Reply With Quote
So, you admit there's a globalist master plan.
men shouldn't pay for insurance for breast,ovarian, uterine cancer
and women shouldn't pay for insurance for testicular, prostate cancer.
These ing so-called conservatives are ing ignorant assholes blocking American progress.
So, you admit there's a globalist master plan.
Chump's fluffer
No. I admit a national health care plan like every other country came up with on their own is where the US is headed on its own.
Master plan of what?
Has nothing to do with ChumpyD or brisk genital massages, that's the actual history/chain of influence.
Heritage white paper => RomneyCare => ACA.
It's checkable, don't take my word for it.
He'll never venture out of his derp bubble, but here's Nixon's health care plan from 45 years ago:
https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2015...nsurance-plan/
Looks kinda familiar, eh? Dude could've been an OK president had he not been, you know, a supervillain.
You're talking about compulsive health insurance provided by employers. Sure, Nixon got the ball rolling towards further govt. overtures; but saying it is akin to Obamacare is a flat out lie.
What do you think Obamacare is other than that plus individual mandates for the self-employed?
how about
Medicaid expansion (crippled by Repug SCOTUS)
killed junk High Deductible/catastrophe crap plans (reinstalled by Trash)
mandated coverages
guaranteed sick people could get insurance
got about 20M insured
minus 7M since 2016.
People who belong to a teacher's union (lots of older female teachers, women of child bearing age and retirees) should pay more than Google (lots of young males who don't go to the doctor).
One should be charged premiums based on RISK like other insurances. If I am an old woman with no tickets, I should pay less auto insurance than a young, male with lots of tickets. If I live in a high-risk flood area, I should pay more flood insurance than the someone who lives on a mountain. If I am old, I should pay more premium on life insurance than someone who is young. Ditto for long-term care insurance.
That wasn't my question.
Only women should contribute to insurance that covers maternity costs?
Actually only fertile women?
Seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance works to limit premiums that way.
If car repair services decide to charge whatever they want and medical services already do, then your premium is going to increase on top of the risk factor. That's what cost is. Similarly with builders charging to repair flood damaged housing. Life insurance is a completely different business, because there isn't a post-incident service provided.
The point being, risk is just one factor for pricing, service cost is another. If costs for services soar (and they do in healthcare), then premium costs will raise no matter what risk bracket you're on, which is something we consistently see in the medical insurance industry. They not only increase annually far outpacing inflation, they are comparatively much more expensive than in other nations for the same services.
We have gone over many times why the US is different from other countries. The way our education, legal and medical systems are set up - the way other countries just copy drugs/devices, etc developed here. The whole point of compe ion (like laser surgery - the method I favor coupled with catastrophic insurance) is to bring down costs - see the oil change we did today - headed toward Tire Kingdom for one and right next door is a 10 minute express oil change/tire rotation for $21.99. Car repair services are not exactly a good example - especially in Miami where local/area mechanics compete fiercely price-wise. You should have seen how empty the Tire Kingdom was (especially for a Saturday morning) compared to next door express oil change. All you said above does not change that Obamacare itself is responsible for making healthcare even more expensive - imagine being charged for coverage one can never use. It is a flawed system which basically re-distributes the cost from those who have (whatever that cutoff is - $40+k?) to those who don't. And income exemption (8.05%) does not count the cost of covering a non-working spouse/children - it's based on one person (like who is covering oneself and not one's spouse and kids? - that's not the cost of health insurance to a family unit)
Anything that provides services is a good example for purposes of identifying insurance service cost. As you note, the difference is that the car-repair business is largely a free market with compe ion.
Compe ion makes sense on a free market. The healthcare market is not a free market. The bulk of the expenses on healthcare in this country comes from government spending in healthcare, be it medicare/medicaid, or subsidies to hospitals for uninsured people.
From the fact that the healthcare insurance market won't even touch the elderly (the bulk of the high risk population that requires healthcare the most), we can determine that's not a integral solution to national healthcare, so we continue to try to peg a square into a hole.
If we revisit how we got here, and why we have government intervention, it was because:
1) Insurers wouldn't touch high risk customers (elderly, pre-existing conditions), instead dumping them to the government.
2) Hospitals practiced patient dumping when the patients could not afford treatment, including emergency treatment.
3) A profitable free market service company prices to bear, which means, prices to the average value of what people can afford for the service that maximizes profit (regardless of how much it costs to provide the service, just as long as the profit is larger than the cost).
4) Insurance is largely tied to employment due to reasons 1 and 3. People that can't work, even temporarily, due to a health condition, also are punished under this system.
All 4 items provide barriers to access to healthcare. That's a compelling State interest. No government wants sick people on the streets and not receiving medical care.
On top of the problem of access, the insurance system also brought price opaqueness to that market. Because the cost of services were shifted from patients to insurance companies, they became powerful tools to negotiate pricing, but disconnected patients from cost. Originally the idea was that such an arrangement would bring costs down, since a large insurance group could work on better rates for it's members. In reality what ended up happening instead is service providers inflated their prices (anybody that had to pay uninsured rates can relate) and the "discount" value ended up being their bear price. This is easily verifiable by looking at price increases year over year in the US vs other countries during the same period for the same services (especially uninsured rates).
Pre-Obamacare, the access problem came to a head, to the tune of about 15% of eligible US population not having any sort of health insurance. It was extra perverse because due to the duality of pricing mentioned above, uninsured people were largely punished. At the time, half of the bankruptcies in the US were related to healthcare one way or another.
ACA put a solid dent on lack of access, reducing the uninsured population to 9% (still not great, IMO, but better). But, overall, it was because it didn't address cost. It's undeniable that by adding more people to risk pools, pricing was going to go up. Some of that was going to be addressed through both the individual mandate and subsidies.
But the only other variable you could tune was service cost, which has been inflated for a long time. A US resident pays about twice as much (link) for healthcare services as any comparable developed country, largely with same or lower outcomes. We're not talking specialized services that are only available to the US, we're talking from the most mundane condition to the most expensive.
This is why, even though the ACA is indeed , rolling it back doesn't solve anything. We would basically be back to the lack of access problem, and the cost overrun would still be intact.
A comprehensive healthcare reform that works will require touching some of the following topics:
- True cost/pricing overview
- Pricing transparency
- Whether the current mixed healthy-insured vs sick-govt-subsidized has failed us or not, and whether we need to approach this dynamic in a different way (ie: government can subsidize lower cost treatments, but require catastrophic insurance for what's not covered, just one example of a million combinations)
- If we proceed with an Insurance system (whatever it might look like), whether it makes sense to continue to largely tie it to employment, and the reduction of access that entails.
This is just off the top of my head. It's a complex market and there won't be silver bullet solutions. There's powerful players in this which won't be sitting on the sidelines either. There will be winners and losers, but it would be nice if patients are largely winners for once.
Boom.
In b4 dismissive hand waving.
Why is everyone forgetting this could all be easily solved with the red team plan?
biggest, bestest...
No plan.
Utah Voters Approved Medicaid Expansion At The Ballot Box.
The GOP Is Trying To Undo It.
The Republican majority in the Utah Legislature is moving fast to defy the will of Utahns who approved the proposition.
Utah voters approved a ballot initiative to expand Medicaid coverage to an estimated 150,000 low-income adults.
The Utah Senate approved a bill Wednesday that would toss out
a grassroots-driven, voter-backed ballot initiative to offer Medicaid benefits to any Utahn earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level
The legislation instead would
expand Medicaid to fewer people,
enable Utah to receive less federal money for the program and
impose limitations on benefits,
including work requirements.
The Utah GOP clearly is prioritizing overturning the voters,
considering the
Legislature has been
in session since just Monday and
the bill made it out its Senate committee Tuesday and
to the floor Wednesday.
The fact that 53 percent of voters spoke in favor of a full Medicaid expansion at the ballot box
10 Republican senators representing districts where a majority voted in favor of the expansion are supporting the bill to modify it,
including the legislation’s main sponsor, Sen. Allen Christensen.
A plurality of Utahns opposes changing the voter-backed policy,
The GOP bill sends a message to voters, King said:
“We don’t really care what the people of the state of Utah want to do
or say they want us to do at the Legislature.
We’re going to do what we want to do."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...gEmail__020119
aka, Repug democracy
it never really occurred to me that this sort of horse trading happens on the Supreme Court, but of course it does:
libertarian lawyer at Reason, not amused:
https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/25...s-its-positionThe Justice Department's change in position is astounding. It was remarkable enough that DOJ failed to question the states' standing to challenge an unenforced and unenforceable mandate, and even more remarkable that the Department failed to defend a readily defensible federal law. It is more remarkable still that the DOJ is abandoning its position -- and the position on severability advanced by the Obama Administration -- in favor of a highly strained and implausible approach to severability with little grounding or precedent.
ACA going down, Ms will suffer and die.
Racist Repugs have nothing to replace ACA, their hated knitter's career victory.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions