GOP AGs Attack Healthcare

[Nickyjo]

Yes, the rest fo the world figured out how to be slaves to the state...

Get real. How did so millions get it wrong? Then again, even Ayn Rand broke down and accepted social security.

 

[VanceMack]

So hard to follow these things!

Apparently for you it is.

You advocate for what WAS done...I do not. You are bleating on about the current system, my comment was what SHOULD have been done as OPPOSED to what they did. You think its a great idea that the added large numbers of uninsured people. My comments were specific to those with preexisting conditions.

But again...you would have known that if you were actually following the discussion you felt compelled to comment o9n without knowing what the **** you were commenting on.

 

[Moderate Right]

It's not stealing if it's legislated.

I mean, legally, it isn't.

But but but the current system is legislated. Therefore, the rich are not stealing from the poor.

 

[Moderate Right]

Please explain why all single payer systems do what you say they do.

Single payer systems determine what they will pay for and what they will not. Do you deny that? Many single payer systems around the world have been going broke for years.

 

[trouble13]

The only fair system ensures everyone gets the care they need.

Pre existing condition restrictions do not allow that, so they cannot be allowed.


Edit:

To clarify, I don't give a **** that it costs insurance companies money - if they can't make money without causing harm to people through action or inaction in providing care, they shouldn't exist.

Replace them with something that does.

Since you don't care what it costs than don't complain when insurance companies make your health care choices for you and they do base it on cost and not your desired course of treatment. Maybe they decide amputations are cheaper than rehabilitation costs so they chop off your leg.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[The Mark]

But but but the current system is legislated. Therefore, the rich are not stealing from the poor.

Technically, they aren't.

They've corrupted the system so that it benefits them and allows them to harm the poor and/or their workers for higher profits.

It's far worse than stealing.

 

[vegas giants]

Single payer systems determine what they will pay for and what they will not. Do you deny that? Many single payer systems around the world have been going broke for years.

And yet none are abandoning that model. By that standard we are already broke

 

[The Mark]

Single payer systems determine what they will pay for and what they will not. Do you deny that? Many single payer systems around the world have been going broke for years.

I don't know whether that's true or not.

The political system should control the public health system.
The people living there should control the political system.

If they don't, something is broken somewhere.

I mean, for example, I think the public health system in the UK covers some cosmetic surgery that I think shouldn't necessarily be covered.

-----------------------

Some stuff shouldn't be covered by any public healthcare system, like most cosmetic work (exception for reconstruction after surgery), or that bull**** homeopathic stuff.

Apart from that the decision of what to cover and what not to cover is at base a political one - if it's unacceptable to the people, they should (assuming the political system is working) have the means to change it.


If the public health system in a place is "going broke", I would say that it's probably a combination of mismanagement wasting resources, and/or insufficient funding allocated by the political system.

 

[The Mark]

Since you don't care what it costs than don't complain when insurance companies make your health care choices for you and they do base it on cost and not your desired course of treatment. Maybe they decide amputations are cheaper than rehabilitation costs so they chop off your leg.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

No.

You misunderstand.

I don't care what it costs the insurance company, because when they consider the costs the result is people paying for insurance who avoid/cannot get needed care, or people unable to afford insurance and thus also avoiding/unable to get needed care.

I'm saying that, using your example, the insurance company MUST rehabilitate if at all reasonably possible.
Cost SHOULD NOT be taken into account in a medical decision like that, or at least it should be WAY down the list.
Rather than at the top like many people have to deal with these days.


The very fact that you can conceive of that hypothetical shows that the insurance company system isn't working.

 

[trouble13]

No.

You misunderstand.

I don't care what it costs the insurance company, because when they consider the costs the result is people paying for insurance who avoid/cannot get needed care, or people unable to afford insurance and thus also avoiding/unable to get needed care.

I'm saying that, using your example, the insurance company MUST rehabilitate if at all reasonably possible.
Cost SHOULD NOT be taken into account in a medical decision like that, or at least it should be WAY down the list.
Rather than at the top like many people have to deal with these days.


The very fact that you can conceive of that hypothetical shows that the insurance company system isn't working.

First off thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I appreciate it.

Language matters so let's stop incorrectly say that we are talking about insurance. What your describing can more accurately stated as a co-op.

If you have 10 people in your Healthcare co-op and they spend a combined total of $1,000 in a year. They would each owe $100 plus whatever profit and overhead the company involved charges. There's really no reason to expect an insurance company to start selling people assurance policies as you and others are demanding.

I have a suggestion that I'd like to get your opinion about. Why not form co-ops like I suggested. Every month you get a bill based on your share of what was collectively spent by your group on healthcare. Like minded people can enjoy the rewards associated with that program and those that don't like that idea can seek out their own system. Wouldn't that be a fair approach to this conflict?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[The Mark]

First off thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I appreciate it.

Language matters so let's stop incorrectly say that we are talking about insurance. What your describing can more accurately stated as a co-op.

If you have 10 people in your Healthcare co-op and they spend a combined total of $1,000 in a year. They would each owe $100 plus whatever profit and overhead the company involved charges. There's really no reason to expect an insurance company to start selling people assurance policies as you and others are demanding.

I have a suggestion that I'd like to get your opinion about. Why not form co-ops like I suggested. Every month you get a bill based on your share of what was collectively spent by your group on healthcare. Like minded people can enjoy the rewards associated with that program and those that don't like that idea can seek out their own system. Wouldn't that be a fair approach to this conflict?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Essentially I think of single-payer healthcare as a national co-op.

Everyone pays in some percentage of their income above some poverty point, and everyone uses the services when they need them.
That could work on the state level too, but it would work best at national scale, because it would be more efficient, especially in administrative terms.

Part of the reason for high costs at the moment is administration being duplicated to some degree for every organization offering the service if you pay into it.
Another part is profit, and that combined with having captive consumers (you HAVE to have this to survive, or be without pain) leads to both prices that are too high, and development of treatment focused at least in part on what is new and can be trademarked for sale.

I think there are probably areas of research that will yield better healthcare methods and systems that are not necessarily as profitable.
That needs to be subsidized by governments or non-profits.

Hell, the current system created the opioid crisis.



Edit:

You would of course have state and local co-op organizations in this national healthcare co-op, which could operate semi-independently.

That would put the administration closer to those they served.
You would need to balance the requirements to ensure sufficient care against local/state specific issues and quirks.

 

[trouble13]

Essentially I think of single-payer healthcare as a national co-op.

Everyone pays in some percentage of their income above some poverty point, and everyone uses the services when they need them.
That could work on the state level too, but it would work best at national scale, because it would be more efficient, especially in administrative terms.

Part of the reason for high costs at the moment is administration being duplicated to some degree for every organization offering the service if you pay into it.
Another part is profit, and that combined with having captive consumers (you HAVE to have this to survive, or be without pain) leads to both prices that are too high, and development of treatment focused at least in part on what is new and can be trademarked for sale.

I think there are probably areas of research that will yield better healthcare methods and systems that are not necessarily as profitable.
That needs to be subsidized by governments or non-profits.

Hell, the current system created the opioid crisis.



Edit:

You would of course have state and local co-op organizations in this national healthcare co-op, which could operate semi-independently.

That would put the administration closer to those they served.
You would need to balance the requirements to ensure sufficient care against local/state specific issues and quirks.

I'm not opposed to it being done locally if that what the community wants but not nationally. Too many people are opposed to it and if it's national you've removed their freedom to choose to not be in it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[The Mark]

I'm not opposed to it being done locally if that what the community wants but not nationally. Too many people are opposed to it and if it's national you've removed their freedom to choose to not be in it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Based on my understanding of how things currently work, we NEED to have it be national so that the risk pool is large enough to allow lower individual input.
Even state-wide might work, but national appears better.


Edit: Of course, that's based on how insurance companies work, but it would seem that co-ops might have a similar issue, if perhaps to a lesser degree because they don't have to make a profit, just break even.

 

[trouble13]

Based on my understanding of how things currently work, we NEED to have it be national so that the risk pool is large enough to allow lower individual input.
Even state-wide might work, but national appears better.


Edit: Of course, that's based on how insurance companies work, but it would seem that co-ops might have a similar issue, if perhaps to a lesser degree because they don't have to make a profit, just break even.

So you NEED people to be forced against their will to participate into something that you WANT and you don't see a PROBLEM with that?

imagine if a federal law was passed forcing everyone to own a gun and requiring gun courses being taught in schools and a passing grade required for a diploma.

There's a problem with forcing people to do things against their will. Arguing that it's for their own good or it won't work without them isn't really a great justification.

Another thing that eludes me in this debate is how people argue that Healthcare is so important that it should be as close to free as possible. Is having a new color TV more important than your life? Healthcare is expensive because it's valuable. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

I don't dispute there are people profiteering off people's misery. At the same time a lot of that money is also fueling the amazing advancements that we enjoy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[The Mark]

So you NEED people to be forced against their will to participate into something that you WANT and you don't see a PROBLEM with that?

imagine if a federal law was passed forcing everyone to own a gun and requiring gun courses being taught in schools and a passing grade required for a diploma.

There's a problem with forcing people to do things against their will. Arguing that it's for their own good or it won't work without them isn't really a great justification.

Another thing that eludes me in this debate is how people argue that Healthcare is so important that it should be as close to free as possible. Is having a new color TV more important than your life? Healthcare is expensive because it's valuable. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

I don't dispute there are people profiteering off people's misery. At the same time a lot of that money is also fueling the amazing advancements that we enjoy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

I don't need it, the situation demands it, as I understand the situation.

I don't see a viable option to provide healthcare to everyone within the current system. It's quite literally impossible for everyone to afford healthcare, and those who can it's a significant portion of their expenses in most cases.
The system that provides it is inefficient, duplicating effort, blocking people from treatment due to how much they paid, requiring further costs even on top of the monthly fee, etc, etc.

The current system causes harm to people in terms of stress if nothing else. And it can't even provide care to everyone effectively.

Either we need significantly more subsidization of the system, or we need to significantly increase everyone's income so they can afford to pay those costs.
Or we replace the system with one that is more efficient, like a national healthcare system.

I expect it to overall cost less than the current system, so long as we don't **** up the implementation too badly.

 

[trouble13]

I don't need it, the situation demands it, as I understand the situation.

I don't see a viable option to provide healthcare to everyone within the current system. It's quite literally impossible for everyone to afford healthcare, and those who can it's a significant portion of their expenses in most cases.
The system that provides it is inefficient, duplicating effort, blocking people from treatment due to how much they paid, requiring further costs even on top of the monthly fee, etc, etc.

The current system causes harm to people in terms of stress if nothing else. And it can't even provide care to everyone effectively.

Either we need significantly more subsidization of the system, or we need to significantly increase everyone's income so they can afford to pay those costs.
Or we replace the system with one that is more efficient, like a national healthcare system.

I expect it to overall cost less than the current system, so long as we don't **** up the implementation too badly.

How exactly does providing more health services to a larger group of people lower what is spent on health services?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[ludin]

Let's say we disband Medicare and move to your dream system where everyone is paying out of pocket. Some issue comes up and your drop by to see your PCP for about 15 minutes or so. What do you think a reasonable price for that encounter is?

Since i have never argued getting rid of those your strawman is blowing -> you might want to go get it.

Expand Medicaid you say? Seems so obvious in retrospect!

Why expand an already horrible program in which you can't find a doctor?

How much do you think the American health system costs over a ten-year period?

it would cost 40 trillion over 10 years for your UHC.
how do you pay for that?

 

[JustHanging]

it would cost 40 trillion over 10 years for your UHC.
how do you pay for that?

Considering you pay far more per capita than any other country, and get poorer outcomes, you take the money you're spending now, you put 25% in your pocket, you put the other 75% into healthcare. You still have one of the most expensive systems in the world, and you have a tidy little sum in your pocket. And your health outcomes should hopefully improve.

 

[Moderate Right]

Technically, they aren't.

They've corrupted the system so that it benefits them and allows them to harm the poor and/or their workers for higher profits.

It's far worse than stealing.

You just disapproved what you said in your other post.

 

[Moderate Right]

I don't know whether that's true or not.

The political system should control the public health system.
The people living there should control the political system.

If they don't, something is broken somewhere.

I mean, for example, I think the public health system in the UK covers some cosmetic surgery that I think shouldn't necessarily be covered.

-----------------------

Some stuff shouldn't be covered by any public healthcare system, like most cosmetic work (exception for reconstruction after surgery), or that bull**** homeopathic stuff.

Apart from that the decision of what to cover and what not to cover is at base a political one - if it's unacceptable to the people, they should (assuming the political system is working) have the means to change it.


If the public health system in a place is "going broke", I would say that it's probably a combination of mismanagement wasting resources, and/or insufficient funding allocated by the political system.

LOL. People in the UK die waiting for care.

 

[marke]

Somehow the rest of the developed world has figured out how to provide health care without crossing over to free food. And we have even subsidized food for poor people without creating shortages.

Other nations struggle with their own healthcare and debt problems while the US deals with its own. We cannot take just the fact of healthcare in other nations as some sort of standard if we refuse to consider the problems those programs are causing as well as the debts the nations are struggling with. Healthcare is not free. In fact, it is so expensive many nations, including the US, are in debt over their heads with so rational deliverance in sight.

 

[vegas giants]

LOL. People in the UK die waiting for care.

A LOT die in the US waiting care

 

[The Mark]

How exactly does providing more health services to a larger group of people lower what is spent on health services?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Reduced administrative costs, for one.

And ability to negotiate prices from a stronger position may help as well.

 

[The Mark]

LOL. People in the UK die waiting for care.

That's an issue they have to deal with - it's their system, not ours.

That thought/statement prompted me to wonder how many people die in the USA while waiting for medical care, or due to avoiding it as a result of it's cost.

So far my google-fu seems to be failing, or else there aren't any recent studies of that.
Most recent articles even close to that topic are about the VA, not the healthcare system as a whole.

Edit: There is this, but it's about human or system errors causing deaths, not waiting times:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-america.html

 

[trouble13]

Reduced administrative costs, for one.

And ability to negotiate prices from a stronger position may help as well.

Do you see any drawbacks to your vision of healthcare? If so what are they?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk