OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Quin]

Now there's a mandate?? You can't script this s***.

 

Where at?

[RockRaines]

These are not the same thing. Human rights are very different from insurance companies. Limiting how much profit a company makes is not in the same category as limiting human rights.

That depends if you thinks its a human right to be cared for if you are ill. So they can be the same thing actually.

[Reddy]

Where at?

Unless you're continuously covered you'll be barred from getting insurance for 6 months.

 

They want people dead.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Reddy

[Texsox]

So you agree it should be largely (centralized) government-run, tax revenue funded and subsidized?

 

That's where the philosophical problems always begin, which is why I'm to the point where I would prefer to see all the states experiment with their own plans of attack and figure out within 3-4 years what is working so that the best elements can be incorporated into a national plan.

 

And you agree with under 26 provision, no denying for pre-existing conditions, essential health benefits, ceilingson how much you can charge elderly or those with Pre-existing, community rating, mandated fines for non-participation? That last one really drives the GOP nuts, but the House plan directly gives those monies to insurance companies by heavily penalizing those who quit coverage and want to return when sick again.

You can't place human rights under corporate profits.

[Quin]

Unless you're continuously covered you'll be barred from getting insurance for 6 months.

 

They want people dead.

 

I meant source. There's so much to digest here.

 

[caulfield12]

Arizona Already Tried What the GOP Wants to Do to Medicaid. It Was a Disaster.

Several years ago, Arizona froze Medicaid enrollment, as AHCA now proposes. The results were disturbing.

 

http://amp.slate.com/articles/health_and_s...ca.html?ref=yfp

 

In 2011, following the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, then–Arizona Gov. Janet Brewer cut the state’s Medicaid funding and froze enrollment. Arizona blocked new enrollment in Medicaid and only allowed existing enrollees to continue receiving benefits if their income remained below the federal poverty line and they turned in their annual renewal paperwork on time. A family that received a raise that lifted their income even slightly above the poverty line lost Medicaid coverage permanently, even if their income dropped below the line again the following year.

 

Arizona expanded Medicaid coverage in 2013 following the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Commenting on Arizona’s decision to expand Medicaid, Brewer said “It saved lives, it insured more people, it brought money into the state, it kept rural hospitals from being closed down. And today there are tens of thousands of people that are very, very grateful.”

 

Edited June 24, 2017 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

How will this effect Senator"s imsurance? Maybe they should get there own. So

[Reddy]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/33930...healthcare-bill

[StrangeSox]

That is absolutely brutal.

[ptatc]

That depends if you thinks its a human right to be cared for if you are ill. So they can be the same thing actually.

Again, healthcare and profits for insurance companies are not the same thing. You can care for people, you can take control of healthcare without saying to insurance companies, "you can only have a 10% profit margin."

 

 

[caulfield12]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/33930...healthcare-bill

 

First, that is the definition of a death panel.

 

Second, how is that not exactly what the GOP complained about with the ACA, a mandate? The difference is the money in the ACA was going back to the government, rather than directly into the pockets of the insurance industry. Or into the pockets of the very richest taxpayers and out of the pockets of the middle class/elderly.

 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/24/t...g-prices-239916

California billionaire activist Steyer takes on pharmaceutical industry

Edited June 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/33930...healthcare-bill

 

First, that is the definition of a death panel.

 

Second, how is that not exactly what the GOP complained about with the ACA, a mandate? The difference is the money in the ACA was going back to the government, rather than directly into the pockets of the insurance industry. Or into the pockets of the very richest taxpayers and out of the pockets of the middle class/elderly.

 

 

 

[RockRaines]

Again, healthcare and profits for insurance companies are not the same thing. You can care for people, you can take control of healthcare without saying to insurance companies, "you can only have a 10% profit margin."

Sure. It's a utopian view that is almost impossible. Making those companies who are having record profits go back to being a non profit service to the people is a huge obstacle. I just believe the for profit model for things like this seem to work out for the very fortunate only. And a large part of me feels it's wrong.

 

I'm a social liberal and a fairly conservative person financially. But I do not think systematically keeping care from the poor is right. There has to be a better way than what we are doing. I've seen cancer treatments ruin families. That's something that should never happen. If you child gets sick and you are on the hook for millions, that's a pretty clear sign we aren't Doing this correctly. Imo.

