Trump is in Trouble

[kathyp]

Obamacare does seem to be imploding but it is better than the republican alternative. I almost think that it was designed to fail though.

in what way is Obamacare better?

[Acebird]

You didn't hear Kathy?  The orange turd admitted (on camera) that Australia has a better health care system then we do.  They have universal healthcare.  What a moron he is.

[beecanbee]

While not in the US insurance system, I have had a keen interest in the ACA and the subsequent political events and discussions on health care.
It seems to me that the ACA created an environment that was way too complicated and that IF a national healthcare insurance system is to be successful, it needs to be truly national - meaning the same insurance (rates, options, coverage extent, etc.) across states, counties, etc., and of course single-payer. If a truly national single-payer system were implemented the insurance companies would be relegated to selling top-up policies to cover co-pays and whatever the national system might not cover (for example, hot springs treatment, single patient rooms, etc.).

I am following conversations in cancer forums in the US and UK, and the hoops US citizens must jump thru seem onerous in comparison to the UK, and what I have here in Japan.

Of course there is a cost ? since nothing is free, but in the US that cost is simply paid to the insurance companies, paid into the medical industry thru higher (non-negotiated) costs, or bourn thru suffering by those who are ill and unable to obtain care appropriate to their illness as determined by their physician.  It seems to me that the real issue in the US is whether one believes that having a healthy populous is important or not as a government priority ? and at a level comparable to military security, infrastructure, the rule of law, education, the economy, etc.

[Acebird]

It seems to me that the ACA created an environment that was way too complicated and that IF a national healthcare insurance system is to be successful, it needs to be truly national - meaning the same insurance (rates, options, coverage extent, etc.) across states, counties, etc., and of course single-payer. If a truly national single-payer system were implemented the insurance companies would be relegated to selling top-up policies to cover co-pays and whatever the national system might not cover (for example, hot springs treatment, single patient rooms, etc.).

If you regulate private enterprise to this degree it is not private anymore and most importantly it will create such a bureaucracy that it will cost 10 fold what it needs to cost.  The simple solution is to fund it through the government.  Treat it like SS or the military.  Insurance companies will have to compete for premium policies for the well to do instead of ripping off the middle and lower classes.
Unfortunately all governments are run and represented by the well to do so they already have that bias.  It is obvious the bias is there because you can see it in their health care system, their system of pay raises, and their retirement.

[beecanbee]

The interstate highway system isn`t free enterprise, but it could be - with lots of toll booths.  The social security system isn`t free enterprise, but it could be - with lots more both good & bad investment opportunities.  The US military isn`t free enterprise, but it could be - with major corporations fronting their own protection forces, etc.

I don`t see any increase in costs - but rather a reduction, since economies of scale come to bear if all of those insurance adjusters are gone, since the system essentially becomes rules based - with doctors and hospitals making treatment decisions based only upon the patient needs and getting reimbursed based upon a database of services and payments.

And yes - the very rich can choose to not use the system and find a private service, but with 100% of the population insured, the health of the population is indeed improved since care starts earlier where it counts more.

[bwallace23350]

Obamacare does seem to be imploding but it is better than the republican alternative. I almost think that it was designed to fail though.

in what way is Obamacare better?

In that it expanded coverage and leveled out the cost of healthcare across the board. Under the current plan beign proposed people will lose health care and costs will not come down.

[kathyp]

In that it expanded coverage and leveled out the cost of healthcare across the board.

It expanded Medicaid (welfare) but it did not level out cost.  Those of us who pay for our insurance are paying far more.  People who bought on the exchanges even with subsidies are finding that their deductible makes their insurance useless.  Basically, it accomplished two things: expanding the welfare state, and giving people fewer choices in insurance, thus fewer choices in care. 

[Acebird]

and giving people fewer choices in insurance, thus fewer choices in care.

