-
Sentiment to defund Obamacare grows
-
A couple of pieces on the pending SCOTUS ruling on the ACA
[url=http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-08/gop-swiftly-rejects-obama-s-one-sentence-fix-to-obamacare-if-supreme-court-voids-subsidies]GOP Swiftly Rejects Obama’s ‘One-Sentence Fix’ to Obamacare If Supreme Court Voids Subsidies[/url]
Not at all surprising ….
___
And then this from the “GOP can lose by winning” collection[url=http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/244369-gop-fears-it-will-win-obamacare-court-battle]Republicans fear they will win ObamaCare court battle[/url]
…as more polls strong solid support for ACA subsidies.
The politics of the King vs. Burwell case are extremely treacherous and tricky for Republicans because if the subsidies are thrown out by the court, Republicans are in the position of having to create a fix that would be seen as a problem by their most conservative supporters, said John Ullyot, a GOP strategist and former senior Senate aide.
Theres a chance Republicans will get more of the blame because theyre in control of the House and Senate. Unless they can produce legislation, the blame will rest in their corner.
Democrats feel confident that Republicans will be on the losing end if the court strikes down the subsidies. While congressional Republicans have publicly discussed five plans to respond to the ruling, President Obama and Democrats have not unveiled anything.
-
Six million people risk losing their health care subsidies, yet [link=https://twitter.com/POTUS]@POTUS[/link] continues to deny that Obamacare is bad for the American people.
Senator John Thune (@SenJohnThune) [link=https://twitter.com/SenJohnThune/status/607990379619696640]June 8, 2015[/link]So the Republican solution is to kill Obamacare, which brings up a quote ofmerit.
[b] [/b][b]A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”[/b]
[b]- Abraham Lincoln[/b] -
Hmmmm, seems teaching hospitals charge less than others, in general.
[link=http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/hospitals-that-charge-1000-more-than-they-should/395099/]http://www.theatlantic.co…an-they-should/395099/[/link]
On average, all U.S. hospitals charged patients (or their insurers) 3.4 times what the federal government thinks these procedures cost. In other words, when the hospital incurs $100 of Medicare-allowable costs, the hospital charges $340, explain the authors, Ge Bai of Washington and Lee University and Gerard F. Anderson of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The ratio of hospital charges to costs has only increased over time: In 1984, it was just 1.35, but by 2011, it was 3.3.
In the study, the facilities that marked up their prices the most were more likely to be for-profit (as opposed to not-for-profit), urban hospitals that are affiliated with a larger health system. Community Health Systems operates half of the 50 hospitals with the highest markups.
Overall, three-quarters of the hospitals on the highest-markup list are in the South, and 40 percent of them are in Florida.
[attachment=0]-
Ramesh Ponnuru: [url=http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-24/republicans-will-save-obamacare]Republicans will save Obamacare[/url]
A key portion of President Barack Obama’s health-care policy could fall at the U.S. Supreme Court this week. Just when Republicans are close to achieving one of their top goals, however, the party is in disarray. As a result, I’d bet that Obamacare is going to survive this challenge — whatever the court decides — pretty much unscathed. My guess is that if the court strikes down the subsidies, Congress will extend them pretty much as is.
……I’ll further predict that Republican leaders won’t face any serious mutiny.
The same basic dynamic governed Republican behavior during the fiscal cliff debate in late 2012 and the government shutdown of 2013. If I’m right this time around, the best outcome remaining for Republicans will be to extend the subsidies only through the middle of 2017. In that case they could say that a new Republican president will be able to revisit the Affordable Care Act — and that maybe, by then, they’ll have their act together.
-
-
-
[url=http://news.yahoo.com/senate-gop-setting-obamacare-vote-highway-bill-133235923–politics.html]Senate GOP setting up ‘Obamacare’ vote on highway bill[/url]
Senate Republican leaders announced plans Friday to use a must-pass highway bill to try to overturn President Barack Obama’s health care law, in the latest GOP assault on “Obamacare.”
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on the Senate floor “nearly every Republican wants” a full repeal of the law, and he introduced an amendment to the highway bill to do just that. A vote was set for Sunday.
-
And we wonder why nothing gets done by the Washington elite. Actually I heard Ted Crus on the radio Friday and even he said it was futile.
-
-
[url=http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/254476-obamacare-sign-ups-swell-to-176m]Upward revision to ACA enrollment numbers, now 17.6 million[/url]
The revised total includes 15.3 million people who gained coverage through the individual marketplace or through Medicaid. It also includes 2.3 million young adults who gained coverage because they were able to remain on a parents plan until they turn 26.
The new data also puts the Obama administration ahead of the health insurance gains estimated by the Congressional Budget Office for 2015. The CBO had predicted roughly 17 million people would gain coverage by 2015, with the gains about equally split between the exchanges and Medicaid.
-
Smells like a lot of Medicaid patients.
Thankfully we don’t participate with Medicare
or Medicaid. -
All eyes on Kentucky
[url=http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-05/kentucky-s-matt-bevin-can-kill-obamacare-will-he-]A Republican Can Kill Obamacare. Will He?[/url]
Ever since the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have worked to sabotage the law and have done their best Yosemite Sam imitations to show the folks back home how furious they are at that varmint Barack Obama who signed it. Democrats have operated on the theory that Sam’s six-shooter fires only blanks. If offered a genuine opportunity to repeal health insurance coverage for millions of Americans, would Republicans go through with it? The election of Matt Bevin as governor of Kentucky ought to settle the question. Bevin is a Tea Party guy who challenged Republican Senator Mitch McConnell in 2014 with familiar complaints about big government and big Obama. McConnell beat back the upstart, but Bevin ran for governor and won this week.
Kentucky happens to be the perfect test case for Obamacare. Other states with Republican governors have expanded Medicaid to cover the uninsured. But under Democratic Governor Steve Beshear, Kentucky’s state insurance exchange has been a national model, and through the combination of the exchange and Medicaid expansion funded by the law, Kentucky has cut its uninsured rate in half. The progress, however, was enabled by executive order, not legislation, and it can be unraveled similarly.
…
In Kentucky, Democrats are out of power and Republicans are out of excuses. Health insurance for thousands of families is now in the hands of the Republican governor-elect. Either subsidized health insurance is here to stay, with or without the histrionics of Tea Party freedom fighters. Or the curb is about to get crowded.-
Bah — that was me — some resident’s log in I guess.
-
If this is such a “threat” why did they elect him?
Sorry, this is just another sign that the country has had it with failed, deceptive Democratic policies.
