CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Healthcare/ACA 2017
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Healthcare/ACA 2017 - Page 3

post #101 of 266
Thread Starter 

Oliver spells it out.....

 

post #102 of 266
Thread Starter 
post #103 of 266

CBO announces 14 million would lose their health coverage next year alone. By 2026, over 50 million people would lack insurance compared to about 28 million under the current law. Average premiums will climb between 15-20% by 2019, and older enrollees would get charged an average of five times as much as younger ones.

 

https://twitter.com/AP/status/841381571743604736

post #104 of 266

In other words, its political suicide for the GOP to run with this.  Believe it truly is DOA.

post #105 of 266

lmao

 

post #106 of 266
Well, once all those uninsured people croak, then (technically) everyone will be insured.

Genius!
post #107 of 266

Since 9M of the folks losing their coverage are on Medicaid, the unfortunate thing for the GOP is that they'll live long enough to vote in another election or two.

post #108 of 266
Gotta pull that lever against your own best interests as long as your failing health will allow.
post #109 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
 

In other words, its political suicide for the GOP to run with this.  Believe it truly is DOA.

 

This is the danger of big entitlement programs.  People become dependent on them, and they become impossible to cancel.  As folks become reliant upon health care, prescription medication, etc., their bodies lose the ability to fight off disease.  Providing insurance actually makes them weaker.  

post #110 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

 

This is the danger of big entitlement programs.  People become dependent on them, and they become impossible to cancel.  As folks become reliant upon health care, prescription medication, etc., their bodies lose the ability to fight off disease.  Providing insurance actually makes them weaker.  


​Thanks to the world we live in, I had to read that twice to be sure it was satire.

post #111 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post
 


​Thanks to the world we live in, I had to read that twice to be sure it was satire.

 

L.M.A.O.

 

You got Poe'd!  

post #112 of 266

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

 

L.M.A.O.

 

You got Poe'd!  

 

 

I was always leaning on the side this was satire, I just read it a second time to double check​! As per the 'clear indicator' clause and the fact I personally was never placed fully within the aegis of 'mistaken', I argue that at no time did I have a case of the Edgar Allens!

post #113 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post
 

 

 

I was always leaning on the side this was satire, I just read it a second time to double check​! As per the 'clear indicator' clause and the fact I personally was never placed fully within the aegis of 'mistaken', I argue that at no time did I have a case of the Edgar Allens!

post #114 of 266
Watched Seth Meyers closer look on this shitfest, and as someone from a rather....politically colorful country, I'm speechless.
Actually comparing IPhones to health plan costs? Taxing the sun? Saying Obamacare is popular now because it's going to be ended?
What the fucking fuck is going on over there?
post #115 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent6084 View Post
 

CBO announces 14 million would lose their health coverage next year alone. By 2026, over 50 million people would lack insurance compared to about 28 million under the current law. Average premiums will climb between 15-20% by 2019, and older enrollees would get charged an average of five times as much as younger ones.

 

https://twitter.com/AP/status/841381571743604736

 

Premiums are projected to decrease after 2020 until they're 10 percent lower by 2026 (using the ACA as a comparison, not pre-ACA levels), but that's still a ten percent decrease in ten years - and it's accomplished largely by kicking older Americans from the insurance rolls. Ryan has also touted the deficit decrease mentioned by the CBO without clarifying that the reduction is accomplished through savage cuts to Medicaid. In other words, this plan is nothing less than class warfare targeting the poorest and sickest Americans.

post #116 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post
..... by kicking older Americans from the insurance rolls.

 

i.e. -dying.

post #117 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post
 

 

Premiums are projected to decrease after 2020 until they're 10 percent lower by 2026 (using the ACA as a comparison, not pre-ACA levels), but that's still a ten percent decrease in ten years - and it's accomplished largely by kicking older Americans from the insurance rolls. Ryan has also touted the deficit decrease mentioned by the CBO without clarifying that the reduction is accomplished through savage cuts to Medicaid. In other words, this plan is nothing less than class warfare targeting the poorest and sickest Americans.

 

Not only that but the numbers don't include the costs of emergency treatment for all the people with ailments that could've been detected/prevented. People that can't afford insurance can't afford an ER bill.

 

Add in the losses to the economy due to lost productivity from a sicker population, and the only ones who actually stand to profit are the insurance companies, pharma companies, and the congressmen they lobby.

post #118 of 266

A crucial insight into why Paul Ryan doesn't seem bothered by the CBO analysis: http://prospect.org/article/americans-must-liberate-themselves-oppression-health-coverage-say-republicans

 

Quote:

The clever thing about this piece of spin is that unlike Trump, Price, and the others, Ryan won't be accused of having broken his promise, no matter what happens, because he's promising nothing apart from meaningless notions like "access" and "choice." If his bill passes and 20 million people lose their coverage, Ryan will say, "That's good news. All those people are now breathing the sweet air of liberty. They didn't lose their health coverage, they gained their freedom."

 

[...]

 

He's still the same guy who said in 2005, "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."

 

Strip away the complex politics involved, and that's what's driving Republicans right now, even if some are less willing than Ryan to admit it. It's the belief that, as Ayn Rand preached, the government has no obligation to help anyone. If you find yourself in need of that help, what you really require is a good talking-to and a healthy yank on your bootstraps. Then you'll truly appreciate how free you've become.

post #119 of 266

Ayn Rand received about a decade of social security and medicare benefits, IIRC .

 

The healthcare system in this country needs to obliterated and single payer instituted.  All the squawking and braying over Obamacare vs. whateverrepublicansarepresenting(tm) is simply a distraction from the real problem; core healthcare should not be a for-profit industry. 

post #120 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

Ayn Rand received about a decade of social security and medicare benefits, IIRC .

 

The healthcare system in this country needs to obliterated and single payer instituted.  All the squawking and braying over Obamacare vs. whateverrepublicansarepresenting(tm) is simply a distraction from the real problem; core healthcare should not be a for-profit industry. 

As a Canadian I've been saying this forever.  The problem comes when you realize the United States has what, 300 million people?  There's a reason single player hasn't been put into place yet.  

post #121 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post
 

As a Canadian I've been saying this forever.  The problem comes when you realize the United States has what, 300 million people?  There's a reason single player hasn't been put into place yet.  

 

That reason has little to do with any logistical/bureaucracy problems. 

post #122 of 266

CA & NY will implement it first - two of the three largest states by population. I expect both will have universal health care by 2020 (NY might this year).

 

Other states will follow, until only the red states that would benefit from it the most are left allowing people to die like they're 3rd-world nations... which, if the shoe fits...

post #123 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
 

CA & NY will implement it first - two of the three largest states by population. I expect both will have universal health care by 2020 (NY might this year).

 

Other states will follow, until only the red states that would benefit from it the most are left allowing people to die like they're 3rd-world nations... which, if the shoe fits...

 

Piecemeal implementation cannot work in the long run.  People will vote with their feet and capital will move to other states.  Insurance works by distributing risk across a wide population; the only fair, equitable, long term solution that reduces waste is single payer.  Somehow, we have mixed up the term "insurance" with "health care" in this country.

post #124 of 266

Piecemeal can work just fine. The only people that will be moving are insurance companies. Estimates have single-payer costing -less- in both states due to cutting out the middle man and large scale price negotiations.

 

That's the real joke w/ the Republican plan: like most of their policies, it pretends to be about cutting costs, but does the opposite.

post #125 of 266
Single payer can work in states like New York and California, where there is a large polulation to put the state in power over the providers and there is sufficient state tax revenue to fund the administration of such a program. Plus providers will still want to live in those states, even though their incomes will be reduced (or at least prevented from growing at the rate they currently enjoy). Such a model would have trouble working in most parts of the country; a national model would be needed.

The biggest obstacle to nationwide single-payer will always be healthcare providers (pharma, doctors and hospitals). The insurance companies could be co-opted into a single-payer system if you do what many states do with Medicaid and give them money to administer it, while guaranteeing coverage and a certain benefit package. This wouldn't be as efficient as letting the government administer it, but it would get at least some of the insurance companies on board. Providers are a different animal, though. The reason healthcare is so much cheaper in other countrIes is because complete government control has given those governments enormous leverage in negotiating and setting prices. The piecemeal US system has allowed pharma, hospitals, and doctors to disproportionately prosper. That is the reason US surgeons make anywhere from 50-100% more than their foreign counterparts without producing better health outcomes. None of those groups are going to take kindly to havig their incomes significantly curtailed.

Single-payer is the only efficient way to provide healthcare; a market based solution will never work due to the fact that consumers will never be able to "shop" for healthcare. Pricing information is scarce, and even if it wasn't, healthcare requires quick decisions based on the extensive input of actors other than the consumer to make. A healthcare consumer can't make the "rational" decisions necessary for a market to work. That being said, single-payer will always be difficult to implement due to all of the powerful interest groups who will lose lots of money. If CA and NY are successful, it might help, but it is still going to be a slow, painful process.
post #126 of 266

I remember making an ER visit many years ago and asking what the tests I proposed would cost. They flat-out refused to answer. So yeah, the idea that medicine could ever be a consumer-based business is laughable to me.

 

If CA/NY get the ball rolling, it could trigger other larger states to follow. At that point, you essentially have a de facto national system, and either the small states can latch on to the other states' systems, or the federal government can adopt the consensus plan.

 

This really seems like the only way to enact positive change to ANY government system going forward: push the change through at the state level, then drag the morons in Washington into the present, kicking and screaming.

post #127 of 266

Paul Krugman has been making this point for years: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

 

Quote:
There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care — but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.
 
[...]
 
The second thing about health care is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (“I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.
post #128 of 266

I truly have never understood anyone who advocates for a market-based approach to healthcare. From a pure human capital point of view, having a healthy workforce is better for the economy, as is having more of their discretionary income available to use on goods other than healthcare. Corporate healthcare is really only good for healthcare providers, and they are supposedly bound by ethical guidelines to not put profit before patient. Employer based health insurance is a good tax-shelter for the rich, though, so it probably isn't going anywhere. 

post #129 of 266

The CEO of Newsmax (!!!) and Trump's bosom buddy just wrote an op-ed calling for universal health care:

 

http://theweek.com/speedreads/685883/trumps-close-friend-christopher-ruddy-just-wrote-oped-calling-president-implement-medicaid-all

 

WTF is going on?

post #130 of 266
He's specifically calling for a Medicaid-for-all system with some modest conservative reforms. Not quite what progressives like Sanders are talking about, but it would be better than the AHCA by almost every conceivable measure.

I can envision a scenario in which the administration produces a plan like this and essentially backs Ryan into a corner after the AHCA flounders in Congress. Of course, Trump would have to contend with the Tea Party Caucus, but he could make healthcare a midterm issue and threaten incumbents who don't fall in line.
post #131 of 266

This Washington Post reader just can't believe these new premiums for the elderly and thinks the paper needs to hire better people:

 

https://twitter.com/MaxEhrenfreund/status/841700806877421571

 

post #132 of 266
I've argued for years that the way to change the system is to set up a parallel path for both patients and physicians, and message it as "more choice" since that is what Republicans have said for decades they are for.

Here's how you do it:

1. Announce the rollout of "Medicare USA" - a public option single payer system that allows younger enrollees to increase their tax payments into Medicare in exchange for early enrollment.

2. Announce the creation of the Medicare USA Physician Corps. Medical students nationwide would have the option of receiving free medical schooling in exchange for agreeing to exclusively accept Medicare USA patients. After completing residency they are guaranteed a base salary on the GS15-Step10 scale, with bonuses based on patient volume, quality of care, and other metrics. Already practicing physicians could enroll as well and receive debt forgiveness in return.

What it would do:

The lower cost of care in the public option, in both administrative overhead and physician payments, would produce immense pressure on the private sphere to reduce costs in order to compete.

Physicians who want to make $400k/year will stay in private practice or academia and pay off their loans over time.

Physicians who are willing to take a pay cut to not have to worry about debt will still make around $175k. Importantly, unlike current debt forgiveness programs there are no geographical restrictions on this - so long as you see Medicare patients, you can practice anywhere.

When the media periodically bemoans the lack of primary care providers currently, crushing debt is a huge part of it - if you've got a family to feed and $200k in debt, you're not going to go into family practice making $120k per year. You're going to specialize into cardiology and make 3 times that. Obama started a program that is a first attempt to steer physicians back into primary care using debt forgiveness, but it's not nearly comprehensive enough for what's needed.

But back to the big picture:

Presenting a single payer option as just that - an option - to compete alongside private insurance, is the ONLY way to change the system over the long term. And for every time Republicans say how much they like people to have more choice in the market, it'll make them fucking choke on it.
post #133 of 266

Great article on health care in West Virginia:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/west-virginia-tug-river-obamacare/?graf=0

 

Quote:

Because of the ACA, Clyde’s visit is covered by Medicaid. Before the law, most West Virginians without children or disabilities could not qualify for Medicaid, no matter how poor they were. The ACA — better known here as Obamacare — expanded the program to cover more people, such as Clyde, who can depend on Keisha to fix his heartburn without having to worry about the cost.

 

As for the other problems in his life, he has put his hopes in Trump, who came to West Virginia saying he would bring back coal and put miners back to work. When Trump mentioned repealing Obamacare, Clyde wasn’t sure what that might mean for his Medicaid. But if he had a job that provided health insurance, he reasoned, he wouldn’t need Medicaid anyway, so he voted for Trump, along with 74 percent of McDowell County.

 

Tug River Health Association treats about 8,700 patients, resulting in some 20,000 visits a year to its five clinics. In 2016, 12,284 of those visits were from patients on Medicaid, up from 5,674 in 2013, before the ACA took effect here. Without the ACA, many of those patients wouldn’t be able to afford care. Will they soon lose their coverage? Will they stop coming to the clinic? Lately, Tug River’s chief executive has been telling his staff, “The key word going forward is uncertainty.”

 

Quote:

In other parts of the country, the primary impact of the ACA has been requiring people to have private health insurance, but in poor and sick communities like McDowell County, the law’s dominant effect has been the Medicaid expansion, which has given more people access to the kind of health care that wasn’t widely available or affordable to them before. With an insurance card in her pocket, the patient at Tammy’s window can venture into the realms of medical care that are typically out of reach to those without one: blood work, immunizations, specialized doctors, surgery, physical therapy.

 

If she needs mental health counseling, the clinic no longer sends her to the next county over; last July, Tug River was able to hire a psychologist, who is now treating 180 people, many of whom are trying to overcome opioid addictions.

 

If she needs medication, the nurses won’t go digging in a closet of samples left by drug reps as they used to do for the uninsured. The medication will come from a pharmacy and cost no more than a few dollars.

 

Quote:

Another patient comes in: Carolyn Hodges, 68, who tells Keisha that she’s been feeling dizzy. Carolyn has Medicare, the public health insurance for the elderly. Medicare doesn’t cover all health-care costs, which is why Carolyn is as worried about the price of her medications as the fact that she’s been bumping into walls.

 

The last time she went to pick up her husband Roger’s insulin, Carolyn tells Keisha, the pharmacist said it would be more than $600, instead of the $100 or so they usually pay. That was when she learned Roger was in the Medicare prescription “donut hole,” which means that the cost of his medications had exceeded his limit for the year, and he would be forced to pay far more for prescriptions until the year ended and the tab started over. One initiative of the ACA has been to close that hole incrementally, but Carolyn, unaware of that, sees the bills piling up and thinks she knows who must be to blame.

 

“Thank you, Obama!” Carolyn says, throwing her arms in the air.

post #134 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post

Presenting a single payer option as just that - an option - to compete alongside private insurance, is the ONLY way to change the system over the long term. And for every time Republicans say how much they like people to have more choice in the market, it'll make them fucking choke on it.

 

The problem is that the health care industry would sabotage the single payer option in every legal way they could, similar to how they've been attempting to sabotage the ACA.

 

One thing the ACA proved is that half-measures won't work. We have to pull the trigger, or the beast will fight back.

post #135 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post

 

One thing the ACA proved is that half-measures won't work. We have to pull the trigger, or the beast will fight back.

 

There ya go.  I'm sick of the histrionic defenses of the ACA when, basically, the ACA just mitigates a few of the worst aspects of the current system (while creating new ones). 

post #136 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

 

There ya go.  I'm sick of the histrionic defenses of the ACA when, basically, the ACA just mitigates a few of the worst aspects of the current system (while creating new ones). 

 

The ACA was the needed stepping stone to getting a single-payer system going and in the minds of the American electorate.

 

How many millions of people are now more knowledgeable about the US healthcare system and how fucked up the 'freemarket' version of it is/was.

 

There are now a massive amount of folks, some of whom have healthcare for the first time, that are going to be greatly pissed off if the GOP is successful in taking it away.

 

All that is needed now is to get people to truly realize where the blame falls for how fucked up the healthcare situation is in this country....it's solely on the shoulders of health insurance industry and their insatiable need for profit.

post #137 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

The ACA was the needed stepping stone to getting a single-payer system going and in the minds of the American electorate.

How many millions of people are now more knowledgeable about the US healthcare system and how fucked up the 'freemarket' version of it is/was.

There are now a massive amount of folks, some of whom have healthcare for the first time, that are going to be greatly pissed off if the GOP is successful in taking it away.

All that is needed now is to get people to truly realize where the blame falls for how fucked up the healthcare situation is in this country....it's solely on the shoulders of health insurance industry and their insatiable need for profit.

The insurance industry is bad, but blame is equally shared with pharma, hospitals, and doctors. By some estimates, health care fraud by doctors accounts for 10% of all healthcare spending - aka 2% of the total US economy. The problem with doing health reform is you somehow have to do it despite the objections of doctors, hospitals, pharma, and insurance. They all have different goals, but they also all generally oppose single-payer reform.
post #138 of 266

Tom Price did a health care townhall on CNN.  Some questions he got...

