CBO report finds Republican healthcare bill will lead to 22 million Americans losing insurance

Hurl wrote:

Just roll out Romneycare to the entire nation. Seems that if everyone is required to have at least minimum insurance (like if you want to drive a car), it saves money for everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

yeah...and we could call it...the Affordable Care Act. ACA. I think it would be a big hit. At least 50% approval - probably more.

exthrower wrote:

RossiCheated wrote:

I'm yet to meet the person who says, "I don't want health insurance." When I do, I will know that I have met the world's stupidest person.

I don't want the government involved and dictating to me about the choices I have to make.

Butt you 100% accept the choices that Deer Leader is making for you.

Marksch wrote:

exthrower wrote:

I don't want the government involved and dictating to me about the choices I have to make.

But you WILL want free care when you show up uninsured with an injury/heart attack/cancer?

I am okay with exthrower--a true tosser--crawling into a ditch and being left to heal himself. As long as the rest of us don't end up paying for his ignorance, no problem.

whatishouldcareabout wrote:

BOOM.

You farted ... smell your own.

exthrower wrote:

Obamacare has failed....Something has to be done....We are 20 trillion in debt which rules out single payer...What is your solution?

Oh, quite a few things my friend. First, it's important to note that Obamacare has actually saved the federal government money over time --it turns out that subsidizing insurance plans for the poor is a lot more cost effective than paying their emergency room bills.

The biggest problem with health insurance cost is that insurance and pharmaceutical companies act like a cartel. Barriers in that industry are extremely high, and there's a lot of behind-the-scenes, anti-trust behavior going on.

Having a public option for Health insurance, to compete against private plans, would force competition in the market. The CBO estimates public option would reduce the Federal deficit by 158 billion dollars in 10 years! That isn't immediately intuitive, because one would think the government setting up a large new program would add a lot to the deficit. But health costs are so jacked up that a lot of government health care subsidies are basically donations to the industry. Thus, the government would net save lots of money by setting up a brand new insurance program.

Also, the reason that the government is not allowed to negotiate the price of prescription drugs w/ pharma companies for Medicare is one of the most blatant instances of government corruption in recent U.S. history. Thanks to that one passage of Medicare Part D, Pharma companies were able to overcharge the federal government 567 billion dollars between 2006-2013! The man who rammed that part of the bill through in an extremely sketchy manner, Senator Billy Tauzin, quit his job that next year (2003) for a seven figure salary as a health care lobbyist. Most likeley a quid pro pro. Funny enough, he's one of the lobbyists who help tear the original ambitions of Obamacare (repeal that non-negotiation part of medicare part d, implement public option) to shreds.

So yeah, adding a public option for health insurance, and allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices would be an easy, common sense way to save lots and lots of money, almost a trillion off our deficit in ten years -- much more than this Republican plan.

Barry Bandwidth wrote:

This is a NATIONAL thing. Enough of the 50 different exchanges or plans for 50 different states bullshit. All that does is create more paperwork, more inefficiency, more waste.

This is true for more issues/arenas than just healthcare, but the "party of states' rights" doesn't want you to notice that.

It's over for this week, and now a recess. A very rare defeat for McConnell

https://twitter.com/byrdinator/status/879754473433944064

You mean insurance that is too expensive to buy and you can't afford to use? That kind of insurance?

With the mandate gone many young people or poor people who buy it now to avoid the penalty would opt out. That is a few million.

I say get the government out of meddling in health insurance. Scrap medicaid and start that program from scratch with strict limits on who is eligible.

Another Option wrote:

We need to be looking at things that drive the costs of office visits, hospital stays, medications, etc. to astronomical levels. Deciding how to pay for things that are far too expensive to being with puts our attention on the wrong things.

Really the thing that drives costs up most is treating people with cancer and extending end of life.

They are enormously expensive things that add to total cost that going to all of our premiums and deductions.

Great post. I only wish more people could see the healthcare debate this way.

Here is what conservatives think will happen to sick poor people who lose Medicaid:

-they will disappear and never seek healthcare again, and probably crawl in a ditch somewhere and die (a few might)

-they will seek healthcare and somehow pay for it themselves (won't happen)

-they will miraculously get jobs with health insurance (maybe a few)

Here is what will actually happen:

-They will miss doctor's appointments and medication.

