corporations as People.

[iNow]

Choosing a political "win" over affordability and wellbeing of millions upon millions of citizens, the GOP led House of Representatives today passed a bill to overturn Obamacare by a vote of 217 to 213.

 

Every single democrat plus 20 republicans said "Nay!" to this foul bill that enjoys only 17% approval by the populace, yet it still passed.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/04/526887531/heres-whats-in-the-house-approved-health-care-bill

The bill would no longer require people to buy insurance through the marketplaces (...) In place of that mandate, the bill encourages people to maintain coverage by prohibiting insurance companies from cutting them off or charging more for pre-existing conditions as long as their insurance doesn't lapse. If coverage is interrupted for more than 63 days, however, insurers can charge people a 30 percent penalty over their premium for one year.

(...)

A 27-year-old who makes $30,000 a year would see costs rise about $2,000 in Nebraska but fall by about the same amount in Washington state. A 60-year-old, however, would see costs rise almost everywhere, with increases of almost $20,000 a year in Nebraska.

 

Both Kaiser and the Congressional Budget Office found that, on average, older people with lower incomes would be worse off under the Republican plan than under the Affordable Care Act.

(...)

The bill eliminates nearly all the taxes that were included in the Affordable Care Act to pay for the subsidies that help people buy insurance. Those cuts, which add up to about $592 billion, include a tax on incomes over $200,000 (or $250,000 for a married couple); a tax on health insurers and a limit on how much insurance companies can deduct for executive pay

(...)

The AHCA would make dramatic changes to Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor and disabled. (...) the result would likely be an ever-dwindling number of people covered. (...) the bill would cut Medicaid spending by $880 billion.

(...)

States could apply for waivers that would allow insurance companies in their states to do three things: 1. Charge older people more than five times what they charge young people for the same policy; 2. Eliminate required coverage, called essential health benefits, including maternity care, mental health and prescription drugs, that were required under the Affordable Care Act; and 3. Charge more for or deny coverage to people who have pre-existing health conditions, such as cancer, diabetes or arthritis.

(...)

The House approved the bill Thursday without a full Congressional Budget Office analysis of its costs and how many people would be covered.

Oh, and rape is now considered a preexisting condition so we can finally do away with the scourge of rape victims being able to attain affordable healthcare.

 

Absolutely. Nauseating.

 

I'd puke, but then the GOP would pass another law allowing my insurance megacorporation to start charging me more like the bunch of dollar worshipping, human hating, antisocial sociopathic pricks and heartless cunts they truly are.

 

Goodbye healthcare, hello wealthcare. My primal scream was not preexisting.

[rangerx]

Goodbye healthcare, hello wealthcare.

 

Obamacare Helped Slash Personal Bankruptcy by 50%

http://time.com/money/4765443/obamacare-bankruptcy-decline/

 

 

Get sick, big pharma takes your home, children's college fund, employers lose employees or you die.

 

American family values, jobs policy and right to life... in a nut shell.

 

Nope... not great again.

[Ten oz]

Choosing a political "win" over affordability and wellbeing of millions upon millions of citizens, the GOP led House of Representatives today passed a bill to overturn Obamacare by a vote of 217 to 213.

 

Every single democrat plus 20 republicans said "Nay!" to this foul bill that enjoys only 17% approval by the populace, yet it still passed.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/04/526887531/heres-whats-in-the-house-approved-health-care-bill

Oh, and rape is now considered a preexisting condition so we can finally do away with the scourge of rape victims being able to attain affordable healthcare.

 

Absolutely. Nauseating.

 

I'd puke, but then the GOP would pass another law allowing my insurance megacorporation to start charging me more like the bunch of dollar worshipping, human hating, antisocial sociopathic pricks and heartless cunts they truly are.

 

Goodbye healthcare, hello wealthcare. My primal scream was not preexisting.

Trump needs Healthcare to pass or else his tax plan is not possible. Enough Republicans want those tax cuts. They can only avoid a fillibuster in the Senate and pass the tax bill if it isn't projected to add to the deficit over ten years. Eliminating the ACA with its various subsidies gives Republicans some breathing room on paper to cut taxes without adding to the deficit over ten years.

 

The bill the House just voted on however hasn't been scored by the Congressional Budget Office yet. I don't think the Senate touches it until that happens. Once those figures do come out I think the bill is more or less dead. It will save little money and millions will lose coverage. I don't think it will find enough support to pass in the Seante. This will drag out and become a centeral issue in the mid term election.

[Delta1212]

Also, a company that does business in multiple states can choose which state it wants to buy insurance coverage in for its entire company. Presently, this does not really matter. However, should the above bill pass the Senate, the ability of states to get waivers for aspects of the insurance protections means that many large companies will be able to purchase insurance that lacks basic coverage even for employs that live and work in states that continue to mandate a base level of care be covered.