Next stop, Trump
QFH, as you said, dergs, QFH
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/11/05/Collapsing-Obamacare-Co-ops-Signal-Big-Trouble-Come]http://www.thefiscaltimes…ignal-Big-Trouble-Come[/link]
“As it turns out, the non-profit co-op model for health insurance turns out to be unsustainable without government subsidies. More than half of the co-ops have been shut down this year, and nine of the 12 have shut down since October 1, either by HHS or by the states in which they operate. Over a billion dollars in loans and and backstop payments have been lost. The latest failure to be announced was in Michigan, where Consumers Mutual Insurance announced Tuesday that it would not sell insurance for 2016. The failure of these dozen co-ops has left nearly 750,000 consumers in the cold, looking for a plan from a traditional insurer at a higher price.
What happened? Predictably, the financial model that critics warned would lead to a death spiral for insurers hit the co-ops first. They were low-cost alternatives, Kaiser Healths Mary Agnes Carey told PBS anchor Judy Woodruff. If they were the lower price point, that tended to attract sicker beneficiaries. That would drive up their costs.
Drip, drip drip. The death spiral of Obamacare begins. When something is not sustainable, it is not sustainable. Where is Yogi Berra when you need him.
-
David Brooks comes out saying that health care costs are better today than they were before the ACA passed.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/opinion/great-news-were-not-doomed-to-soaring-health-care-costs.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…health-care-costs.html[/link]
And yet the weight of the evidence suggests that part of the change is permanent. Moving away from the bad old fee-for-service system has got to be a good thing. The greater pressures providers feel to reduce costs have got to be a good thing, at least fiscally.
Last March, Jonathan Rauch [link=http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/17-disruptive-entrepreneurship-health-care-rauch/rauch.pdf]wrote a report[/link] for the Brookings Institution, arguing that the health care market is more open to normal business model innovation than ever before. The quality of health care data and analytics is improving exponentially. Pressures to reduce costs are ratcheting up. Profitable niches are growing for efficiency improving products.
In the past, most innovation involved improving quality of care at high cost. Rauch described many entrepreneurs who are providing innovations that maintain current quality of care but at lower cost.
We seem to be making at least some incremental progress toward a structural reduction in health care inflation. Many Americans are feeling gloomy about accomplishing anything these days, but progress is possible. We havent whipped health care inflation, or defeated our intractable budget issues. But the evidence suggests were landing a few serious blows.
-
At this point, there is no need to repeal it. From the numbers that are coming out with the new enrollment season, it is unraveling all by itself. Most of the coops have gone bust and prices on the exchange plans are going through the roof. Meanwhile, the proponents are dancing in the street because they managed to push the number of uninsured ‘below 10%’ (which is a sham as most of that was achieved by giving away free insurance through the medicaid expansion). So far, none of the things promised have been achieved ($2500 savings anyone ??) and give it another 2-3 years it will dissolve all by itself.
-
Are you predicting like Alda now?
I will bet that regardless of some co-ops folding due to miscalculating costs or getting sicker members than they planned, the concepts in the ACA will not only succeed but progress & evolve further and for the better. Maybe even into something more resembling a single-payer. Perhaps closer to Taiwan, Japan, Korea & those Socialist countries in Europe like Germany.
Even you don’t know costs & we work in the system. But as the article I posted notes, costs are becoming more transparent. That will be a good thing for everyone.
-
Quote from Frumious
I will bet that regardless of some co-ops folding due to miscalculating costs or getting sicker members than they planned, the concepts in the ACA will not only succeed but progress & evolve further and for the better.
You sound like the eastern european communist party leaders in the 80s.
Maybe even into something more resembling a single-payer. Perhaps closer to Taiwan, Japan, Korea & those Socialist countries in Europe like Germany.
Germany doesn’t have single-payer.
Even you don’t know costs & we work in the system.
Speak for yourself. I have a pretty good grasp on my healthcare cost.
But as the article I posted notes, costs are becoming more transparent. That will be a good thing for everyone.
There is nothing in o-care that has made cost more transparent. They could have legislated that payors need to publish their contracted rates but they didn’t.
-
They could have legislated that payors need to publish their contracted rates but they didn’t.
Gee haven’t seen Conservatives pass this either
And for the state’s should decide crowd…the co-ops are state run not federally run
If anything this shows that more affordable health care is not possible with the federal govt…co-ops, high deductible plans and HSAs (really high deductible plans) are all GOP ideas to salvage private healthcare (and they complain about the first two as part of PPACA)-
[link=http://www.factcheck.org/2013/11/fighting-premium-spin-with-more-spin/]http://www.factcheck.org/…m-spin-with-more-spin/[/link]
He said on the campaign trail in 2008 that his health plan would lower premiums by [b]up to[/b] $2,500 for a typical family per year, (bolding mine)
It is fine to be critical of the figure as fact checkers have been but $2500 was never a guarantee..
We also explained the bit of misleading math the campaign used: It divided an estimate for national health care savings by the U.S. population and, as an Obama adviser told us, consider[ed] a 4 person family. The president said he would lower premiums, but the Obama camp was counting on trickle-down savings that would affect families in the form of reduced taxes, higher wages or lower premiums. As we said at the time: Obama claims families will save $2,500 under his plan, but they wont see at least some of those savings directly in the form of lower premiums. And they may not see them indirectly either.
Obama was talking about a reduction in health care spending compared with what would have happened without his health plan not a straight reduction, though he didnt explain that in his comments.
In 2009, before health care legislation had taken shape in Congress, Obama offered a new version of the claim, saying comprehensive reform, plus some effort to reduce costs from labor unions, and insurance, drug and medical industries, could save families $2,500 in the coming years $2,500 per family. We [link=http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/health-savings-still-optimistic/]called[/link] it still optimistic.
So the $2500 number was made before the final legislation….beyond that while it is fair to criticize overly optimistic projections…doing it by lying about what was said and taking short sound bites out of context shows a shallow understanding of the issues…something sadly the GOP counts on
-
ACA will evolve into medicaid for all and then all you libs can dance
in the streets and proclaim how wonderful you all are. You wealthy physicians will then proceed to buy private insurance so you don’t have to mingle with all the medicaid patients. That pretty much sums up healthcare in all these wonderful countries that provide free healthcare for all. Crappy healthcare for the poor and middle class. Platinum healthcare for the wealthy.-
Quote from IR_CONSULT
ACA will evolve into medicaid for all and then all you libs can dance
in the streets and proclaim how wonderful you all are. You wealthy physicians will then proceed to buy private insurance so you don’t have to mingle with all the medicaid patients. That pretty much sums up healthcare in all these wonderful countries that provide free healthcare for all. Crappy healthcare for the poor and middle class. Platinum healthcare for the wealthy.
I think a dramatic expansion of medicaid to eventually include large numbers of people is likely.
But I would expect to see private insurance continue for large numbers of the employed middle class for a long time and a continued differentiation between medicare and medicaid for many years to come.
The ACA is doing a little … but not nearly enough… to actually control cost. That means expenses will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. The notion that everyone has to get covered somehow is becoming part of the American social fabric and I think that [i]somehow[/i] will be mostly medicaid. But costs will rise across all types of coverage, necessitating both cuts and new revenues.
And yes, this is America, so there will certainly be “platinum” options for those that can afford it.
-
Quote from IR_CONSULT
ACA will evolve into medicaid for all and then all you libs can dance
in the streets and proclaim how wonderful you all are. You wealthy physicians will then proceed to buy private insurance so you don’t have to mingle with all the medicaid patients. That pretty much sums up healthcare in all these wonderful countries that provide free healthcare for all. Crappy healthcare for the poor and middle class. Platinum healthcare for the wealthy.Why? Why do you people have to sound so poisonously nasty about health care & helping people? “You libs can dance that poor people get decent health care.”
Yeah, I am ashamed to admit that.
Why not a plan like in Germany? As fw pointed out, it is not single payer yet is still universal coverage. Or there are many other plans in different countries to cherry pick from. They have universal coverage, the cost is significantly less, the costs are transparent to the patient and many outcomes are equal if not better.
What’s so sour about that?-
I guess we have different ideas about decent healthcare. I would be happy to provide healthcare for poor people. Unfortunately, its not free and the government doesn’t want to pay for it. Do you feel that doctors receive a fair reimbursement rate for their services. Name another profession that has to accept less than market rate to serve the poor. Sorry I guess I have too much respect for my skills to give it away for free. I believe that one day a license to practice medicine will be tied to participating in medicare and medicaid. Do you support that?
-
How is a poor person supposed to pay for healthcare? Unless you provide jobs somehow with livable wages, they can’t possibly afford health care. It is not cheap unless you are already wealthy. My son just turned 26 so he came off our insurances, my wife’s hospital provided a COBRA option, “[i]only[/i]” $760 per month. WHAT! That’s the “subsidized” option for a single person and my wife’s hospital insurance is not extravagant by any means.
The ACA is a first step in making health care both available and affordable for all. The affordable part is the most difficult. It obviously needs more work but I haven’t seen any options about improving it (Repeal and Replace) from anyone in the GOP. That’s anathema.
As for being paid for skills and/or perceived importance, what jobs do that? A sports athlete makes multiples of what you make in a good year. Is being a golf pro more important or have more important skills than you? Your argument only goes so far, it really doesn’t apply to most professions otherwise teaching, for example, would be compensated much better. Yes, IR sometimes saves lives but a teacher is responsible for teaching our children, an investment in the future.
-
-
-
-
-
“Eastern communist leader from the 1980’s?”
Hyperbole
“Germany has no single payer.”
Correct, but they don’t have a mish-mash private insurance system where no one knows the cost until the procedure is completed either. They have strict regulations & keep the profit motive down.
You know the costs involved? Maybe what you pay for insurance but get comparative quotes form various hospitals or stand-alone centers for procedures & what your plan will pay & I predict you won’t get any clear answer unless you pay cash. You can’t shop around on price/quality comparison, especially on price. But it has become better than a couple of years ago.
Oh, but things are more transparent. Informed patients are better informed and ask better questions & get better answers.
-
-
-
-
-
-
So we set up a program to help people whose outcomes won’t even be better, basically a waste of money. Everyone else has to pay a huge tax or gets to pay extra for a worse plan. “Rich people” still get better health care.
Only libtards could somehow say that this is “better” as a result.-
The Thors, dergons, and Frumis of the world are out there — and no one is wrong all the time — but this issue is easily their most embarrassing. Everything that the Republicans predicted, and anyone with a brain for that matter, is happening.
Can you guys ever admit to anything? It at least would show maturity. -
Quote from Cigar
So we set up a program to help people whose outcomes won’t even be better, basically a waste of money. Everyone else has to pay a huge tax or gets to pay extra for a worse plan. “Rich people” still get better health care.
Only libtards could somehow say that this is “better” as a result.
[link=http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/what-is-medicaids-impact-on-access-to-care-health-outcomes-and-quality-of-care-setting-the-record-straight-on-the-evidence/]http://kff.org/medicaid/i…aight-on-the-evidence/[/link]
Controversy about the Medicaid expansion has been stoked by an assertion that first appeared in a [i]Wall Street Journal[/i] editorial a couple of years ago and has since resurfaced periodically, that Medicaid is worse than no coverage at all. This claim about Medicaid is sharply at odds with the authoritative findings of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on Consequences of Uninsurance, detailed in [i]Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late, [/i]the second of six reports the IOM issued on the subject in the early 2000s. Based on a comprehensive review of the research examining the impact of health insurance on adults, the IOM charted the causal pathway from coverage to better health outcomes, concluding:
[i][i][b]Health insurance coverage is associated with better health outcomes for adults. It is also associated with having a regular source of care and with greater and more appropriate use of health services. These factors, in turn, improve the likelihood of disease screening and early detection, the management of chronic illness, and effective treatment of acute conditions such as traumatic brain injury and heart attacks. The ultimate result is improved health outcomes.[/b][/i][/i]
Getting millions of people onto Medicaid who would have been otherwise uninsured is a good outcome and represents a marked improvement from the pre-ACA status quo.
-
I don’t see any stats to back that up. I do see that Kaiser and IOM stand to gain by increased gov’t programs so that they can continue to get paid. Which is not to say that they are wrong, you just haven’t shown that they are right. You just linked something that said, “Improved outcomes for adults”
Science, again, should be skeptical until you show me how and why these outcomes are “improved.” -
Good luck finding a doctor that participates with medicaid. If you
have an office, employees and other overhead you are basically doing
charity care. Which is quite noble I suppose. The vast majority of
private doctors I know do not participate with medicare or medicaid.
So young doctors are seeing the future. Medicaid rates will be the only reimbursement rate.-
Another support that socialists talk a big game, but never undergo the same standard they impose on others. All the lefties on this board promote something against OTHER people’s interest, never submitting to it themselves.
At this point I could give a darn. Shut down the pharmacopeia, just use drugs we have to this point, I don’t care, I don’t plan on using health care or blaming others — I’ll take care of myself so I don’t have to go to the Health Care DMV of the future. Who’d want to go there, anyway?-
Gee Republicans are partially successful at trying to destroy something and somehow that should reflect on the Democrats. Imagine where we would be if the right acted as a constructive rather than destructive force
A lot of people cheering here about denying people access to health care
-
-
-
Quote from dergon
Getting millions of people onto Medicaid who would have been otherwise uninsured is a good outcome and represents a marked improvement from the pre-ACA status quo.
Sure, but achieving that wouldn’t have required mucking up the rest of the healthcare system. A simple change to the eligibility thresholds could have gotten us there, probably at a fraction of the cost.
-
But that was only one part.
The other was addressing how people who lost/weren’t offered/ couldn’t get employer based private insurance would get access to care.
“Medicare for all” would have been simple, but it wasn’t politically viable. So we end up with the once-conservative model of keeping the private insurance market alive through the exchanges but with the progressive (and laudable imho) subsidies for lower income, pre-existing conditions, etc.
The ACA is not a perfect bill. It’s not even a great bill. But I do view it as an improvement from the pre-ACA status quo.
I believe that all Americans should have access to affordable health care. In instance where the private market is unable/unwilling to provide that affordable care I am happy to see the federal government provide it. I am willing to adopt progressive means of revenue generation to pay for that government support.
There are lots of way to do that, but those are the bottom line fundamentals for me and for most liberals.
-
Quote from dergon
But that was only one part.
The other was addressing how people who lost/weren’t offered/ couldn’t get employer based private insurance would get access to care.
Right, and that part is a spectacular failure.
Young people who wanted health insurance already had access to cost effective coverage on the individual market. If a 26 year old didn’t pay the $100/month for a basic HMO plan, it was not because they couldn’t afford it, it was because they didn’t want it. The problem were the 53 year old diabetics with part-time jobs whose only options were state supported pool plans or high deductible catastrophic coverage. But guess what, those 53 year old diabetics now have ‘bronze’ plans which amount to catastrophic coverage only and unless they qualify for the full subsidy, it is still unaffordably expensive. On the upside, they now have maternity care covered, at 53, and sex reassignment surgery or boner pills, but it doesn’t matter, because they can’t afford it either way.
The ACA is not a perfect bill. It’s not even a great bill. But I do view it as an improvement from the pre-ACA status quo.
It’s awful and hasn’t achieved what was promised. There are a couple provisions I believe were overdue:
– eliminating the opportunity for insurers to cancel or non-renew coverage due to disease that starts after insurance was in effect
yeah, that’s pretty much it. Pre-existing condition exclusions are a fundamental element of an insurance contract, so are lifetime caps. You can’t run an insurance plan if you dont have the opportunity to put those in place. Covering 26 year olds under their parents was a gimmick to get re-elected, there was no need to do that as they had ready access to individual insurance.
-
Catastrophic? So why not support a German style plan? I guarantee the GOP will oppose it 100%.
What do you think the ACA promised that it didn’t deliver on? It only promised universal coverage. But that required cooperation by the States & once the Supremes said it was optional, the Republicans moved in lockstep to oppose regardless of leaving the poor out in the cold uninsured. The spectacular fail is due entirely to ideology & ideologues. There are very many Universal plans out there that do it better, pick your country – start with Germany – but it requires everyone to be on board nut to subvert the system. It required politics to be laid aside.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
“Eastern communist leader from the 1980’s?”
Hyperbole
It was just the way how you said [i]’things are falling down and crumbling around us but progress is inevitable and the communist dream will succeed’ [/i]that reminded me of those days.“Germany has no single payer.”
Correct, but they don’t have a mish-mash private insurance system where no one knows the cost until the procedure is completed either.
They have hundreds of different health plans. The one difference is that both payment scale and scope of services are fairly standardized.
They have strict regulations & keep the profit motive down.
I can assure you that german physicians and hospitals are quite profit motivated.
You know the costs involved? Maybe what you pay for insurance but get comparative quotes form various hospitals or stand-alone centers for procedures & what your plan will pay & I predict you won’t get any clear answer unless you pay cash.
Just because you are clueless doesn’t mean everyone has to be.
Get the CPTs, get the TIN, call your insurance company, obtain the contracted rate. Just takes a bit of legwork.
Same with your benefits. Most insurance plans offer a web interface where you can look up how much of your deductible has been used. Nobody can claim that they were ‘suprised’ by their unmet deductible. The information is there, people just dont want to get it.
You can’t shop around on price/quality comparison, especially on price. But it has become better than a couple of years ago.
It’s better ? Because we now have a website that tells us how many patients with ‘pneumonia’ the hospital carpet bombed with antibiotics within 3hrs ? The measures of ‘quality’ recorded by CMS are laughable.
I wish there was a quick way to look up cost information. A website where you can look up the contracted rates for the high volume provider/procedure pairs. It’s all available in the clearinghouse databases.
Oh, but things are more transparent. Informed patients are better informed and ask better questions & get better answers.
That would be great if we could get better informed patients. Unfortunately, we can’t fix the ignorant.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Frumious
“Eastern communist leader from the 1980’s?”
Hyperbole
It was just the way how you said [i]’things are falling down and crumbling around us but progress is inevitable and the communist dream will succeed’ [/i]that reminded me of those days.
I missed my quote where I allegedly said that. Can you show me? Or did you invent is a hyperbole exercise?
Quote from fw
“Germany has no single payer.”Quote from Frumious
Correct, but they don’t have a mish-mash private insurance system where no one knows the cost until the procedure is completed either.
They have hundreds of different health plans. The one difference is that both payment scale and scope of services are fairly standardized.
Ah the whole key to the puzzle, – “fairly standardized,” which also translates to “government regulation.” Sozialgesetzbuch V (SGB V)[i][/i]
Quote from Frumious
They have strict regulations & keep the profit motive down.
Quote from fw
I can assure you that german physicians and hospitals are quite profit motivated.
So they are & yet the cost of Germany’s universal health plan is significantly less than USA’s.
Must be magic.Quote from fw
Quote from Frumious
You know the costs involved? Maybe what you pay for insurance but get comparative quotes form various hospitals or stand-alone centers for procedures & what your plan will pay & I predict you won’t get any clear answer unless you pay cash.
Just because you are clueless doesn’t mean everyone has to be.
Get the CPTs, get the TIN, call your insurance company, obtain the contracted rate. Just takes a bit of legwork.
Same with your benefits. Most insurance plans offer a web interface where you can look up how much of your deductible has been used. Nobody can claim that they were ‘suprised’ by their unmet deductible. The information is there, people just dont want to get it.Seriously? That’s one of the dumbest claims I’ve read in awhile. You make it sound easy as ordering pie. Tell your patients how easy it is, just “get the CPT for your procedure, then the Tax # for each facility you are looking at visiting & then have the insurance company just provide the reimbursement figures!” What could be easier? I’m sure you’ve done it hundreds of times yourself as just an anonymous patient, no connections.
Quote from Frumious
You can’t shop around on price/quality comparison, especially on price. But it has become better than a couple of years ago.
Quote from fw
It’s better ? Because we now have a website that tells us how many patients with ‘pneumonia’ the hospital carpet bombed with antibiotics within 3hrs ? The measures of ‘quality’ recorded by CMS are laughable.
I wish there was a quick way to look up cost information. A website where you can look up the contracted rates for the high volume provider/procedure pairs. It’s all available in the clearinghouse databases.
Oh, but things are more transparent. Informed patients are better informed and ask better questions & get better answers.
That would be great if we could get better informed patients. Unfortunately, we can’t fix the ignorant.
Whose ignorance? The patients who don’t know their way around the system, unlike you who work in the system? Or ignorant health care providers who make clueless statements about how easy it is to get the information?
But you are stating both things now aren’t you, that it’s easy to get it while at the same time complaining there is no “quick way to look up cost information.” Yes, all patients have to do it find those clearinghouses. How much more easy could it be?-
Quote from Frumious
I missed my quote where I allegedly said that. Can you show me? Or did you invent is a hyperbole exercise?
It was in response to this propaganda speech:
[i]I will bet that regardless of some co-ops folding due to miscalculating costs or getting sicker members than they planned, the concepts in the ACA will not only succeed but progress & evolve further and for the better. Maybe even into something more resembling a single-payer. Perhaps closer to Taiwan, Japan, Korea & those Socialist countries in Europe like Germany.[/i]
Just reminded me of Ceaucescu or Honecker (just add the shrill sound-track and grim looking guards).I can assure you that german physicians and hospitals are quite profit motivated.
So they are & yet the cost of Germany’s universal health plan is significantly less than USA’s.Must be magic.
Not really magic. They just say at some point that they need gramps ICU bed for a new admission, extubate and transfer him to the floor.
Seriously? That’s one of the dumbest claims I’ve read in awhile. You make it sound easy as ordering pie. Tell your patients how easy it is, just “get the CPT for your procedure, then the Tax # for each facility you are looking at visiting & then have the insurance company just provide the reimbursement figures!” What could be easier? I’m sure you’ve done it hundreds of times yourself as just an anonymous patient, no connections.
Just because you are too lazy and ignorant to make some phonecalls it is ‘the dumbest claim’ you have read in a while ?If I call the insurance company, I call on the member line. I am no different or any more of an insider than anyone else.
I manage a medical practice. My office manager or one of the billers answer questions about expected cost of procedures all the time.
But you are stating both things now aren’t you, that it’s easy to get it while at the same time complaining there is no “quick way to look up cost information.” Yes, all patients have to do it find those clearinghouses. How much more easy could it be?
It could be easier. Right now it requires two or three phonecalls and often some keying on a auto-attendant until you get to the person who can give you pricing information. I wish it was as simple as every provider giving a new patient a list of services and prices (based on their insurance coverage). This would allow the patient to make a better informed decision whether they want a particular test done or return for that ‘routine follow-up’ even if they feel ok. The other thing would be to require a good faith estimate for any elective surgery (I can get an estimate from my contractor or the car repair shop, why can’t I get one from the ASC or imaging center ?? ).
But none of that was done. All it would have taken is a pen, and a phone.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Frumious
I missed my quote where I allegedly said that. Can you show me? Or did you invent is a hyperbole exercise?
It was in response to this propaganda speech:
[i]I will bet that regardless of some co-ops folding due to miscalculating costs or getting sicker members than they planned, the concepts in the ACA will not only succeed but progress & evolve further and for the better. Maybe even into something more resembling a single-payer. Perhaps closer to Taiwan, Japan, Korea & those Socialist countries in Europe like Germany.[/i]
Just reminded me of Ceaucescu or Honecker (just add the shrill sound-track and grim looking guards).
And here I thought you were against using psychotropic drugs.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from frumious
Seriously? That’s one of the dumbest claims I’ve read in awhile. You make it sound easy as ordering pie. Tell your patients how easy it is, just “get the CPT for your procedure, then the Tax # for each facility you are looking at visiting & then have the insurance company just provide the reimbursement figures!” What could be easier? I’m sure you’ve done it hundreds of times yourself as just an anonymous patient, no connections.
Just because you are too lazy and ignorant to make some phonecalls it is ‘the dumbest claim’ you have read in a while ?
If I call the insurance company, I call on the member line. I am no different or any more of an insider than anyone else.
I manage a medical practice. My office manager or one of the billers answer questions about expected cost of procedures all the time.
But you are stating both things now aren’t you, that it’s easy to get it while at the same time complaining there is no “quick way to look up cost information.” Yes, all patients have to do it find those clearinghouses. How much more easy could it be?
It could be easier. Right now it requires two or three phonecalls and often some keying on a auto-attendant until you get to the person who can give you pricing information. I wish it was as simple as every provider giving a new patient a list of services and prices (based on their insurance coverage). This would allow the patient to make a better informed decision whether they want a particular test done or return for that ‘routine follow-up’ even if they feel ok. The other thing would be to require a good faith estimate for any elective surgery (I can get an estimate from my contractor or the car repair shop, why can’t I get one from the ASC or imaging center ?? ).
But none of that was done. All it would have taken is a pen, and a phone.
Uh no. First thing, we are specifically not talking about your practice & what your office does. To say so is disingenuous as well as misdirection.
As for your “simply” calling your insurance company, perhaps it is because you are an employer but I did not have that experience. Yes, I supplied the CPT and the hospital in question to ask the reimbursement & got a simple no, can’t help you. Your experience if truthful is not the norm, mine is. Try it as an ordinary anonymous patient sometime. Yours is the 1st anecdotal I’ve ever heard that it is EZ. I have never heard of anyone else with any such EZ experience. Only you in seem to have no problems, everyone else can’t seem to manage a pen and paper and a phone apparently. Perhaps you are not telling the truth.
Anyone on the board want to correct me on this with their experience? -
Hmmmm, this would seem to uphold my argument more than yours, fw.
Obviously they don’t know how to use a phone or pen and paper either. You might be the only one in America who can.
[link=http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/05/28/410074906/how-much-does-a-colonoscopy-cost-in-california-help-find-out]http://www.npr.org/sectio…lifornia-help-find-out[/link]We turned to crowdsourcing because health care prices are wildly variable and opaque. It sometimes stuns people to find out there is no central database of prices. Gag clauses in contracts between doctors and insurers forbid both parties to disclose prices.
-
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
What do you think the ACA promised that it didn’t deliver on? It only promised universal coverage.
It failed at that. We still have a large number of uninsured. The only substantive increase in insured is in the medicaid population. Once the federal medicaid subsidies to the states fall away and the states have to back out of the expansion, we’ll be back at square one.
The spectacular fail is due entirely to ideology & ideologues.
How can you blame the republicans for the failure of obamacare when the final plan was passed without a single republican vote ? Sorry, the socialist democratic party owns this.
There are very many Universal plans out there that do it better, pick your country – start with Germany –
It’s not universal and its not cheap. Germany has a uninsured population of about 2-3% which relies on charity care. The system is also not cheap. As a percentage of GDP it is 11.x%, a worker pays 15.3% of his gross salary for individual coverage. If someone makes 49,500k Euro, thats 7573E in health insurance premium every year. Of course, if you are unemployed, retired or a refugee, it’s a bargain as they pay either nothing or a 20 per month.
You love to parade that number of ‘18% uninsured’ prior to obamacare around. First of all, that is not a point in time number but the answer to the question [i]’have you been uninsured at any time during the preceding year’. [/i] At any given time, that number is a couple of percentage points lower. Also, this number includes a undocumented population that wouldn’t be eligible for coverage in any of the european paradises you like to cite. Sure, they have their refugees and asylum seekers, but only once they are registered as such they receive coverage under the state systems. There is simply no block of 10-15mil people that doesn’t have any documentation.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Frumious
What do you think the ACA promised that it didn’t deliver on? It only promised universal coverage.
It failed at that. We still have a large number of uninsured. The only substantive increase in insured is in the medicaid population. Once the federal medicaid subsidies to the states fall away and the states have to back out of the expansion, we’ll be back at square one.
And what’s wrong with Medicaid if nothing else is available? How would you propose to insure most all the uninsured without Medicaid? There is no other plan.
And how did it primarily fail on that? Look at the map of States with the largest of uninsured and somehow, coincidentally, they are all primarily Republicans-led States. These uninsured tend to live in the South and tend to be very poor.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/31/upshot/who-still-doesnt-have-health-insurance-obamacare.html]http://www.nytimes.com/in…surance-obamacare.html[/link]
States with the largest drop in uninsured, including Kentucky.
[link=http://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-which-states-had-the-biggest-drop-in-uninsured-residents.html]http://www.governing.com/…insured-residents.html[/link]
-
Quote from fw
The spectacular fail is due entirely to ideology & ideologues.
How can you blame the republicans for the failure of obamacare when the final plan was passed without a single republican vote ? Sorry, the socialist democratic party owns this.
Sorry, if you know history you know that this was the direct goal of Boehner & McConnell, no GOP “fingerprints” on anything, emphasis on anything. There were a few Republicans who participated but who backed out in fear & Party solidarity. This fact is backed up by the ACA being a clone of Romneycare that Republicans dearly loved until 2009.
Stick with facts, not spin. -
Quote from fw
Quote from frumious
There are very many Universal plans out there that do it better, pick your country – start with Germany –
It’s not universal and its not cheap. Germany has a uninsured population of about 2-3% which relies on charity care. The system is also not cheap. As a percentage of GDP it is 11.x%, a worker pays 15.3% of his gross salary for individual coverage. If someone makes 49,500k Euro, thats 7573E in health insurance premium every year. Of course, if you are unemployed, retired or a refugee, it’s a bargain as they pay either nothing or a 20 per month.
You love to parade that number of ‘18% uninsured’ prior to obamacare around. First of all, that is not a point in time number but the answer to the question [i]’have you been uninsured at any time during the preceding year’. [/i] At any given time, that number is a couple of percentage points lower. Also, this number includes a undocumented population that wouldn’t be eligible for coverage in any of the european paradises you like to cite. Sure, they have their refugees and asylum seekers, but only once they are registered as such they receive coverage under the state systems. There is simply no block of 10-15mil people that doesn’t have any documentation.
Not cheap. Yet our economy is ~20% in healthcare. Our costs are not cheap now. But they were even less cheap before the ACA and the slope up to even more unaffordability was in an even steeper slope UP.
Yet Germany’s “not cheap” is still “cheaper” than ours by a substantial margin.
Yet Canada’s is “cheaper” than ours is by a substantial margin.
As is Great Britain’s, Taiwan’s, Japan’s, and all the other Universal Healthcare countries in the world, all by substantial margins and all producing similar and some producing better results than we do, but at a much lower cost.
In you mind these are all evil and socialist. But reality has a liberal bias.
Helping people is not evil and socialism.
-
-
As if Jeb had a clue. He’s as uninformed as his brother but still proud of his ignorance.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-i-would-replace-obamacare/2015/11/10/3f71bb46-84aa-11e5-8ba6-cec48b74b2a7_story.html]https://www.washingtonpos…ec48b74b2a7_story.html[/link]
I know there is a better path. That is why I recently proposed the most substantive conservative plan to repeal and replace Obamacare presented to date. My Obamacare alternative addresses the root causes of high health-care costs.
First, my plan would lower costs. Health care is expensive primarily because Washington has long distorted the meaning of insurance. Health insurers pay the majority of bills and control how most health-care services are delivered.Under my plan, instead of an insurer directly paying all the bills, consumers would be empowered to make choices that are right for them. For instance, an asthma patient could save money by choosing a treatment costing $8,000 instead of one from a different hospital in the same city costing $34,000.
Exactly how? Mandate the posting of all prices? Exactly what insurers and all providers want, a comparison price list for patients to be able to shop around for the best price.
Additionally, medical entrepreneurs would be given better opportunities to develop new approaches to delivering care. Instead of getting paid every time a diabetic patient came into the office, what if a specialist could manage all of that patients diabetic care, including the use of remote monitoring technology, for a one-time payment?
Hmmm, isn’t that approach being presently criticized by the anti-ACA Republicans already?
Patients may spend far less on premiums and be able to save more for out-of-pocket costs with a health savings account (HSA), and they may select a high-deductible plan that offers them a defined amount when they need certain services, so that they can select a specialized physician to provide them. And states could supplement the value of plans for the poor by fully funding HSAs.
Excellent, people who aren’t covered now can afford the coverage just refuse. As for poor people, we have many examples in the South for example of how the Republican States care for their poor. Just look at Texas.
This plan is a lie. He thinks the issue only started with the ACA & hasn’t a clue of the pre-ACA market. He’s rich and much of his life he’s got free coverage through the taxpayers. What does he know? -
[url=http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/261906-gop-on-cusp-of-obamacare-win]Congress closer than ever to passing a full Obamacare repeal[/url]
Republicans are closer than they have ever been to sending an ObamaCare repeal bill to the presidents desk. With a couple of defections expected, its unclear whether Senate Republicans have the necessary 51 votes. Thursdays dramatic roll call is expected to go down to the wire. Republicans can only afford three GOP defections, if all senators vote.
The Senate bill actually goes significantly further than a version the House passed earlier this year. It would repeal the laws health insurance exchanges, subsidies and tax increases as well as an expansion of Medicaid that has been adopted by 30 states.
The legislation would also unwind risk-adjustment programs used to reimburse insurance companies that spend more on sick patients than they collect in premiums and would repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund.
