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

[Hersh]

Absolutely NO WAY do I want a system in which one person that can pay for live saving care gets to live while the other person is screwed cause they can't afford it financially. Find a mirror and look in it if you think that is any sort of a reasonable option.

Now, having tough discussions about end of life care is different when it comes to terminal illness. First however we need to examine the costs of these measures and if they are reasonable. 

[No Excuses]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

I see they finally figured it out, from last March. Wonder what the graphs look like in October.

 

Fools.

[JSSkinz]

Repeal without immediately replacing would be political suicide for the right, I don't know how many of those 20 million in the ACA voted in the last election but bet your ass they will be voting in the next election if this transition leaves people hanging out to dry.

[Hersh]

I love these GOP guys giving interviews. The lastest on MTP daily said they want to reduce mandates and let the market work.  Ya know, cause it was so awesome before Obamacare. 

 

[skinsmarydu]

22 minutes ago, Hersh said:

I love these GOP guys giving interviews. The lastest on MTP daily said they want to reduce mandates and let the market work.  Ya know, cause it was so awesome before Obamacare. 

 

I'm watching.  I actually did laugh.

[Hersh]

14 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

I'm watching.  I actually did laugh.

Based on his comments and Rand Paul, they want to repeal the Medicaid expansion as well. They also refuse to say how anything will be paid for. They are going to paint themselves into a corner. 

[tshile]

Yay free market solution for a problem that isn't free market.

 

For free market principles to work you have to be able to opt out of the service... you can't opt out of Healthcare. You can opt out of health insurance, but only if you think it's worth it to gamble on whether you'll need medical services or not...

 

 

[bcl05]

If health care is free market, some will go without.  That is how free markets work.  If republicans are OK with that, they should have the courage to say so.  I doubt we'll ever see them be honest about it. 

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

If health care is free market, some will go without.  That is how free markets work.  If republicans are OK with that, they should have the courage to say so.  I doubt we'll ever see them be honest about it. 

Do 100 percent of Americans have it now?

[No Excuses]

In a country as unhealthy as this, a healthcare system with opt outs is simply unfeasible. 

 

Part of the issue for me will always be that we don't emphasize preventative care more, don't really spend enough time on tackling poverty related health issues and we really don't have a national debate about healthy lifestyle choices to improve the overall health of the country.

[bcl05]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

Do 100 percent of Americans have it now?

 

Certainly not.  But with government intervention and action (imperfect as it was), we are closer to 100% than we've ever been.  Progress doesn't have to be complete to be celebrated.  

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

 

Certainly not.  But with government intervention and action (imperfect as it was), we are closer to 100% than we've ever been.  Progress doesn't have to be complete to be celebrated.  

So Democrats are okay with less than 100percent?  

 

What percent is acceptable?

[No Excuses]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

So Democrats are okay with less than 100percent?  

 

What percent is acceptable?

 

I think every Democrat President since Harry Truman has made some form of attempt to get us to the 100% mark in small, incremental steps. If whatever reforms the GOP does do not satisfy the public at large, the next Democratic President is almost guaranteed to formally call for single payer.

[skinsmarydu]

7 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

I think every Democrat President since Harry Truman has made some form of attempt to get us to the 100% mark in small, incremental steps. If whatever reforms the GOP does do not satisfy the public at large, the next Democratic President is almost guaranteed to formally call for single payer.

And getting doctors who dreamed of making gazillions of dollars in their life (partially to pay their student debt) are NEVER going to want to be government employees.  Gotta get the real providers on board first...I just don't see how that happens.

[JSSkinz]

I see so many young children and young adults at the cancer treatment facility I go to in Tampa (Moffitt Cancer Center). Preventative care would have done nothing for these young kids/teens.

 

Everyone needs health insurance.

 

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

So Democrats are okay with less than 100percent?  

 

What percent is acceptable?

100% is unrealistic so long as private companies provide insurance. There will always be people who simply don't fill out paperwork, pick a provider, etc. Single payer, you have it because you were born, is the only way to get to 100%

 

Probably have to adopt something similar to unemployment statistics. Start talking about % of people that want, and looked for, insurance but couldn't find it. Then start looking at the why's -  cost, coverage, life situation, etc.

 

Ideally 100% of people that want, and put effort into getting, insurance would find something. We're close, but not quite there yet. Cost controls aren't working as hoped, people didn't sign up like they needed, etc.

[No Excuses]

4 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said:

I see so many young children and young adults at the cancer treatment facility I go to in Tampa (Moffitt Cancer Center). Preventative care would have done nothing for these young kids/teens.

 

Everyone needs health insurance.

 

Preventative care of course doesn't apply to everything. Regardless, a focus on improving upon the overall health of the country and actually making meaningful gains would go a long way in making healthcare more affordable in general.

[JSSkinz]

13 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Preventative care of course doesn't apply to everything. Regardless, a focus on improving upon the overall health of the country and actually making meaningful gains would go a long way in making healthcare more affordable in general.

 

 

I don't disagree but preventative care in my definition is CT scans with contrast and even a yearly PET scan for those over a certain age.

 

If you're talking about preventative care being education in lifestyle changes like eating healthier and not smoking  well of course thats important but you can do all of those things and still have issues which is why you need the coverage to get the tests done.

[LadySkinsFan]

Get rid of pure profit. That doesn't mean you don't pay hospital staff, research and development (which taxpayers do now), don't pay insurance company CEOs huge salaries, no shareholder dividends.

 

Healthcare should not be for profit. And no advertising. Two big unnecessary costs right there.

 

 

The problems started with HMOs, and the rise of for profit insurance companies. 

 

Also, healthcare shouldn't be tied to employers.

Edited January 17, 2017 by LadySkinsFan

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, jschuck12001 said:

Repeal without immediately replacing would be political suicide for the right, I don't know how many of those 20 million in the ACA voted in the last election but bet your ass they will be voting in the next election if this transition leaves people hanging out to dry.

You're so dumb.  

 

They are going to repeal Obamacare which is the worst thing ever.  I'll still get my insurance through the ACA.  

 

Sheesh.  Read the news before you comment. 

 

Here is a link to a solid source for news.  http://www.breitbart.com

[LadySkinsFan]

^^^^Nuck, Nuck.

Edited January 17, 2017 by LadySkinsFan

[tshile]

Maybe the gop will 'repeal' it, but the repeal will just stop further rollouts of aca (doesnt it have stuff rolling out past 2020?) And say that it will be replaced by a plan announced at a later date

 

I could see them doing that. I think it would be dumb if for no other reason it would show they honestly don't have a plan they have any confidence in, but that hasn't stopped people before.

[The Sisko]

18 hours ago, Larry said:

I've had a thought, for a while, here....

And the thought that occurred to me was:  Maybe what we need, for that person to have a policy that only covers the little things.  A policy that makes routine screening free, and covers the medium-sized things.  But doesn't cover the major things...

It won't work and isn't really feasible for a couple of reasons. The little stuff you're talking about can generally be handled at FQHCs, Fed funded community health centers. The other issue is that leaving the big stuff uncompensated doesn't only bankrupt the individual, it also drives hospitals into the red. Eventually they close and then nobody in that community has care no matter how great their insurance is.

11 hours ago, No Excuses said:

Whatever the Republicans come up with, if it flops, the next logical conclusion to me is single payer. I don't see how any politician again will be able to sell to anything else. 

I suspect this is exactly what happens. 

9 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

@tshile I agree with what you said.  I really wish it is a conversation we could have but agree that we can't.  

Also, anyone advocating for single payer should have to spend a year in the military health care system first.  That will change your mind.  (At one point, while trying to diagnose what turned out to be a kidney stone, the told me they were pretty sure I had Lou Gherigs disease.)

I have watched people get injured and die in private hospitals prior to ACA over really stupid stuff. The two that jump out at me the most were deaths caused by a nurse mistakenly putting a patient on air instead of oxygen and a patient who was given the wrong blood type in the OR. While nothing can eliminate errors, ACA did a LOT to address patient safety. I bet money whatever nonsense the GOP comes up with, it doesn't address that. Nor will it probably address insurance company loss ratios, tying reimbursement to quality, innovation to reduce costs, etc. People **** about it and the vast majority of them have almost no idea what was in it.

 

9 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Good point.  I guess it depends on which version of "single payer" you expect to see.  I have seen some proposals that many doctors, etc would become government employees and I picture that more like the military healthcare system.  If we go single payer in the sense that everything stays the same put government foots the bill for everything, I see costs skyrocketing.  That's what people do when the government is paying, milk them for everything they can.  

If we do things pretty much the way Medicare does, the country will go broke. The country is eventually going to have to come to terms with doing single payer the way that the so-called socialist Europeans and others do it, i.e. evaluate the cost benefit ratio of everything and don't pay for stuff that isn't worth it. Too bad we're dumb enough to see that as death panels instead of a smart, capitalist approach.

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

ACA did a LOT to address patient safety

Yeah, this is probably the easiest subject to look at and say: if politicians were interested in serving us, they could make it better.

 

A whole review of hchaps (and the physician equivalent that's rolling out now I believe?) Would do a lot to help everyone. Using the purse strings to control patient outcomes is pretty much what the government is limited to doing, but it also has pitfalls. Grading a hospital based on patient reviews of their experience is tricky. Tieing it directly to reimbursements is even more so. Having a question about how well you 'pain was controlled' creates a bad situation when juxtaposed with the opium epidemic going on.

 

There is so much room for the gop to improve aca and take credit for it. I always thought that's what they'd do, it's the easiest path and gives them a fallguy (aca 1.0, obamacare, or just Obama in general) in perpetuity. Doesn't seem to be going that way...