Edited June 25, 2017 by RockRaines

[Balta1701]

Sure. It's a utopian view that is almost impossible. Making those companies who are having record profits go back to being a non profit service to the people is a huge obstacle. I just believe the for profit model for things like this seem to work out for the very fortunate only. And a large part of me feels it's wrong.

 

I'm a social liberal and a fairly conservative person financially. But I do not think systematically keeping care from the poor is right. There has to be a better way than what we are doing. I've seen cancer treatments ruin families. That's something that should never happen. If you child gets sick and you are on the hook for millions, that's a pretty clear sign we aren't Doing this correctly. Imo.

If you have voted for a single Republican at the state or national level in the past 10 years, you have openly endorsed families being ruined for someone getting cancer. Or whatever. A single Republican vote was an endorsement of this. They made this 100% clear. Preexisting conditons, lifetime caps, ending Medicaid - they have said this over, and over, and over again.

 

Remember that.

[caulfield12]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-t...alth-care-bill/

 

Will the Senate be able to pass the Better Care Reconciliation Act?

[ptatc]

Sure. It's a utopian view that is almost impossible. Making those companies who are having record profits go back to being a non profit service to the people is a huge obstacle. I just believe the for profit model for things like this seem to work out for the very fortunate only. And a large part of me feels it's wrong.

 

I'm a social liberal and a fairly conservative person financially. But I do not think systematically keeping care from the poor is right. There has to be a better way than what we are doing. I've seen cancer treatments ruin families. That's something that should never happen. If you child gets sick and you are on the hook for millions, that's a pretty clear sign we aren't Doing this correctly. Imo.

This is your only option and I would agree with it. It would be unfair to the companies or owners to just take it over. The government or someone would need to compensate them for it. the insurance companies are having difficulties like all other companies world wide. My wife's company just laid off 20% of their North american and European work force.

 

Being in the medical field I appreciate the debt a person or family would go through in your scenario. The primary question remains though, who should pay for that millions of dollars for healthcare? In an ideal utopian world, your right everyone would get the care and not need to worry about it. However, in the real world someone will need to pay for it. That is the cost of healthcare not the cost of an insurance company. The only way to do it is to run a version of socialized, government run single payer where the cost of healthcare can be controlled. however, there are many issues with that as well.

[ptatc]

If you have voted for a single Republican at the state or national level in the past 10 years, you have openly endorsed families being ruined for someone getting cancer. Or whatever. A single Republican vote was an endorsement of this. They made this 100% clear. Preexisting conditons, lifetime caps, ending Medicaid - they have said this over, and over, and over again.

 

Remember that.

This is the reason that nothing can get done in the government. Its if you are on the other side you are the worst thing possible and the cause of all the problems. There can be no compromise and no deals because the other side is so wrong that we can even meet. Look at how messed up Illinos is from this attitude.

 

There is too much polarization in politics today. Too much animosity.

[Dick Allen]

This is the reason that nothing can get done in the government. Its if you are on the other side you are the worst thing possible and the cause of all the problems. There can be no compromise and no deals because the other side is so wrong that we can even meet. Look at how messed up Illinos is from this attitude.

 

There is too much polarization in politics today. Too much animosity.

As long as health care is more about making money than actually caring for health, there will be a huge problem. A republican senator was on today saying the new bill will help insurers and drug makers lower costs and improve care because the tens of billions of profit really haven't allowed them that luxury.

 

The other big problem is making huge profits really isn't enough for publicly traded companies. You make a billion every year, that's nice, but it's not growth. So something has to happen to change it. Either prices go up or jobs get cut.

 

This bill is just a big tax cut to the wealthy, and a big f*** you to everyone else. At some point the democrats have to make them pay.

[StrangeSox]

This is the reason that nothing can get done in the government. Its if you are on the other side you are the worst thing possible and the cause of all the problems. There can be no compromise and no deals because the other side is so wrong that we can even meet. Look at how messed up Illinos is from this attitude.

 

There is too much polarization in politics today. Too much animosity.

 

Republicans are trying to kill tens of thousands of Americans a year with this bill so they can give tax cuts to the rich. Spare me pearl clutching about civility.

 

That's their political preference. That's what they're working hard to pass. They are not actually trying to solve any health care issues, just cut cut cut. They need to own the dead Americans they are striving for.

