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

[visionary]

 

[LD0506]

 

Remember when something like this was so over-the-top, so extreme, so ludicrous and partisan that you could just scoff at it and dismiss it out of hand? So do I, it was January..............

[visionary]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

If they really want to put a fix on the ACA, put a ceiling on the premiums that insurance companies can charge and lower the deductible.

[twa]

4 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

If they really want to put a fix on the ACA, put a ceiling on the premiums that insurance companies can charge and lower the deductible.

 

I was told Obama already did that, and capped out of pocket.

 

aren't you happy?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

It could be fixed (or could have been done right the first time). Every other developed country on earth seems to be able to do it.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[RedskinsMayne]

53 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

It could be fixed (or could have been done right the first time). Every other developed country on earth seems to be able to do it.

 

 

European countries have far few people and a far smaller geographical area to cover.

[Larry]

26 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

European countries have far few people and a far smaller geographical area to cover.

 

And everybody knows that, when you have twice as many people paying in, and twice as many taking out, then the possible becomes impossible. 

 

Do you actually think that the things you say, to try to dismiss inconvenient facts, make sense?  

[tshile]

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

And everybody knows that, when you have twice as many people paying in, and twice as many taking out, then the possible becomes impossible. 

 

Do you actually think that the things you say, to try to dismiss inconvenient facts, make sense?  

 

Or maybe he's referring to issues beyond actual size and numbers.

 

Or maybe not.

[RedskinsMayne]

52 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

And everybody knows that, when you have twice as many people paying in, and twice as many taking out, then the possible becomes impossible. 

 

Do you actually think that the things you say, to try to dismiss inconvenient facts, make sense?  

 

I was for Obamacare as initially passed. I'm not dismissing facts. My point is pointing to Europe and saying they can do it, we can too, is an oversimplification.

 

 

As a result of geographical differences, in order to give everyone access to government health care as is done in Europe, there would have to multitudes more medical centers. That means a lot more overhead. More janitors, more security, more buildings, more maintenance, more utility expenses, more administrative costs, more paper work. And that's before you even get around to providing medical care. That's just geological differences alone.

 

Secondly, we have more people. That means we need more doctors. Each of those doctors needs its own support staff, secretaries, nurses, insurance. That's before providing medical care. 

 

The cost increases aren't linear, they are exponential.

 

 

You can't just mandate that medical endurance companies lower payment and increase benefits. Companies operate to make money, if they can't make money they won't operate.

 

Lets assume the government said "You can live on $8 hr, so henceforth you will only be allowed to charge $8 hr for your labor as long as you are doing x" How long would it be before you started doing y?

Edited May 27, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[@DCGoldPants]

GOP is putting a lot of effort in saying the ACA has failed. The Dems (like I said in another thread) aren't doing nearly as good of a job as the people simply responding online. 

 

GOP - "Obamacare is bad and failing" 

Response online - "You're sabotaging it" 

Dems - "Yeah, but... Uh.... Trumpcare. 23 million" 

 

It's not a hard picture to paint. GOP is handed a car that is working. Doesn't need to be the fastest or the biggest. But was clearly better than walking 10miles to work every day. They drink and drive..... Wreck the car..... And say "see, this car sucks" /scene

 

[Warhead36]

2 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

It's not a hard picture to paint. GOP is handed a car that is working. Doesn't need to be the fastest or the biggest. But was clearly better than walking 10miles to work every day. They drink and drive..... Wreck the car..... And say "see, this car sucks" /scene

 

That's a pretty good analogy and the best simple way to explain the current situation.

[Larry]

35 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

The cost increases aren't linear, they are exponential.

 

 

1). Could you please provide support for your assertion that providing care to twice as many people costs more than twice as much?  

 

2). And, if you honestly believe that assertion, are you aware that you've just created an argument that we could (and should) reduce health care costs by mandating that health care can only be provided by small companies?  

[RedskinsMayne]

I did in my first post.  It's not just the number of people, it's the fact they are also more already out. You need more hospitals, more medical buildings, all those have overhead costs. Because the United States is more spread out you need more buildings to cover the same amount of people so costs increase more per unit.

 

Having small companies do health care would exacerbate the cost problem, not solve it, as everyone of them would need there own buildings/management/etc.

 

 

Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, but saying it's as easy as Europe isn't telling the whole story.

 

Edited May 27, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I'm not sure I understand how having more people increases the cost per capita. Even if it did, having one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world should counteract that. The obstacles of having more people and more land have done little to deter us from providing our citizens with a pretty good education, transportation, military, retirement, etc.

[Hersh]

1 hour ago, RedskinsMayne said:

I did in my first post.  It's not just the number of people, it's the fact they are also more already out. You need more hospitals, more medical buildings, all those have overhead costs. Because the United States is more spread out you need more buildings to cover the same amount of people so costs increase more per unit.

 

Having small companies do health care would exacerbate the cost problem, not solve it, as everyone of them would need there own buildings/management/etc.

 

 

Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, but saying it's as easy as Europe isn't telling the whole story.

 

So what you are saying is that you support funding planned parenthood cause that would actually keep costs down. Correct?

[RedskinsMayne]

Yes, woman should be able to do what they see fit with their own bodies. Ending funding for planned parenthood because they offer a service some people don't like is asinine.  I believe I've posted that before.

[dfitzo53]

2 hours ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

I was for Obamacare as initially passed. I'm not dismissing facts. My point is pointing to Europe and saying they can do it, we can too, is an oversimplification.

 

 

As a result of geographical differences, in order to give everyone access to government health care as is done in Europe, there would have to multitudes more medical centers. That means a lot more overhead. More janitors, more security, more buildings, more maintenance, more utility expenses, more administrative costs, more paper work. And that's before you even get around to providing medical care. That's just geological differences alone.

 

Secondly, we have more people. That means we need more doctors. Each of those doctors needs its own support staff, secretaries, nurses, insurance. That's before providing medical care. 

 

The cost increases aren't linear, they are exponential.

 

 

You can't just mandate that medical endurance companies lower payment and increase benefits. Companies operate to make money, if they can't make money they won't operate.

 

Lets assume the government said "You can live on $8 hr, so henceforth you will only be allowed to charge $8 hr for your labor as long as you are doing x" How long would it be before you started doing y?

Sounds like it would create a lot of jobs, especially in less populated areas.

 

I thought that was something conservatives were into.

[LadySkinsFan]

That's why profit needs to be taken out of healthcare. Then those companies won't have to worry about the bottom line and can concentrate on actual humans.

[RedskinsMayne]

28 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

That's why profit needs to be taken out of healthcare. Then those companies won't have to worry about the bottom line and can concentrate on actual humans.

 

 

If profits are taken out of healthcare companies are taken out of health care. If the potential of profit is taken out what motivation is there for most medical advances, especially medicine.

[twa]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

That's why profit needs to be taken out of healthcare. Then those companies won't have to worry about the bottom line and can concentrate on actual humans.

 

Like the DMV? 

[GhostofSparta]

19 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Like the DMV? 

I know it's an old joke, but honestly the last 3 times I've gone into the DMV to renew my license I've been in and out in 15 minutes. If I could've gotten my rabies vaccine (bat in the house) in less than 3 hours, I would've preferred that.

[PeterMP]

4 hours ago, RedskinsMayne said:

The cost increases aren't linear, they are exponential.

 

I'm pretty sure this is false.

 

I've read a decent bit of the healthcare costs literature, and I've never seen anybody claim the issue was the exponential scaling costs of support staff.

 

(I honestly don't think you know what an exponential means.  Things can be non-linear and not be expotentials.)

 

The majority of the cost differences are due to:

 

1.  increased over head costs associated with non-universal insurance systems (in single payer systems there is no need to track what person got what tests, how much it costs, and who is paying the different amounts for it).

2.  increased use of healthcare (e.g .the US per capitia uses more prescription drugs than most other countries).

3.  increased costs of actual healthcare (e.g. the US on average pays more for a prescription drug than ).

 

(I do think looking for more savings from the insurance industry doesn't make much sense.  Premiums are going up because health care usage costs are going up.  There isn't really much the insurance industry can do.  We'd get a big single time decrease going to a single payer system and from there it comes down to controlling costs/usage.)

Edited May 28, 2017 by PeterMP

[Larry]

10 hours ago, Larry said:

 

1). Could you please provide support for your assertion that providing care to twice as many people costs more than twice as much?  

 

2). And, if you honestly believe that assertion, are you aware that you've just created an argument that we could (and should) reduce health care costs by mandating that health care can only be provided by small companies?  

 

10 hours ago, RedskinsMayne said:

I did in my first post.

 

 

Actually no, you didn't.  

 

What you did was assert (without any support whatsoever) that providing health care to more people, requites more costs.  (An assertion which I completely agree with.)  

 

The only attempt to explain the relationship between number of people treated, and number of people hired, was the one line of yours that I quoted.  

 

And again, my point (which I note you chose not to address):  

 

If treating 2x more people costs more than 2x dollars, then every time company X buys another hospital (or expands one), the cost of health care per person goes up.  (And, conversely, if you split Company X into Companies X1 and X2, costs for treating the same people who are already being treated, goes down.)  

[LadySkinsFan]

So, Republican death sentence for those who don't get treated.

 

Republicans: Gee, too bad you have pneumonia, no hospitalization for complete treatment and those antibiotics cost to much for you to afford. You'll die early.

 

Or

 

Republicans: Gee, too bad you have a treatable cancer, but you can't afford the treatment.