The GOP's health care dilemma

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4219
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby bdog » Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:02 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
bdog wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Medicare for all is the only reasonable answer. Let's join the rest of the industrial world and go single payer. They have lower costs and better outcomes. A win-win for all.

What politician is championing this? Give me a name and I'll give them my vote if I can.

Did you vote for Sanders?

No, did you? Democratic primary or write in or both?

Before Hillary was annointed I posted that it would be a tough choice between Trump and Bernie:

bdog wrote:FWIW, I consider myself an "anti-establishment" foron.

Looks like I'll be supporting Trump.

If Sanders pulls off a miracle then I've got a tough decision to make.

If Sanders pulls off a miracle and Trump has "the big one" on the campaign trail then I'm supporting Sanders.

Ned Flounders
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:32 pm

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby Ned Flounders » Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:05 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Roy wrote:Before Obamacare every poor person got treated at the emergency room. Rarely had to pay any bill.

What was your point when you posted this?

Roy was claiming that "treated at the emergency room" was an acceptable substitute for actual health insurance for "every poor person". But he sure doesn't think it would be acceptable for him.

fennel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4906
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby fennel » Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:08 pm

Wasn't it Marie Antoinette who said, "They have no health care? Let them go to the Emergency Room!" ?

Roy
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby Roy » Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:34 pm

Ned Flounders wrote:Roy was claiming that "treated at the emergency room" was an acceptable substitute for actual health insurance for "every poor person". But he sure doesn't think it would be acceptable for him.

You're about as useless as Henry with cognizance. I never said it "was acceptable." If you read my quote you can perhaps catch on that I only said that they were often not billed.

Personally I think they should do away with all Healthcare as most can buy their own. What the government should do, is pay the premium for the poor. Just to the sake of discussion, lets say the poorest 25 percent get government paid health insurance. Everyone else buys their own.

Ned Flounders
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:32 pm

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby Ned Flounders » Sun Mar 26, 2017 7:01 pm

Roy wrote:Before Obamacare was much better than Obamacare...
Before Obamacare every poor person got treated at the emergency room.

Being treated at the ER is not in any way shape or form a substitute for actual access to health care. Yanking health insurance from 24 million people is completely unacceptable, and trying to minimize that by saying "well, they can always get treated at the emergency room" is disgusting. Stop drinking the GOP's kool-aid.

Roy
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby Roy » Sun Mar 26, 2017 7:11 pm

Ned Flounders wrote:Being treated at the ER is not in any way shape or form a substitute for actual access to health care. Yanking health insurance from 24 million people is completely unacceptable, and trying to minimize that by saying "well, they can always get treated at the emergency room" is disgusting. Stop drinking the GOP's kool-aid.

What 24 million? You are joking right. Many if not most of those are on medicaid.

If not on medicare, they are getting yanked off insurance with up to $10,000 deductible. Think most would rather take their chances with the ER. Besides non-insurance gets billed about one third as much.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 25157
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby Henry Vilas » Sun Mar 26, 2017 7:27 pm

To Roy it's all socialism, except when he accepts government dollars. He receives Social Security and veteran's benefits. If he wasn't eligible for VA medical care, he would certainly accept Medicare. I don't begrudge him for taking those allotments, but I do begrudge his hypocrisy.

Ned Flounders
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:32 pm

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby Ned Flounders » Sun Mar 26, 2017 7:43 pm

Roy wrote:
Ned Flounders wrote:Being treated at the ER is not in any way shape or form a substitute for actual access to health care. Yanking health insurance from 24 million people is completely unacceptable, and trying to minimize that by saying "well, they can always get treated at the emergency room" is disgusting. Stop drinking the GOP's kool-aid.

What 24 million? You are joking right.

Both the CBO and the Trump White House's own economists calculated that repealing Obamacare would increase the uninsured population by 24-26 million. Unfortunately that's not a joke and it's a big part of the reason why AHCA was so unpopular.

Many if not most of those are on medicaid.

And the expansion of medicaid is part of Obamacare, no matter how many times you try to pretend otherwise. We've been over this again and again and again.

If not on medicare, they are getting yanked off insurance with up to $10,000 deductible.

"Up to" is meaningless. Most are much much lower. And as you know, Democrats would have been happy to be more generous in the original bill but kept the subsidies and limits low to compromise with Republicans. Remember "skin in the game"? Remember "high-deductible health plans" and "catastrophic plans" and "low-cost plans"?