[Ten oz]

Also, a company that does business in multiple states can choose which state it wants to buy insurance coverage in for its entire company. Presently, this does not really matter. However, should the above bill pass the Senate, the ability of states to get waivers for aspects of the insurance protections means that many large companies will be able to purchase insurance that lacks basic coverage even for employs that live and work in states that continue to mandate a base level of care be covered.

This is what "the people" want. Republicans have been campaigning since 2010 that they repeal the ACA and have won majorities in the House and Senate. I understand that the majority of the country actually supports keeping the ACA as is but we elected politicians who made it crystal clear they would not keep the ACA. It doesn't make any sensethat voters have done this, voting in people to do what they don't want done, but they have.

[John Cuthber]

This is what "the people" want. Republicans have been campaigning since 2010 that they repeal the ACA and have won majorities in the House and Senate. I understand that the majority of the country actually supports keeping the ACA as is but we elected politicians who made it crystal clear they would not keep the ACA. It doesn't make any sensethat voters have done this, voting in people to do what they don't want done, but they have.

They did not make it crystal clear; they lied.

It says a lot about a party if it can only get into power by telling a lot of lies.

[iNow]

^and by gaming the system with gerrymandered districts and disenfranchising those who don't agree with you

[Ten oz]

They did not make it crystal clear; they lied.

It says a lot about a party if it can only get into power by telling a lot of lies.

They made it clear they wanted to repeal the ACA.The house voted to do so over 70 times over the years. They lied about their reasons for wanting to do so but they made it clear they wanted it gone. The Tea Party movement that gave the control in 2010 was largely a anti ACA (Obamacare) movement.

^and by gaming the system with gerrymandered districts and disenfranchising those who don't agree with you

Yes, they are cheaters. Enough isn't made of it from progressives.

[iNow]

People wanted Obamacare repealed, yes. They wanted more care for lower costs, though.

 

This? This is the opposite of that.

[CharonY]

Well, it is difficult. Who would have thought (or read some studies)?

[Ten oz]

People wanted Obamacare repealed, yes. They wanted more care for lower costs, though.

 

This? This is the opposite of that.

Conservatives consistantly vote against their own self interest. Even the couple conservatives on this site acknowledge Republicans are basically dishonst and or wrong about most things yet indicate they'd support them all over again.

[rangerx]

Conservatives consistantly vote against their own self interest. Even the couple conservatives on this site acknowledge Republicans are basically dishonst and or wrong about most things yet indicate they'd support them all over again.

 

They used to pigeon-hole liberals as communists, now they're in bed with the Russians and turned their ire on Muslims. Next term they'll kiss Bashir al Assad's ass if it meant defeating American liberals.

[Phi for All]

Conservatives consistantly vote against their own self interest. Even the couple conservatives on this site acknowledge Republicans are basically dishonst and or wrong about most things yet indicate they'd support them all over again.

 

I see much of the craziness in the House bill as an amalgam of wealthy Republicans who have their own coverage and don't care what lesser people have, and the religious right Republicans who don't want public funds to help those with lifestyles they disapprove of.

[iNow]

The rate of maternal death in the US is triple that of Canada, and six times that in Scandinavia. A major reason why: We focus care on newborns rather than on new mothers.

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/527806002/focus-on-infants-during-childbirth-leaves-u-s-moms-in-danger

 

[Ten oz]

Many Republicans try to have it both ways with regards to women and pregnancy. They claim to care about famlly values and be the party that wants to protect children and against abortion on the grounds that it is murder. Then they also regularly demagogue pregnant women. They chastise women who get pregnent too young, poor, or out of marriage. They stereotype immigrants and minorities as having children just to receive benefits from the govt. The attitude seems to be children are a blessing but the women who have them are a curse.

 

Considering that Republicans run every branch of the federal govt and the majority of states I think it is fair to place a lot of blame at their feet. They have push back against healthcare reform for a few decades now.

[iNow]

Many Republicans try to have it both ways with regards to women and pregnancy. They claim to care about famlly values and be the party that wants to protect children and against abortion on the grounds that it is murder. Then they also regularly demagogue pregnant women. They chastise women who get pregnent too young, poor, or out of marriage. They stereotype immigrants and minorities as having children just to receive benefits from the govt. The attitude seems to be children are a blessing but the women who have them are a curse.

It's even more than that, though. George Carlin (a rather long time ago now) laid it out while doing standup here (with some salty language):

 

https://youtu.be/AvF1Q3UidWM

[Ten oz]

Healthcare is back in the headlines as Trump is seemingly ready to take on the ACA again with a plan to nullify in court. The popularity of the ACA has soared since Trump took office. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/26/administrations-renewed-focus-eliminating-obamacare-is-baffling-political-move/?utm_term=.792c8a3c5e38

[iNow]

GOP opposition to healthcare strikes me as pathological at this point, especially given the plan they're attacking is itself a watered down version of one authored by conservatives.