-
Bloomberg Editorial Board: [url=http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-23/one-and-a-half-cheers-for-obamacare]One and half cheers for Obamacare[/url]
[/quote]
More young people — who on average are in good health, and who help defray the cost of insuring the sick — are enrolling in Obamacare. Almost 1 million new customers age 34 or younger had signed up for coverage starting Jan. 1, 2016, an increase of almost 50 percent compared with the same period last year. That age group made up 41 percent of first-time enrollees, up from 38 percent year ago.
But the department also announced Tuesday that [link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-22/obamacare-sign-ups-top-last-year-s-total-in-boost-to-health-law]8.3 million people[/link]in total are enrolled for coverage in 2016 on the 38 state exchanges operated by the federal government, almost 2 million more than at the same point last year. Given that the Congressional Budget Office initially projected that [link=https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/costestimate/amendreconprop.pdf]21 million people[/link] would be enrolled by this point, it’s hard to say the program is going according to plan.
It’s not clear what’s driving young people to sign up in greater numbers. One incentive is probably that the penalty for being uninsured will increase next year to [link=https://www.healthcare.gov/fees/fee-for-not-being-covered/]at least $695[/link]. Or maybe they’re realizing that coverage isn’t as expensive as they thought. At any rate, this development diminishes the danger that state exchanges will collapse under the weight of lopsided risk pools, rising premiums and declining consumer demand.
In any case, the White House can’t afford to get complacent about Obamacare. The trend of rising copayments, deductibles and other out-of-pocket payments remains a concern with exchange coverage. But the most lethal threat to the viability of reform — a dearth of youngsters with any interest in health insurance — appears to be subsiding. [/quote]
-
As Republican House & Senate members try to kill Obamacare & oppose Medicare, Republican governors are increasing enrollment in Medicare in their states.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/us/politics/state-level-brawls-over-medicaid-reflect-wider-war-in-gop.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…-wider-war-in-gop.html[/link]
This month, John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, voted to repeal major provisions of the Affordable Care Act and to end its expansion of [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier]Medicaid[/link], arguing that the health law was unpopular and unaffordable.
A week later, his states Republican governor, Dennis Daugaard, announced that he wanted to make 55,000 additional South Dakota residents eligible for Medicaid under the law.
I know many South Dakotans are skeptical about expanding Medicaid, and I share some of those sentiments, [link=http://news.sd.gov/newsitem.aspx?id=18654]Mr. Daugaard said[/link]. It bothers me that some people who can work will become more dependent on government.
[b]
[/b]
[b]But, Mr. Daugaard said, we also have to remember those who would benefit, such as the single mother of three who simply cannot work enough hours to exceed the poverty line for her family.[/b]
In state after state, a gulf is opening between Republican governors willing to expand Medicaid coverage through the Affordable Care Act and Republican members of Congress convinced the law is collapsing and determined to help it fail.
-
-
[link=http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/264886-house-poised-to-pass-obamacare-repeal]http://thehill.com/policy…-pass-obamacare-repeal[/link]
House to repeal Obamacare today.For the first time, Republicans on Wednesday are expected to send a bill to President Obamas desk that would repeal most of his signature healthcare law. While the bill faces a certain veto, the vote in the House brings Republicans closer than ever before to dismantling the healthcare legislation that they say has failed the country.
With this bill, we will force President Obama to show the American people where he stands, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said in a blog post on Monday. He said the vote would immediately set a tone that represents a better path for our country.
The Wednesday vote will cap several years of contentious debate within the GOP over the best approach to fighting the healthcare law, which has now expanded insurance coverage to more than 16 million people. While some Republicans have pushed to put forward an alternative to ObamaCare, others have argued that full repeal should be the first priority.
-
Fng idiots
Just more of a waste of taxpayor dollars
The republican party is the party of stupid-
With this bill, we will force President Obama to show the American people where he stands,
Thank heavens…up in till now there was always doubt about whether Obama supported this legislation….I mean he did have his fingers crossed when he signed the bill
-
-
-
Congress should donate their paycheck stop charity, then resign and let people go there who actually want to work
-
[url=http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/265078-obama-vetoes-healthcare-bill-repeal]Obama vetoes ACA repeal[/url]
Quote from Barack Obama
Because of the harm this bill would cause to the health and financial security of millions of Americans, it has earned my veto.
Rather than refighting old political battles by once again voting to repeal basic protections that provide security for the middle class, members of Congress should be working together to grow the economy, strengthen middle-class families, and create new jobs.”Paul Ryan responded that there is now a clear path to repeal without 60 votes in the Senate and that repeal will be signed in 2017 if there is a Republican President.
To that I say, be careful what you wish for, Mr. Speaker. If you think there was a lot of political price to pay for passing the ACA on a party line vote, just wait and see what a sh*tstorm comes from a unilateral GOP repeal that takes away health insurance from millions of people.
(My guess is that that even if the GOP wins in 2016 and keps the Senate, Mitch McConnell would work in concert with a republican President to find a way to actually keep a full repeal from actually making it to the new President’s desk.)
-
Oh the path is clear at that point…they will not repeal until there is a replacement and magically no replacement will ever surface and the PPACA will continue
-
[link=http://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-releases-medicare-for-all-single-payer-health-plan-1453078558]http://www.wsj.com/articl…health-plan-1453078558[/link]
Bernie Sanders calls for single payer “Medicare for Alll”.
The plan would guarantee that all Americans have health insurance, something the Affordable Care Act falls short of achieving. He calls the proposal Medicare-for-all, tapping into the popularity of the health program that now serves Americans age 65 and older.
The plan also answers another criticism leveled in recent days by[link=http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-lead-over-sanders-widens-1453039203]Democratic front-runner Mrs. Clinton[/link]: that the last version of his health plan directed the national insurance program to be administered by the states. Mrs. Clintonalong with her daughter and aidessuggested huge risks in turning all Americans health care over to governors, including Republicans who have been hostile to the less-sweeping Obama health-care program.
Clinton sticks with the ACA
The Clinton campaign characterized the change as a seat-of-the-pants maneuver designed to dodge criticism and noted that Mr. Sanders had repeatedly backed state-based version in Congress.
Sen. Sanders has been changing a lot of positions in the last 24 hours because when his plans and record come under scrutiny, their very real flaws get exposed, said Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. After weeks of denying the legitimacy of the questions Hillary Clinton raised about flaws in the health-care legislation hes introduced nine times over 20 years, he proposed a new plan two hours before the debate.
-
last night was a more interesting debate. At least they were asking about policy and debating each other about that, although there was a couple of low blows. Hilary tries to take the holier than though ‘build on the ACA’ approach. Just what we need for more years of comrade Obama.
-
I think it would be a mistake to run on single-payer, just mainly on the ignorance of so many voters about health care in general & specifically their ignorance of the ACA. And the ability to ignore reality just based on their personal political team. It’s a non-starter, better to have the public accept it as a given then do incremental improvements, like openness of costs. Make it more a consumer item so that a person could actually shop around for costs and quality. Regulate it to make policies and costs easily understandable to any layman.