 

[StrangeSox]

Mother and son: Medicaid isn't about politics, it's about lives

Mike Phillips is severely physically disabled, but thanks to Medicaid, he's able to be cared for at home by his family. In a remarkable interview with Ari Melber, Mike and his mother Karen Clay explain how Medicaid cuts would literally end life as they know

 

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/m...sm_npd_ms_fb_lw

 

 

[Reddy]

This is the reason that nothing can get done in the government. Its if you are on the other side you are the worst thing possible and the cause of all the problems. There can be no compromise and no deals because the other side is so wrong that we can even meet. Look at how messed up Illinos is from this attitude.

 

There is too much polarization in politics today. Too much animosity.

 

Seriously? You're talking about tone while Republicans are literally killing people for personal profit. Ok. SMH at those in the healthcare industry (yes, including you)

 

[ptatc]

Seriously? You're talking about tone while Republicans are literally killing people for personal profit. Ok. SMH at those in the healthcare industry (yes, including you)

Yes I am. anyone who paints every other person with a broad brush just because they once voted for a Republican is the reason that no one can seem to reach a compromise and get anything substantial done in politics.

 

People in the healthcare field will realize this more than most. I have patients who had a poor standard of living because under ACA they had to stop PT because their insurance stopped all care because they were at a maintenance level and weren't progressing even though they needed help. They may be alive but their standard of living was awful.

 

I'm not saying this version is great either but if the politicians could get off their high horses (as you are currently) maybe they could compromise and come up with a good plan. As long as their is this current attitude there will only be one extreme or the other and that never works well.

Edited June 25, 2017 by ptatc

[ptatc]

Republicans are trying to kill tens of thousands of Americans a year with this bill so they can give tax cuts to the rich. Spare me pearl clutching about civility.

 

That's their political preference. That's what they're working hard to pass. They are not actually trying to solve any health care issues, just cut cut cut. They need to own the dead Americans they are striving for.

It's not about civility. It's about coming up with agreements (not just on healthcare) that works for everyone. No policy set to one extreme liberal or conservative will be the best for everyone. Extremes on either side are rarely good.

 

Of course this one is about cut, cut ,cut. The last one was far too expensive and really didn't work very well. So because there was no way any of the politicians were going to compromise it had to swing way to the other extreme.

 

this probably isn't going to work very well either. but again when people aren't willing to work together, this is what you are going to get. And I mean the willingness to work together on both sides.

 

conservative are as guilty on this as liberals. It just atmosphere of politics today.

Edited June 25, 2017 by ptatc

[caulfield12]

It's not about civility. It's about coming up with agreements (not just on healthcare) that works for everyone. No policy set to one extreme liberal or conservative will be the best for everyone. Extremes on either side are rarely good.

 

Of course this one is about cut, cut ,cut. The last one was far too expensive and really didn't work very well. So because there was no way any of the politicians were going to compromise it had to swing way to the other extreme.

 

this probably isn't going to work very well either. but again when people aren't willing to work together, this is what you are going to get. And I mean the willingness to work together on both sides.

 

conservative are as guilty on this as liberals. It just atmosphere of politics today.

 

To say that it wasn't working well is pushing it, when 75-80% were better off and maybe 20-25% were worse off.

 

Trump admin actively tried to kill it, pulled publicity about sign ups this year...look at insurance industry quotes, invariablybthe uncertainty caused by threatening to not make required payments has "forced" them to withdraw from markets. They know they can use that leverage to improve their position (collectively）with this new repeal bill. Paying both sides against each other, but premiums and markets were actually stabilizing until just the last year or so. Growing costs slower than before, but still high than inflation.

[StrangeSox]

That is just the most intellectually lazy "both sides" nonsense.

 

Republicans don't care about helping people with health care. Full stop. It has never been and never will be a policy priority for them. This bill isn't intended to help fix anything regarding healthcare. Saying "this probably won't work very well" 1) blithely ignores the tens of thousands of Americans it will kill a year and 2) assumes it's actually supposed to "work" as anything but cutting healthcare to fund tax cuts.

 

Liberals are not guilty of conservatives wanting to deprive millions of healthcare for ideological reasons. Conservatives get to own their own policies 100%. This is the party of cheering on "let them die" aft their own debates. They don't give one s*** about poor people not having health care. Their is nothing to compromise with on that ideology because it's essential become a death cult that worships wealth.

 

You're also ignoring that the ACA itself is a massive compromise and about the only realistic and most conservative way you can approach covering the millions of Americans it has added and maintaining a private market based system. The "extreme left" would, at a minimum, have had a public option.