Prior to ACA most people had only one choice, what their employer chose and the deductibles were rising at an alarming rate.  That game was already in the works.  People who lost their job (remember that?) had no insurance because cobra is not affordable to someone that lost their job yet that is what it was for.  Now the choices in care are still here they are only affordable to the well to do similar to before except prior to ACA companies signed on to HMO and network care.  So if you were traveling you were screwed, out of the network and you didn't have the choice of the doctor you always went to unless he was in the network.  Most likely your doctor was not in the network because these networks are mostly young foreign doctors straight out of medical school.  So I am at a loss as to why you say there was more choices then, then now.

[kathyp]

So I am at a loss as to why you say there was more choices then, then now.

A lot of people got dumped onto the exchanges.  They lost their work insurance or they were told that what they had and liked did not meet requirements of ACA.  Those people were left with the exchanges.  More and more insurance companies are dropping out.  Less choice.  Deductibles are much higher now than before ACA especially on the exchange policies.  Some as high as 10,000 dollars for the lower end plans that people can afford. Since they have less choice of insurers, there is no hope of finding something better.  In addition, we still have millions uninsured, many by choice because of the cost of the policies.   

You still have the problem of being out of network...although most policies cover you anywhere for emergencies. 

And again, insurance is not what I defend.  Insurance is a lousy way to pay for most medical care.  Choice is what I defend whether you choose to use your insurance for the common cold or chose to pay cash, or want a policy that only covers big stuff...or whatever.  What I don't want is the federal government messing in health care in any way except to legislate that they mess less. 
Get rid of the mandates and regulations and let people buy what they want, where they want, or nothing if that's what the want.

Do you realize we could have given everyone who was uninsured a million dollars for a HSA, heck, everyone in the country, and spent far less than this mess has cost?

[gww]

Kathy

Do you realize we could have given everyone who was uninsured a million dollars for a HSA, heck, everyone in the country, and spent far less than this mess has cost?

It was reported on the news that if we got rid of health care insurance providers it would save four hundred billion "per year".  How much would that be per person in america and not just the uninsured ones?
Cheers
gww

[Acebird]

Get rid of the mandates and regulations and let people buy what they want, where they want, or nothing if that's what the want.

The choices are not available to all because the choices are based on a profit margin.  These choices you speak of will never be available to all if it involves profit.  Clearly you can see that.  If you only care about yourself and how the economics works out for you then it is clear why you want a profit based healthcare system.  Quite frankly that is what is wrong with the swamp they only care about themselves even though their job is to represent us.

[Acebird]

It was reported on the news that if we got rid of health care insurance providers it would save four hundred billion "per year".

This is one of the reasons Wall Street'ers are so fat.  Insurance companies are really banks, but worse, you put in money and they give you half of it back.

[Captain776]

The NHL ones going to be hurt in this Special Prosecutor deal is all the dirty Democrats.
Every issue that has ever arisen, Trump has come out on top, this will be no different.

Have any of you seen one bit of indisputable evidence against Trump? Go ahead, I'll wait.

Comey said he wrote a Memo in Zfeb that Trump asked him to go easy on Flynn but May 3 while under oath, swore no one ne ever asked him to stop, slow down or alter an investigation.when you lie, you have a lot to remember.

Truth is, Comey wrote the memo the day AFTER he got fired for gross incompetence.
There IS documented evidence that both Comey and his brother are solely owned by Clintons.

Now they can request ALL Comeys Memos......Rice, Lynch, Obama, Hillary alllllllll the memos.
Democrats will learn.......be careful what you ask for.

Beyond my comprehension why Trump hasn't arrested Hillary, declare her a flight risk and hold her, no bail. Then open the Pizzagate Pedophile case, that will take at least 75 deep state backstabbers off the street and focus attention elsewhere

Basic.......fight fire with fire

[iddee]

Quoted by ace.   "You didn't hear Kathy?  The orange turd admitted (on camera) that Australia has a better health care system then we do.  They have universal healthcare.  What a moron he is."