Every time you point out that out-of-pocket costs are too high, you are agreeing with the Democratic position and contradicting the Republican position. The GOP wants people to have "skin in the game" so they will use less health care.

Think most would rather take their chances with the ER. Besides non-insurance gets billed about one third as much.

Hahahaha, yeah, no. That is exactly backwards.

Where on earth did you get the idea that hospitals charge uninsured people less? Without insurance you will get charged much much much more!

I assumed everybody knows that. It's not exactly a secret.

Ned Flounders
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:32 pm

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby Ned Flounders » Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:01 pm

Another example for Roy:

Steven Brill Explains Why Hospitals Screw the Uninsured: Because They Can

If you don't have insurance, and you're unlucky enough to land in the hospital, you can expect to be charged 3x, 4x, or 5x those prices. A heart attack that costs Aetna $50,000 will cost you $200,000 or more if you don't have insurance.

Without Obamacare, 20+ million people would lose coverage, according to both the nonpartisan CBO and the Trump administration's own economists. That means no access to care except in emergencies ... and any emergency can instantly result in bankruptcy.

How many people can afford to pay $200,000 after going to the ER for a heart attack?

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6040
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby jonnygothispen » Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:24 pm


gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8333
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby gargantua » Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:32 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Roy wrote:Before Obamacare every poor person got treated at the emergency room. Rarely had to pay any bill. Now they have Obamacare and have a huge deductible to pay. Unless they are on medicare/medicaid, but that is not Obamacare.

What was your point when you posted this?

Sorry for posting in yet another of these stupid arguments, but his point was that the poor didn't have to pay the ER bill, so, better than the ACA. Of course, someone has to pay, but he wasn't talking in holistic terms. But the ER itinerant ain't paying. Christ, why do I bother? All you care about is bickering anyway. So go ahead with your bickering.

david cohen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2019
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby david cohen » Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:48 pm

Do some research on what a "capitation agreement" is, because that is how insurers pay less than individuals for medical care. We ran into this 18 years ago when our insurer (a local HMO) pushed our son, who needed speech therapy, off their rolls under some bullshit exclusion interpretation. We paid, out of pocket, for 2 months of speech therapy until our legal action resulted in him being reinstated. I saw the capitation prices vs. the cash price i was paying. Massive difference. All based on profit for the HMO and the hospital executives, with no concern for you as a human being.

Ned Flounders
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:32 pm

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby Ned Flounders » Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:03 pm

Something that often gets lost in the noise is that Obamacare included improvements for those of us on employer-sponsored plans as well. For example:

* banning "annual limits" and "lifetime caps" on insurance reimbursements. In the past, many insurance policies set a limit on how much the policy would pay for, and if you had a costly medical problem, you might hit that cap and find your insurance cut off. That practice was ended by Obamacare.

* all plans now required to cover preventive care.

* annual limits on out-of-pocket costs.

* dependents covered by their parents' plan to age 26.

* no exclusions or waiting periods for pre-existing conditions. This often comes up in discussion of the individual markeplace, but it also applies to those of us with employer-sponsored insurance.

Just a sampling of ways that Obamacare benefits those of us with employer-sponsored insurance.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6040
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby jonnygothispen » Sun Mar 26, 2017 10:31 pm

http://reverbpress.com/politics/economi ... ear-chart/

"Universal Health Care Would Save Americans $600 Billion A Year"

Image

The US spends more than any other country on average when it comes to health care, yet our life expectancy for men and women is lower than the average. Data also shows that our quality of services is not any better than the average country with universal health care.


Americans spend 160% more on drugs vs. the Netherlands, and about 36% more than the next-highest-spending countries, (Japan and Canada)... mostly because the US has generous patent protections for drug makers allowing them to charge high prices.

The US has a big obesity problem, ranking first in the world...

Hospital costs in the US are the highest in the world at $10,300 per stay. Hospital costs make up 16% of total healthcare costs. In the Netherlands, the average hospital stay costs about $4,100


“A single-payer system would produce huge administrative savings by simplifying billing operations within providers’ offices and hospitals, and by redistributing the monopoly profits currently enjoyed by pharmaceutical makers and other companies.”

gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8333
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: The GOP's health care dilemma

Postby gargantua » Sun Mar 26, 2017 11:07 pm

Obviously, there are powerful interests arrayed against this. Voting for Bernie didn't work this time. So now what?


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests