Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[visionary]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

16 hours ago, Ron78 said:

 

$15,000 to leave?  That is not how the direct pay model works.  You pay a monthly fee for "membership" to a provider instead of paying an insurance premium (and all the overhead that comes with insurance).  Insurance companies cost both medical providers and patients tons of money.  If you could work out a system that eliminates the need for medical insurance, you could reduce the cost of Health Care.

Out of curiosity, whats the plan for all the people that would lose their jobs if you got rid of the health insurance industry?

[LadySkinsFan]

18 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Out of curiosity, whats the plan for all the people that would lose their jobs if you got rid of the health insurance industry?

 

This, I think, is the biggest reason for keeping the insurance companies around. There will be a flood of unemployed people, raising that demographic, and where will jobs come from in other sectors? 

[Ron78]

56 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Out of curiosity, whats the plan for all the people that would lose their jobs if you got rid of the health insurance industry?

 

Saving money on Health Care would mean that people would have more money to invest elsewhere in the economy (maybe even other areas of insurance coverage). 

Edited June 28, 2017 by Ron78

[@DCGoldPants]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Out of curiosity, whats the plan for all the people that would lose their jobs if you got rid of the health insurance industry?

 

Coal. It's coming back. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Just now, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

Coal. It's coming back. 

 

Beat me to it, dammit!

[tshile]

34 minutes ago, Ron78 said:

 

Saving money on Health Care would mean that people would have more money to invest elsewhere in the economy (maybe even other areas of insurance coverage). 

That sounds great, and is the typical Economist theory on how things will work out.

 

Problem is that the money will move, but the actual people won't. The people that do the work (legal, paperwork, being an agent, even the admin assistants and janitors)  all have careers that go away and while individually their skills may translate to another sector there's rarely enough space for most of them.

 

I think insurance is a drain on society but your answer of what to do for the people in the sector isn't very good. They're going to be screwed without an actual plan.

 

Society may hate the industry and the execs making all that money but the execs will be fine. The people hurt are largely like the rest of the people we're claiming need help.

Edited June 28, 2017 by tshile

[Ron78]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

That sounds great, and is the typical Economist theory on how things will work out.

 

Problem is that the money will move, but the actual people won't. The people that do the taxes, the legal work, etc all have careers that go away and while individually their skills may translate to another sector there's rarely enough space for most of them.

 

I think insurance is a drain on society but your answer of what to do for the people in the sector isn't very good. They're going to be screwed without an actual plan.

 

Society may hate the industry and the execs making all that money but the execs will be fine. The people hurt are largely like the rest of the people we're claiming need help.

 

To be honest, my line work would also be eliminated if Direct Pay Health Care was implemented, and I would have to find a new line of work as well.  I don't think we should maintain a grossly inefficient process just to keep people comfortable in the same jobs they have always had. 

[tshile]

Just now, Ron78 said:

 

To be honest, my line work would also be eliminated if Direct Pay Health Care was implemented, and I would have to find a new line of work as well.  I don't think we should maintain a grossly inefficient process just to keep people comfortable in the same jobs they have always had. 

I don't think so either.

 

I just think we need an answer, and what you originally said wasn't an answer. It's grandiose economic theory that we know from experience doesn't work out very well.

 

Yes, the money does go somewhere. That somewhere sees a boom (even if small), and jobs are created, but the *actual people* don't do well on the whole.

 

We have entire towns full of crime, poverty and drug addicts because some industry left/changed and the people couldn't leave/change with it.

[bearrock]

I guess that's one of the grand questions.  Are we willing to let health insurance companies go out of business if it will result in cheaper healthcare for the population overall?  I would tend to lean yes, but yeah, it would be pretty seismic.  Would there be a way to phase it out?

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I guess that's one of the grand questions.  Are we willing to let health insurance companies go out of business if it will result in cheaper healthcare for the population overall?  I would tend to lean yes, but yeah, it would be pretty seismic.  Would there be a way to phase it out?

Given the way our government currently works, I don't see how you could get a plan together that both sides would like enough to not mess with it once power changes hands.

 

See: where we are right now.

 

Probably just need to rip the band-aid off and let it work itself out. I don't think it will be pretty, but maybe it won't be so bad.

 

Special unemployment program and tapers off and is definitive for people under X annual earnings for y+ years?

 

Maybe allow things like drawing on 401k penalty free, or some sort of discount for their children's college, or something.

 

I'm open to all ideas

 

I'm assuming that if the government does single payer it will have to hire some of these people, because it will still have to deal with what the insurance companies deal with (negotiating rates, approval of procedures/doctors, etc) but I don't know what % of the workforce would be needed for that.

[No Excuses]

Signs of times:

 

GOP once proudly ran on cutting social programs like Medicaid.

 

Now pretending and lying that they aren't cutting them, but in fact boosting them!

 

Most I've been convinced that we are headed towards becoming a more socialist state than ever before.

 

 

 

[Larry]

13 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Signs of times:

 

GOP once proudly ran on cutting social programs like Medicaid.

 

Now pretending and lying that they aren't cutting them, but in fact boosting them!

 

Most I've been convinced that we are headed towards becoming a more socialist state than ever before.

 

 

 

 

Not sure where your complaint (and the "socialist" claim) is/are coming from. 

 

You ticked that they're cutting Medicaid?  

 

That they aren't just eliminating it?  

 

That they're lying about what they're doing?  

 

[No Excuses]

17 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Not sure where your complaint (and the "socialist" claim) is/are coming from. 

 

You ticked that they're cutting Medicaid?  