Now, intelligent one, please tell us when Australia got ACA?  That was what was being compared, not OZ's.

[kathyp]

It was reported on the news that if we got rid of health care insurance providers it would save four hundred billion "per year".  How much would that be per person in america and not just the uninsured ones?

It was also reported the ACA was going to insure everyone, drive down cost, and save everyone over 2000 dollars per year.

This is one of the reasons Wall Street'ers are so fat.  Insurance companies are really banks, but worse, you put in money and they give you half of it back.

All insurance is like this.  how many dollars have you spent over your lifetime on car insurance?  Will you ever get that back no matter how badly you wreck your car?  They only way you might get ahead on that is if there is a liability claim against you which means you hurt of killed someone. 

insurance is a bet.  They bet you won't need it but charge according to what you might need by age and health.  You buy it betting that you will need it at some point and having it is better than not having it.

 I am not a fan of insurance because of the way people use it, but the problem is not with the existence of insurance.  It is the way we get it.
Most people are insured by way of work, or by welfare programs.  Even those who self-insure must buy what the state mandates, or now, what ACA mandates.  There is no free market in the insurance market.   Imagine that all those restrictions were lifted and you could buy what you wanted from anyone.  All companies in the country would have to compete for your business.  If you didn't like what you had, you'd be free to shop around for something else anywhere else.  Maximum choice in who and how you insure, if you choose to even buy insurance.

You would still have to make allowances for the truely poor, but there are various ways to do that from insurance pools that charged based on what you could pay, to the good old charity hospitals that have gone by the wayside mostly because if things like malpractice insurance.  Would we be paying for needless ER visits?  Yes.  We are now.  ACA did not fix that.  It is also far less expensive to absorb that cost that to absorb ACA cost. 

There are fixes...and those include turning medical care over to the government.   You know if they are in charge of paying for it, they will not pass up the chance to regulate it and mess with it.

Read this carefully
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/grants-and-fellowships/fellowships/australian-american-health-policy-fellowship/health-care-system-and-health-policy-in-australia

[Geoff]

    Great analogy Kathy, insurance is a bet with the odds in favor of the bookmaker. The Australian health cover is great, the only downside is waiting time. My recent hip job was only a five month wait and done by an excellent young surgeon ( done Friday afternoon and home for lunch on Monday) with marvelous after care by the physio- therapists. When one reads the contents of this thread it is the reason we must take out travel insurance when we travel overseas, especially to the US. The only out of pocket expenses I incurred for my job was a $ 40  consultation with the surgeon $7 each time for hot pool therapy.

[Acebird]

Read this carefully
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/grants-and-fellowships/fellowships/australian-american-health-policy-fellowship/health-care-system-and-health-policy-in-australia

I read it what is your beef?  I like the last paragraph about personal e-file records.  I think it is absolutely stupid to think a person can memorize their health care history and fill out paper forms.

[Acebird]

please tell us when Australia got ACA?  That was what was being compared, not OZ's.

The ACA is a step to what they have and a huge step in the opposite direction to what the orange turd is pushing for.

[bwallace23350]

Cost was leveled out in the fact that women now don't pay more for health insurance just because they are women. We leveled that cost off. Health insurance was going through the roof anyway and we were already on an unsustainable path. Glad you brought up medicaid and medicare. We should just expand those programs to cover everyone and have it come a long with a tax increase that will probably be less than what you were paying for insurance anyway so you will be taking home more money.

[kathyp]

Great analogy Kathy, insurance is a bet with the odds in favor of the bookmaker. The Australian health cover is great, the only downside is waiting time.

and I am happy that you are happy with it.  If we were to institute the same immigration, refugee, and welfare policies you guys have, I might be willing to take a second look.  As long as we are the worlds dumping ground and have people marching in the streets for open borders, I'm not willing to pay for that cost on top of the cost of all the people in this country that don't pay taxes AND and aging (of which I am one) population.