-
The ACA turns 6 this week.
I am kind of surprised that health care generally (and Obamacare specifically) has played such a small role in the primary discussions.
Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. I guess the GOP candidates are all pretty much in agreement on “Repeal and replace but never off specific replacements” while Sanders has a pipe dream of re-litigating the whole thing as Clinton rolls her eyes at him.-
[url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/house-gop-wins-obamacare-lawsuit-223121]District court rules in favor of House GOP in Obamacare lawsuit[/url]
Congress authorized the program but never actually provided the money for it, wrote U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. The program will be allowed to continue, pending appeal. “Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one, wrote Collyer, a George W. Bush appointee.
The ruling, if it stands, could be a significant financial setback for the millions of low-income Americans who benefit from the cost-sharing subsidies, which help people pay for out-of-pocket costs like co-pays at the doctors office. But it would not be a fatal blow to the future of the presidents signature domestic policy achievement, but it could push insurance costs higher.
The Obama administration is expected to immediately appeal the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. “This is not the first time that weve seen opponents of the Affordable Care Act go through the motions to try to win this political fight in the court system,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.
-
I’m still confused why you guys think corporate insurance welfare and more lies from the President, with complete disregard for the Constitution is a good thing?
This whole ACA thing was a lie — everything about it has been murky, shady, and what’s more, costly
When the known 2017 subsidies fall off, the president can’t steal more taxpayer money. Why? He won’t be there, unreal-
It’s not a lie. Romney’s Massachusetts’ plan is the mirror of the ACA and it works very well in Mass, certainly better than what they had before.
One step at a time for fixing the imperfections, it was less than perfect before the ACA. It was highly imperfect long before Medicare. First provide coverage to everyone then tackle the other points of imperfection.
“Welfare” depends on which side you look. If the government pays it’s “welfare,” if the public individual is gouged it’s the free market at play.
The ideal would be a single payer. Or like some other countries, say Germany with very strong regulation showing regulated costs up front, etc.
The unregulated free market has shown its shortcomings in its ability to provide for everyone. To be very clear, it’s been a total failure.
-
When has the market ever been “unregulated”?
In the 1960s there was a “health care crisis”? What world are you living in?
85% of the people now pay higher premiums for greater deductibles and less services. A few million people now have “coverage” but their health outcomes won’t change, as has been shown by many studies. Things like medicaid are public outreach programs, but they just guarantee payments to hospital systems, which is the only reason why hospitals think they matter (otherwise they’d be forced to give free services) or that they’re “good.”
So healthcare got much worse for 85% of the people of our country, and the other 15% aren’t effectively helped.
Yeah, that’s a better system. Only in progressive, lying anti-reality world.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Dr. ****er
In the 1960s there was a “health care crisis”? What world are you living in?
The world of actual history and facts. Johnson’s War on Poverty which included the creation of Medicare was a direct attempt to help people such as those in Appalachia, who became the poster people for the laws.
[link=http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/press.hom/healthcare/]http://www.lbjlib.utexas…./press.hom/healthcare/[/link]In 1965, President Johnson signed the Medicare bill, providing health care for senior citizens and the poor. Medicare is one part of the current robust debate in this country about health care.
-
I’m aware of what he did. Your link or stating that Medicare was created has nothing to do with our discussion. Crisis?
-
“Making America great again” means supporting the liberal government programs Trump and his beliebers support. Like Medicare and Social Security and tariffs, etc and laws protecting the white Middle Class more than the 1%. He is definitely not Free Market.
As for Trump’s financial successes and acumen and how he would serve the US economy, just look no further than Atlantic City.-
looks like SCOTUS passed the buck on the religious groups objection on contraception back to the lower courts.
-
DICOM, don’t you find it a bit ridiculous that they take cases that they know will end in 4-4 at about 80+% clip, thus reverting?
It renders the process far more silly and political than ever before. Just wait until a real 9 person court hears it, and then decide.-
What I find ridiculous is we don’t have a 9 judge SCOTUS because our dumpster fire of a government is stonewalling appointees.
-
What I find ridiculous is this stonewalling incompetent government was elected by the voters. And cheering about it. And that includes the States’ governments.
-
Haha, don’t get your way … only natural that there’s at least an attempt at checking a runaway gov’t, growing like Leviathan
-
Strange contradictory argument since you are for Trump. The government is much smaller now than it was under Bush. Should Trump actually get elected you will actually see the government grow way more than Bush ever made it grow from Clinton’s time. The Tea party and Trump supporters love the government programs that they depend on. Their fears all run about sharing those programs with others like immigrants and minorities, they fear leaving less for them. “America great again” was a time of much higher taxes. “America great again” was a time before the industrial jobs were sent to China and I have not heard any plans by Trump to bring these or any other jobs back to these supporters, have you?
-
False. Bush and Obama were the same person, Obama tripled down on all of his positions, I’ve said it multiple times before, it’s obvious, that’s why the blame Bush thing is so stupid. Obama is a one dimensional doofus, not dissimilar to GW Bush, who was given most things in his life. At least he was a governor though. Obama never got a single thing in his life based on merit, like GW, because I don’t count getting elected as anything — politics is easy when people do the work and have the system on your side.
Back to the doubling and tripling down on Bush’s positions:
Medicare Part D become Obamacare, more gov’t more waste, worse healthcare, more debt
Nation building continued, actively supporting al qaeda against assad, and Mo brotherhood in Egypt. Benghazi attacked on 9/11 for the same reason, Arab Spring and eventual rise of ISIS because Obama is clueless, just like Bush
“Islam is a religion of peace” — Same lie told over and over by both guys
Drone attacks, faster debt building, Obama and his DOJ doesn’t even know what a male or female is anymore
The places where Obama differs is that he’s a worse athlete, smokes, worked at Baskin Robbins as his only real job, and he can’t take a joke in his last WH press dinner, LOL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
American business model, collecting on EXPIRED medical debt from poor people.
Bottom feeders.
But John Oliver forms a company to collect debt (CARP), receives an offer to buy a list of people who “owe” this expired debt, $15,000,000 worth & forgives it.
[link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/06/06/watch_john_oliver_give_away_15_million.html]http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/06/06/watch_john_oliver_give_away_15_million.html[/link]
-
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-public-option_us_5781064fe4b01edea78e1cf1]Clinton backs ‘public option’ and allowing enrollment in Medicare at age 55[/link]
-
[link=https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/548769-biden-officials-rescind-texas-medicaid-waiver-approved-by-trump]Biden officials rescind Texas Medicaid waiver approved by Trump[/link]
-
Non Americans evaluate American healthcare with envy.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/opinion/healthcare-us.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/opinion/healthcare-us.html[/link]
-
-
-