 

First up, here's one where a cancer patient on Medicaid would like to know why Price wants to take it away:

 

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/842183897152643073

 

Price's answer is complete dance-a-round, and the man lets him know it:

 

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/842185725009362944

 

A woman who uses Planned Parenthood uses Price's answer to the man with cancer to point out hypocrisy:

 

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/842188655087218688

post #139 of 266

I'd do so poorly at one of these things...

 

"Hi, I'm from California, and I just wanted to ask: why are you such a raging asshole? ... Sorry, that was crude, let me rephrase... When someone tells you that your health care plan will literally kill them, how many baby kittens do you have to imagine burning alive to get that shit-eating grin to cross your giant puckered sphincter of a face, you raging asshole? I'll take your answer while being dragged out of the room, thanks."

post #140 of 266

Obamacare vs Trumpcare

 

post #141 of 266

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/counties-in-washington-that-rely-most-on-obamacare-voted-for-trump/

 

I read as many comments on the article as I could stand.

 

This was ... not many.

post #142 of 266

Don't watch this if you have a heart condition ...

 

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/842193303240073216

 

post #143 of 266
Well, it's the law here in CA. Enjoy your kids with whooping cough in red states, you yokels.
post #144 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Well, it's the law here in CA. Enjoy your kids with whooping cough in red states, you yokels.

 

We may need to institute our own travel ban soon.

post #145 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Well, it's the law here in CA. Enjoy your kids with whooping cough in red states, you yokels.


​To be fair, Mississippi and West Virginia have had some of the strictest vaccination protocols in the US which is why they haven't had a case of measles since 1992 and 1994 respectively if I'm remembering it correctly - it's definitely been a very long time. California ... getting there but they have a way to go yet.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/mississippi-a-leader-on-vaccination-rates-stands-by-strict-rules.html?_r=0

 

"But [Mississippi] is one of two states that permit neither religious nor philosophical exemptions to its vaccination program."

post #146 of 266

The article is a bit outdated. CA has the same rules as of last year.

post #147 of 266

Like I said, they're catching up. Takes a while for the situation on the ground to catch up in terms of % of people vaccinated (herd immunity and all that.) I believe there were a number of recent outbreaks that were probably the impetus for this recent change. Mississippi and West Virginia have a several decades head start in that department.

 

Also, that particular article was much more to highlight Mississippi and West Virginia's policies more than anyone else.

 

Lots of things they could be doing better but relatively speaking, seems like they were ahead of the curve on this one.

post #148 of 266

An Arizona report shows that 380,000 Arizonans would lose Medicaid and that the state's federal funding would drop by $2.5 billion under the GOP's plan:

 

http://www.thestate.com/news/business/national-business/article139276663.html

 

Quote:

The analysis by the state's Medicaid plan obtained by The Associated Press Friday shows keeping most of those people insured would cost the state nearly $500 million a year by 2023. In a Republican-led state where tax increases are nearly impossible to enact, that's extremely unlikely.

 

The report looks at the patients who gained coverage under a Medicaid expansion pushed through in 2013 by former Gov. Jan Brewer over opposition from many in her own party. It now covers about 400,000 Arizonans out of the 1.9 million covered by Medicaid in the state.

 

Of those 400,000, about 316,000 are childless adults who earn less than the federal poverty limit, and 81,000 earn between 100 percent and 138 percent of the limit.

 

Brewer said in an interview earlier this week that "it weighs heavy on my heart" when she thinks of the current Republican plan to repeal and replace Obama's law.

 

"It just really affects our most vulnerable, our elderly, our disabled, our childless adults, our chronically mentally ill, our drug addicted," she said of the potential elimination of coverage for the expansion population. "It will simply devastate their lives and the lives that surround them. Because they're dealing with an issue which is very expensive to take care of as a family with no money."

post #149 of 266

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney on universal health care in the United States:

 

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/324699-mulvaney-the-only-way-to-get-truly-universal-care-is-to-throw-people-in

 

Quote:

"The only way to get truly universal care is to throw people in jail if they don't have it," he said on CBS's "Face The Nation." "And we are not going to do that."

 

In January, President Trump said a plan to replace ObamaCare would include the goal of having "insurance for everybody."
post #150 of 266

Heh, yeah, because if you offer people free access to MedicAid, they're going to refuse it. You'd have throw them in jail! Or just execute them! We can't execute everyone! So universal health care is unpossible!

 

Of course, he's not even considering the possibility of health care without insurance companies lining his pockets.

 

These guys' inability to form a single logical argument is baffling.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Healthcare/ACA 2017