-They will show up to the ER, where BY LAW they must be treated, at an extraordinary cost to hospitals.

-They will be admitted for acute illnesses, accumulating expenses that would have been prevented with relatively cheap primary care. As these patients will not pay, hospitals will pass this cost on to patients with private insurance (higher premiums) and refuse to see new patients in the outpatient setting with poorly-paying insurance (Medicaid, possibly some with Medicare). This will perpetuate the cycle.

Unless we abolish Medicare and Medicaid altogether and not require hospitals to treat patients in an emergency (which will never happen), the CHEAPEST solution is to provide basic public coverage for everyone. Why is this so hard to understand? Forget the basic Christian principle of wanting to take care of the sick, forget compassion, morality, etc. Speaking strictly in terms of $$$, this is the cheapest solution for our country.

THIS

What you say is true, although there also many significant drivers of healthcare costs.

Having good primary care and regular follow-up can help avoid costly end-of-life ICU stays, in my opinion - the doctor is able to establish a good relationship with patient/family and avoid this nonsense and instead direct towards hospice.

As far the expensive cancer drugs ($20,000 a pop) which extend life by 2-3 months - my take is that they should not be covered by private or public insurance. If you're rich and want to waste your money, go ahead. Taxpayers and insurance customers shouldn't have to foot the bill for these meds. However if Medicare ever shows some balls and decides to stop paying for these drugs, you can expect a 'death panel' outcry.

MD 4Real wrote:

Unless we abolish Medicare and Medicaid altogether and not require hospitals to treat patients in an emergency (which will never happen), the CHEAPEST solution is to provide basic public coverage for everyone. Why is this so hard to understand?

To make this work you need to limit medical liability for the provision of services, eliminate ownership by insurance companies of medical facilities, and develop controls on the pharmaceutical industry (liability and also excessive profit). Basically, cut the heads off off of the three monstrous leeches of the Healthcare industry.

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa wrote:

Survival of the fittest. Life is a competition. Be competitive. If you can't afford it, work towards it. If you can't cause you're sick, well, survival of the fittest

what a joke

tell this to someone who never got access to education and earns 8 usd/hour

let me know how many times you get punched in the face.

But that won't transfer so much cash to me and my rich *ss-pounding buddies!

I'm a gay/trannie.

I'll give a couple of good personal examples of high cost drivers.

I had an uncle that was diagnosed with cancer in his late fifties.

He wasn't a healthy person. He drank a lot. He smoked.

They put him through chemo and he survived.

He went on living another 10 years. Had more treatments. Kept smoking even when his lungs could barely stand it. Kept drinking.

He finally had the cancer return in full strength. He was in the hospital for two weeks getting doses of chemo, being hooked up to tubes. Then finally died.

His final two weeks alone was probably enormously expensive.

All of the treatments were expensive.

And he didn't take care of himself.

He should have died long before he did.

Do you simply not treat him or try to save his life because he didn't take of himself?

I understand if you say yes. But it's hard to write a procedure manual that says don't treat this person. There are a lot of gray areas between this behavior and others who try but could do better.

Example 2:

I have a 70 year old in-law. He is the picture of responsibility.

Always lived a healthy lifestyle.

Had a congenital issue that required medication for high blood pressure. He was very diligent in taking his medication.

A month ago he had a serious stroke. Can't move the left side of his body. Took a while to be able to talk again. No brain damage fortunately.

He has been in the hospital for a full month so far and has regular physical therapy there. He really wants to go home.

Enormous medical costs for this situation of a responsible person.

Advanced medicine has provided miracle life savings but at great financial cost.

I know Americans do not want outlaw life saving medicine.

It happens to be very expensive to have all of the medical options that we have.

If you don't want death panels then we have to suck it up and have high healthcare costs.

Of course there are other cost drivers and individual income issues.

But when you look at the big ticket items, it shows there are only some levers you can pull.

You have to ask if everyone deserves access to good healthcare and is everyone going to pitch in.

You pay in when you are healthy or have money so you can get help if and when you are at a time when you are not healthy or may not have money and have to rely on others paying in.

Mitch McConnell's polio treatments did not cost that much, so please continue to treat Mitch as the saint that he clearly is.

I'm a gay/trannie.