 

That they aren't just eliminating it?  

 

That they're lying about what they're doing?  

 

 

Just an observation that the GOP can no longer beat the drum of gutting "entitlements".

 

I think it shows that the public is not with them on this issue anymore and they have to lie to accomplish it.

 

I see it as a sign (along with the approval and adoption of ACA Medicaid expansion) that we are becoming more open to expanding access to things like healthcare through government programs.

[NoCalMike]

If single payer or direct health was implemented there would be no way to get around the insurance industry down-sizing but there are other countries that still have health insurance and the business are thriving, but it just isn't for primary care.  It's for add-ons.  Say you want better quality meals during your hospital stay.  More channels to watch. Perhaps a private room.  Etc etc etc.......People buy insurance for perks.

 

Also, if the gov't did take over health care, I'd assume they'd be looking to hire a whole lot of people with experience in the heath insurance industry.

[visionary]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

God, his lies are egregious, and unrelenting.

[DCranon21]

My god, did he even read the CBO report/score on this and still tweeting out a lie? This is dangerous. 

[twa]

It does go up.

[TheGoodBits]

58 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

If single payer or direct health was implemented there would be no way to get around the insurance industry down-sizing but there are other countries that still have health insurance and the business are thriving, but it just isn't for primary care.  It's for add-ons.  Say you want better quality meals during your hospital stay.  More channels to watch. Perhaps a private room.  Etc etc etc.......People buy insurance for perks.

 

Also, if the gov't did take over health care, I'd assume they'd be looking to hire a whole lot of people with experience in the heath insurance industry.

 

I read an idea the other day that basically lowered Medicare eligibility age and income by a few percent each year for 10 years or so, so that it's gradually phased in as the standard healthcare option for the majority of the country (and eventually all). But it would let the health insurance industry die a slow, planned death instead of a sudden one. 

 

The risk of course is that it's easier to change a law before people start receiving benefits from it, so if you go with the gradual phase-in approach that law could end up repealed two or three years later. 

Edited June 29, 2017 by skinsfan_1215

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

17 minutes ago, twa said:

It does go up.

...in smoke.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

 

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

God, his lies are egregious, and unrelenting.

 

1 hour ago, DCranon21 said:

My god, did he even read the CBO report/score on this and still tweeting out a lie? This is dangerous. 

 

Nope.  He's stating a fact.  

 

It's just an intentionally deceptive fact.  

 

Yes, under GOPCare, the total dollars spend on Medicaid goes up.  

 

Just not by enough to maintain the current levels of coverage.  

 

That's the reason why the GOP absolutely has to change the way Medicaid is budgeted and voted on.  

 

Under the current system, the government specifies who is covered, what services are covered, and how much the government will pay for those services.  The government then spends whatever it takes to meet those specifications.  

 

In order to meet those standards, I think Medicaid spending typically goes up by around 10% a year, but I'll freely admit that I just pulled that number out of memory, so don't put a whole lot of faith on it.  Let's just pretend that that's the number we've been seeing lately.  

 

Kaiser Foundation - Average Annual Growth in Medicaid Spending.  

 

(One side effect of this is that the spending goes up, every year, without Congress actually voting to increase it.  If they just leave the law alone, then the spending goes up, because of things like population growth, poverty levels, and the increased cost of medicine.)  

 

What GOPCare does is, they change it to a model of "the government says this is how much they'll spend, and it it's not enough to go around, tough noogies."  

 

Then they decide that next year, we'll spend 5% more.  And then they act shocked when people say that's not enough to cover the people that were covered last year.  "Gee, we increased the total number of dollars.  I just can't imagine why it's not enough."  

 

Here's a bisic (which is all I'm good for) summary of the thing.  

 

Politifact: Newt Gingrich misleads with point that House health care bill grows Medicaid spending

 

There's even a nifty chart, with mouse-over labels, that compares Medicaid spending if the law stays unchanged, the House, and the Senate versions.  

 

(Note:  The vertical scale of Politifact's nifty chart doesn't start at zero.  This makes small differences look bigger.)  

Edited June 29, 2017 by Larry
Edited to clarify which chart I'm talking about

[twa]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

 

 

 

 

(Note:  The vertical scale of the pretty chart doesn't start at zero.  This makes small differences look bigger.)  

 

? is that a o then?

[LD0506]

Yanno, Yertle the Turtle has been front-n-center on the FU bill and deserves all the negative attention he gets, but how about we look at some of the others involved?

 

For example, how many off the top of their head know this hatchet-faced demon to his right?

 

Barrasso from Wyoming, up for reelection in '18

 

Somebody needs to spend some $$ to make him known and hang this albatross around his neck.

 

Etc., etc......

[gbear]

http://www.ideastream.org/news/healthcare-bill-should-preserve-coverage-american-medical-association-says

 

Interesting to see the AMA, the AHA, and the AARP come out against the senate bill after already coming out against the House bill.  So the doctors, the hospitals, and the elderly (largest group of  healthcare users) are against it.  Which stakeholders were consulted in setting this plan up?

 

Also for an interesting read on the perspective of why we can't separate healthcare from dollars (healthcare is not a right), there is this article:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-23/health-care-is-a-business-not-a-right

The hard part is reconciling the perspective of this article with a Christian culture purporting to value life.  Yes, there is a bridge too far, and there always has been.  I'm just not certain the issue he sees in the article isn't one of trying to identify the bridge "too far" with cold mathematical calculations.  Still, I think the point stands.  Nowhere in the world is every possible treatment covered regardless of costs.

Edited June 29, 2017 by gbear