• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

HHS nominee Price sees ‘access’ to coverage as health reform goal

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services and one of Congress’s most vehement critics of the Affordable Care Act, told senators on Wednesday that “it is absolutely imperative” for the government to ensure that all Americans “have the opportunity to gain access” to insurance coverage — a more modest goal than the incoming president has set forth in recent days.

Leave it to Bernie Sanders to sum it all up nicely.

“I have access to buying a $10 million home,” Mr. Sanders said. “I don’t have the money to do that.”

Interesting stuff. Possible cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. Block grants to states to replace Medicaid that could likely eliminate federal provisions to ensure coverage to all who qualify. Allowing the private sector considerable control over deciding what constitutes "insurance".

And nothing to control costs for private insurance. Do I sense a theme?
 
The theme is let the market work, and keep government out of our private lives. Both parties are hypocrites on this subject.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/



Leave it to Bernie Sanders to sum it all up nicely.



Interesting stuff. Possible cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. Block grants to states to replace Medicaid that could likely eliminate federal provisions to ensure coverage to all who qualify. Allowing the private sector considerable control over deciding what constitutes "insurance".

And nothing to control costs for private insurance. Do I sense a theme?

Ah, "let them eat health insurance."

That should work well. Lol!
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/

Leave it to Bernie Sanders to sum it all up nicely.



Interesting stuff. Possible cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. Block grants to states to replace Medicaid that could likely eliminate federal provisions to ensure coverage to all who qualify. Allowing the private sector considerable control over deciding what constitutes "insurance".

And nothing to control costs for private insurance. Do I sense a theme?

Funny. That's the exact same animating spirit that the proponents of Obamacare claimed. Now they mock it.

How very surprising.


Incidentally, if you are worried about the price of private insurance, you should take a look at the effects of government subsidization combined with guaranteed issue and community rating ;)
 
The access argument is going to be very tough to pull off politically. Republicans can't openly say that their "plan" essentially equates to how things were pre-ACA, but at the same time I don't see anywhere else for them to go unless they just re-brand it.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/



Leave it to Bernie Sanders to sum it all up nicely.



Interesting stuff. Possible cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. Block grants to states to replace Medicaid that could likely eliminate federal provisions to ensure coverage to all who qualify. Allowing the private sector considerable control over deciding what constitutes "insurance".

And nothing to control costs for private insurance. Do I sense a theme?

The access argument is going to be very tough to pull off politically. Republicans can't openly say that their "plan" essentially equates to how things were pre-ACA, but at the same time I don't see anywhere else for them to go unless they just re-brand it.

Senator Sanders's bad faith caricature notwithstanding, there's plenty of room for a more market-based alternative to ACA with more choices and lower-cost options. I watched a bit of Price's hearing today. He was significantly more impressive than the Senators who attacked him. Senator Murray especially seemed to be a victim of poor staff preparation.
 
The access argument is going to be very tough to pull off politically. Republicans can't openly say that their "plan" essentially equates to how things were pre-ACA, but at the same time I don't see anywhere else for them to go unless they just re-brand it.

I think people might notice when 18 million Americans lose coverage overnight.
 
I think people might notice when 18 million Americans lose coverage overnight.

That's my point. I'm not convinced they are politically stupid enough to really pull the trigger on the ACA. Trump has his finger on the pulse of the right much more than any Republican politician, and even he has recognized that it needs to be replaced with something. I know that isn't worth much, but it at least speaks to the political risk involved.
 
The GOP will repeal in name only. RINO;

They will then double-talk about a replace until after the 2018 elections.

Trying to protect their House and strengthening their Senate.

The GOP already sees the polls moving positive for the ACA and are fearful of town halls this year .
 
Interesting. I disagree with both Price and Sanders. We should be talking about health care. Not health care insurance. Not access to insurance. Insurance is simply a financial arrangement. Corporate cronyism pushed by government. Let's do something about health care.
 
Senator Sanders's bad faith caricature notwithstanding, there's plenty of room for a more market-based alternative to ACA with more choices and lower-cost options. I watched a bit of Price's hearing today. He was significantly more impressive than the Senators who attacked him. Senator Murray especially seemed to be a victim of poor staff preparation.

False Equivalence on Senators Sanders and Murray--

Eric Cantor would be proud of you .
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/



Leave it to Bernie Sanders to sum it all up nicely.



Interesting stuff. Possible cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. Block grants to states to replace Medicaid that could likely eliminate federal provisions to ensure coverage to all who qualify. Allowing the private sector considerable control over deciding what constitutes "insurance".

And nothing to control costs for private insurance. Do I sense a theme?

Yeah, Bern summed it up nicely alright. He, and most libs, would rather see mediocre health care for all, rather than access to quality health care. :roll:
 
Yeah, Bern summed it up nicely alright. He, and most libs, would rather see mediocre health care for all, rather than access to quality health care. :roll:

Sounds like palin's death panels coming from the trump transition team to me .
 
Yeah, Bern summed it up nicely alright. He, and most libs, would rather see mediocre health care for all, rather than access to quality health care. :roll:

Um...do you understand the difference between health insurance and health care?
 
/sigh

Controlling the cost of insurance is not the issue. Insurance companies love offering low premiums. They really don't profit on an individual cost basis. It's more like a bet, if we insure a group of 1 million at this premium, we project x amount of people will claim x amount of benefits. The formula is actually very sound, and premiums are only as high as they have to be in any given case. Most insurance companies take those unused premiums and put it directly into their general investment portfolio's and profit solely off the interest accrued on their investments. It's why medicare for all is a bad idea, as Insurance companies are a huge capital producer and losing them would be devastating.

Obamacare's mandate was supposed to make the group's large enough, filled with plenty of young healthy people, the costs would go down purely on the formula for the cost of insurance itself. It didn't take into account that young people would prefer to just pay the penalty and take their chances. Meaning the insurance companies got more old sick people than they did young healthy people. That's why there was slight premium increases in certain regions, and large premium increases in other regions. Old people tend to stick together, they don't spread out. So old people heavy areas like Indiana and Florida got a **** deal with Obamacare. But other places with almost no old people got a sweet deal.

The real way to lowering the cost of insurance, is lowering the benefits they have to pay out. While we are focused on arguing about greedy insurance companies, the real evil mastermind is taking in more profit than Big Oil. No joke, removing hospitals non profit tax status and regulating their prices will lower the cost of insurance to the point someone working part time minimum wage can afford it. Most hospitals set their prices at 400-600 percent higher than what it costs them. Just because they can. Insurance companies negotiate with their large groups to only pay at a 200 percent markup. But those with no insurance have to eat the cost, or just not pay. Which the hospital loves because they can write off the full markup as a loss and avoid taxes.

And spare me the "but hospitals are so great spiehl", even their philanthropy is a tax ploy. The average rural hospital may donate a few million each year to certain foundations and charities. But that few million is a tenth of one percent of their profit margin. And because of their tax status, it actually saves them money by donating it.

And no, it's not doctors raking in the profits, our doctors are actually paid **** in hospital networks. It's the admins and share holders raking it in.

The first step to fixing healthcare, is not passing new laws on insurance. It's fixing the VA. VA hospitals can gauge the actual cost of care,and provide regulators an appropriate price point to set a standard for hospitals to meet. I'm not saying hospitals can't markup, they just shouldn't be able to markup as much as they are.
 
Last edited:
The theme is let the market work, and keep government out of our private lives. Both parties are hypocrites on this subject.

Because "the market" was working so well in the past? I am tired of the trance all you seem to be in. Here's something to jog your memory.

slide161.png
 
Because "the market" was working so well in the past? I am tired of the trance all you seem to be in. Here's something to jog your memory.

slide161.png

Nice chart. Care to discuss the plethora of government regulations, government restrictions, and blood sucking lawyer's lawsuits that drove up those costs? Those are all part of "the market" that are also included in what "all us" keep talking about. Your chart even admits that in the note with the asterisk.

And, it isn't a trance, it's us concentrating on reality instead of allowing ourselves to be mesmerized and start drooling or wet our legs when politicians lie and say BS phrases like "free healthcare is a human right."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom