Thread: How I Lost My Fear of Universal Health Care

I keep asking this what is the Republican plan for the low income people, you can put this anyway you want but if some would qualify under the ACA Medicaid expansion and most generous subsidized exchange plan they cannot afford insurance without help. I'm disabled and do have the ability to make an income of around $8-10,000 a year my best income working the most I can, I opt not to since I need to qualify for charity care status in my state. Many disabled are in poverty if one checked the numbers and not all of us are able to do college level work, I can't, so that leave low wage options or self-employment usually also near the low wage scale.

For all the bluster and foot stomping it won't change the facts for people like myself to get routine care we need government help. I need a primary care provider even an LNP, insulin and blood testing supplies and proper care with certain medical issues and the reason I don't even if I worked maxing out my income I couldn't afford it. Many low income people are in my own situation we work and are law-abiding, do what we feel is right yet get zero consideration for health care until the ACA came along.

So what is the Republican Plan we have the ACA where is the "replace" for the repeal and replace, and will this help people like me the ones that will cost the system the most at some point.

I know its not perfect and needs work but even modest options here are better than nothing which is why I'm voting Democrat all the way in November.

Originally Posted by tkolter

I keep asking this what is the Republican plan for the low income people, you can put this anyway you want but if some would qualify under the ACA Medicaid expansion and most generous subsidized exchange plan they cannot afford insurance without help. I'm disabled and do have the ability to make an income of around $8-10,000 a year my best income working the most I can, I opt not to since I need to qualify for charity care status in my state. Many disabled are in poverty if one checked the numbers and not all of us are able to do college level work, I can't, so that leave low wage options or self-employment usually also near the low wage scale.

For all the bluster and foot stomping it won't change the facts for people like myself to get routine care we need government help. I need a primary care provider even an LNP, insulin and blood testing supplies and proper care with certain medical issues and the reason I don't even if I worked maxing out my income I couldn't afford it. Many low income people are in my own situation we work and are law-abiding, do what we feel is right yet get zero consideration for health care until the ACA came along.

So what is the Republican Plan we have the ACA where is the "replace" for the repeal and replace, and will this help people like me the ones that will cost the system the most at some point.

I know its not perfect and needs work but even modest options here are better than nothing which is why I'm voting Democrat all the way in November.

This opinion will be very unpopular with certain of your compatriots, but I respectfully submit that any nation which does not care for the needs of its disabled and disadvantaged, is not yet a civilisation.

Originally Posted by Leo2

This opinion will be very unpopular with certain of your compatriots, but I respectfully submit that any nation which does not care for the needs of its disabled and disadvantaged, is not yet a civilisation.

With all due respect there is a plan for the disabled and disadvantaged, health care isn't neccessarily a partisan issue many democrats don't want third world style universal health care for themselves or their children either.

As of right now the poor can get government insurance which covers all of their basic needs, although if they want specialized care they will have to do without because specialists don't accept government insurance since it has low reimbursement rates.

In conclusion the poor are taken care of, just not at the level at which the middle and upper classes are. A solution would be to have private charities take on more of a burden, if a poor person searches long and hard they have a reasonable chance at finding a private charity that will give them specialized care.

Problem is I have lots of ideas and none seem to be popular. For example this could be done grant any medical provider treating a patiant getting Medicaid under Federal law as immune from lawsuits unless they get a judge to authorize a lawsuit with a high bar of malpractice demanded. In return for every 1% of Medicaid patiance treated a doctor or practice gets a proportional reduction in Malpractice Insurance. If they opt to only take Medicaid Patiance you could have a very basic "optional insurance" since by law the Malpractice Insurance would default to 0% in cost. I would set the sue bar very simple - gross incompetance in treatment well outside of normal and expected care so as to be deemed unfit to professional standing. I would think if a doctor could get paid 55 cents on the dollar but had zero malpractice insurance to pay for or a small basic plan for say $100 a month they might opt to take Medicaid patiants. They could be sued but would have to be pretty bad doctors or other providers to have that happen.

This would not rule out actions in a state to pull licenses or fine doctors just take out the Tort issues.

And as Federal Law would be trumping state laws in these areas.

There one idea and the Republicans should like it there would be minimal costs and doctors and medical provider networks can opt in or out freely.

The insurance companies will take a hit and that will harm free market health care and make it look more like universal health care if they took poor patients that way.

Those increased malpractice premiums help to identify inferior physicians similarly to car insurance, bad drivers pay higher premiums as bad doctors do.

If we allow lower premiums to all physicians who accept insurances from the lower classes it would corrupt the system in that instead of competition between health care providers and a race to the top, physicians will take advantage of those incentives of reduced liability and reduce their quality of care to the higher classes because they can always compensate for income loss by taking in more poor patients.

I am not afraid of Universal Healthcare.

I am afraid of what will happen when I refuse to buy it.

Originally Posted by liberalminority

The insurance companies will take a hit and that will harm free market health care and make it look more like universal health care if they took poor patients that way.

Those increased malpractice premiums help to identify inferior physicians similarly to car insurance, bad drivers pay higher premiums as bad doctors do.

If we allow lower premiums to all physicians who accept insurances from the lower classes it would corrupt the system in that instead of competition between health care providers and a race to the top, physicians will take advantage of those incentives of reduced liability and reduce their quality of care to the higher classes because they can always compensate for income loss by taking in more poor patients.

The Higher Classes will always get access to better care private conceirge practices, international medical access and the like. But access to the poor to medical providers is vital and if you make treating poor patiants cheaper more people would likely take at least a percentage of Medicaid patiants.

Originally Posted by MisLed

Some of my friends and i are reading the Obamacare stuff. people 72 plus, will not be treated for a cancer cure. EVEN young mothers 35 years old, developing breast cancer will only receive limited treatment. They will die. They will be made comfy but they will Die. People in need of stints, pacemakers etc, after a certain age, you are not going to get it.

I do not believe you. you are lieing, and trying to purposley stir up fear and anger.

Originally Posted by Turin

I do not believe you. you are lieing, and trying to purposley stir up fear and anger.

Sadly, it's true.

Originally Posted by tkolter

...grant any medical provider treating a patiant getting Medicaid under Federal law as immune from lawsuits...

As a physician first, individual second and part of a society third. I can live with a move in this general direction.

The vast majority of my practice tailors around "not messing up". But why? I need to make sure I can justify my decisions in a court of law. NOT because it is the best/cost effective/sane or most common sense way of doing a particular procedure. If a mistake happens, or a bad outcome ensues, too bad.

The ability to charge more for having to be IMMEDIATELY available on nights, weekends and holidays needs to be feasible as well. When you need my services emergently, I am needed in a matter of seconds.

I know I will have to continue to pay more taxes to help each other. My salary will likely decrease a certain amount. I am willing to do that in a fair way. E.g., EVERYBODY pays the same taxes. PERIOD. Only those who are under the poverty limit get a break, and they STILL have to pay something.

And we will have to understand that our healthcare system will be very drastically different in many ways. Our expenses and re-imbersements keep innovative companies doing the VAST majority of breakthroughs and new "minimally" invasive techniques here now. This will change if the fiscal impetus is not there.

You want a Laporascopic procedure, tough cookies. In a few months when there is an opening in the OR schedule, you will get an open, big, painful scar and hope that the one pain medication that is approved for use, is one you are not allergic to.

I have had the pleasure to volunteer my time in third world countries where healthcare is "state mandated" and the equipment I had to use was down right scary. How I didn't kill a child, I'll never know.

This can have some very sad consequences. We need to have these thoughts in our minds as we move forward in this direction.