Replacing the Affordable Care Act

The powerful health insurance cartel would deploy their powerful political lobby to defeat reform, but the inclusive, far less costly approach to medical coverage of advanced nations is now supported by most Americans.

Not only would the efficiencies of economy of scale pertain, as well as the actuarial desirability of maximizing the risk pool, the current massive federal annual subsidy that sustains employer-administed plans could be eliminated, relieving private businesses of the bureaucratic burden now imposed upon them.

The forces opposing progress will seek to perpetuate the middle man privateers' extracting a sizable portion of every health care dollar, of course, but maintaining what remains, by far, the most expensive healthcare system on earth is undesirable and unsustainable.

 

Why all of the sudden does public opinion matter now? Public opinion was against Obamacare, but it still was passed. And not a singe thing the government has ever ran is more cost effective than the private sector. Just cause you might not pay for it directly doesn't mean you don't get stuck with the bill when the money you earned is worth less, or when you are taxed more.

 

Hardcore ideologues will rage against democratic efforts to eliminate the profiteering middle man and replicate the inherent cost efficiencies of advanced nations, but a dispassionate comparative cost analysis amply demonstrates the preferable approach.

Let's free capitalistic enterprises from the bureaucratic burden of health insurance administration now inflicted upon them, and eliminate the huge annual taxpayer subsidy that sustains such an inefficient approach.

 

Yeah cost efficiencies that mean no new drugs other than RU-486 Developed in Europe in twenty years, a chronic shortage of diagnostic equipment and the government deciding whether grandma gets that surgery she needs or not and a medical sector almost totally devoid of innovation.

 

I've been making one of the same arguments for oh I dunno the past 4 years now, and to this date, nobody has addressed it...

when people make the comparison to "foreign healthcare" they leave out one critical point, foreign healthcare workers make roughly 25-33% less than american healthcare workers, how can we afford their system at our costs? will nurses take a 25-33% pay cut so we can afford national healthcare? I doubt nurses will take a pay cut for us...

the only reason their systems work, is because they are paid far less, if these foreign examples paid the rates we do, they would all go bankrupt... thats not a solution...

http://www.worldsalaries.org/professionalnurse.shtml

and when we really compare them, its not just a 25-33% pay cut needed, they would have to work MORE hours as well...

P.S. will american nurses take one for the team? let me know when you find one who will, they would likely be the first willing to take that pay cut for us...

 

Unless you support keeping what remains by far the most costly healthcare system on earth, the huge annual taxpayer subsidies to impose the bureaucratic burden of administering insurance plans on employers, and charging the American taxpayer for the medical costs of tens of millions of uninsureds, you'll need to offer a viable alternative.

So far, the only realistic approach Republicans have offered is individually-mandated RomneyCare, the "ultimate" conservative idea" that was adopted nationally.

Mewling is not a solution.

 

We did not used to have such a system. I remember when HMO's were supposed to lower health care costs.

 

Its funny, the left gives us a big pile of steaming crap that America didn't want, and puts all of the burden on the right to "fix it before you get rid of it". Its essentially the left saying "the government laws' are screwed up, lets get more government laws to fix them". Are you finally admitting that the government programs suck and more government wont fix them? How about we get TORT reform while we appeal Obamacare so that way the doctors aren't paying such huge insurance premiums for supposed malpractice suits? Or we stop funding federally backed student loans which is causing the biggest bubble and raising tuition higher than any other form of inflation ever and making those who chose to be doctors impossible to pay off their loans, which raises the price of medicine? Two of the biggest reasons medicine costs so much now, is because of government, Obamacare just made insurance more.

 

what is the solution of the right?

 

There are dozens of Republican alternatives. I doubt there are ten million of uninsured a year let alone tens of millions there are only about forty million uninsured and most of them are in the 20 to 30 year old group, who are unlikely to need a doctor's care with any frequency and adding the government to that mix simply increases bureaucracy and cost without actually solving anything. In fact the chief reason for cost in the US is increasing bureaucratization of health care often enforced through the civil tort system.

 

how about sharing a few instead of having nothing but repeal or a better solution at lower cost.

 

It really still falls back to "supply and demand", as more people go through the process to become a HC worker, the pay scale will drop. Of course experienced Doctor's, Nurses will always be in demand and paid the best. This said, I'm not sure I want a 10.00/Hr aid making any decisions, over a patient's health problems.

 

https://energycommerce.house.gov/ne...hatch-upton-unveil-obamacare-replacement-plan

 

I just gave you two that are the biggest drivers of why medicine costs so much as it is. Its is too much government meddling in the affairs of a private business.

 

how is that better than the protections offered by the other Act?

The other Act also claimed to lower costs.

 

The ACA was a huge give away to the insurance companies. Doctors opposed the ACA and insurance companies supported it that is all that needs to be pointed out to show how hypocritical people like you are.

You want to fix medicine then get rid of both the insurance companies AND government involvement. There is a reason that concierge medicine is exploding right now because its cheaper and better.

 

seriously, this is your solution? it'll just magically moderate itself?

why then does it not moderate itself with the current supply and demand structure in america?

what do you think happens when we open the floodgates and millions more use unlimited amounts of healthcare?

don't you think that will have the exact opposite effect of your $10 an hour pay? and we'll go from $4000 plus salaries to $8000 plus salaries with such a shortage?

so once again, another person who has not been able to explain this away and show me how universal healthcare will work in america, because we pay far too much for it to work in america... so this premise we can simply copy the healthcare of other nations is debunked and flawed, because we don't have the same pay rates they do...

 

The income of medical professionals is not the principle expense of health care - estimated at about 20%. It would be necessary to weigh that against the cost of the private insurance cartel with its huge maintenance cost, profit margins, executive compensation and other payroll obligations, repeated duplication of administrative functions, agency overhead and commissions, marketing, advertising, political lobbying budgets, etc., and then there is the benefit of freeing employers from the bureaucratic burden of administering plans, and eliminating the estimated $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue that subsidizes employer-administered plans.

Incrementally lowering the eligibility age for Medicare coverage would have the added benefit of introducing lower-cost demographics, thus lowering Medicare premiums.

 

Yes, it was. Romney's innovation, as the only Republican reform plan ever actually implemented - his "ultimate conservative idea" - was designed to keep them happy. Obviously, that appealed to the cartel persisted as it embraced the nationalized version as well.

Of course, the truth is that some doctors supported it, some oppose it, and some prefer the single-player, universal approach that the American public prefers.

If you are concerned that you are enrolled in an employer-administered plan subsidized by the taxpayer, you wouldd no longer need it, and your company would not have the bureaucratic onus inflicted on it.

The bottom line is that, unless everyone is covered, you pay for those that are not.

 

As plentiful and substantive as snowflakes.

How many have developed beyond the stage of political boilerplate and become bills voted upon by the Republican-controlled House or Senate?

Maintaining the cash cow for the insurance cartel creates the healthcare cost plight in the US, demonstrably double that of civilized nations and continuing to rise.



.

 

Despite the ideological hysteria, the US now has Romney's "ultimate conservative idea" and the choice is to keep and tweak it, or dump it for the far more cost-effective, inclusive alternative proven to be superior.

Anyone who fantasizes about the medical insurance system of Aynrandistan can self-deport to Aynrandistan.


.

 

"Proven superior" to whom? The Sudan? The left claims Cuba and Venezuela medical system is better. They claim Canada is better. They claim the EU is better. But the rich still come here because its cheaper and they actually get seen.

If you are going to pull out crap like "life expectancy", check out our diets to know why we die from heart disease. There are fat people who claimed to be fat shamed by their doctors when the doctors tell them to lose weight. And many people wouldn't listen anyways.

 

First of all, I DO NOT THINK UHC OR SINGLE PAYER, will work in the US. My simple reason lay's in genetics and personal responsibility. That is people are genetically tied to health problems and drug user's among others are prone to health problems. It's up to the individual to plan ahead or simply die younger because of some life style.

My comments are directed at reasons and HC workers on the increase and pay are not excuses any more than Fracking is/was to energy workers. One is paid for via the consumer, not Government and the other paid for by tax payer, not the consumer.....If you get Government completely out of HC, the cost would drop 50% overnight and pay scales would naturally fall. More importantly, insurance companies, left to insure according to statistics, opposed to regulation, would be around for ever.

 

where did you get your number that wages only represent 20% of the cost of healthcare? I seriously would like to see that... as I've had this debate countless times with people... did you just pull it out of thin air or do you have documented proof of the cost of wages to a healthcare provider??? I submit my proof its 66% of total costs...

https://www.mhalink.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&ContentID=11241&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

this is an ACTUAL cost of ACTUAL providers... and wages make up 66% of their costs of healthcare... supplies make up 25% of their healthcare costs... and "capital related" makes up 9% of their healthcare costs... so wages are a DOMINATING cost to healthcare, and not something to be dismissed as a trivial factor... its THEE factor...

(just view the FIRST chart on page 1 right towards the beginning for everything I just stated above, then please show me anything to backup your claim its only 20% cost)

I will await your documented proof from an actual medical group or organization, and not just some unsubstantiated editorialized article... show me a budget perhaps?

 

so more wacky claims that prices would fall 50% if government got out of healthcare... can you provide any math showing us how and why that 50% drop in cost comes to fruition, or just another asinine claim and example that can't be substantiated? wacky claims and percentages people make up are driving me nuts on this website... its like people think people will just accept their numbers without any proof to back up the claims... so please, by all means, demonstrate to me how healthcare drops 50% costs...

I'm all ears!