Replacing the Affordable Care Act

It should have never been implemented. Nobody wanted it other than Dems. You guys own it...Your plan turned into one of our Nations' worst nightmares. Thanks again. (as usual)

 

I'll let you run the figures, but 75B$ (HC Cost 1970) is about 2% of the expected 2021 (near 5T$) cost and other than Government, there is no logical economic reason for the increases and wages certainly have not grown 5,000%.

It's not the answer, but without Government intervention, especially as regulated, few people could afford any HC, even office calls, which would force Clinics and such to lower prices. Around here and probably on the lower level...an office call runs $140-$160, with an average patient cost well under 20.00, mine 16.00 and those on Medicare ===0===. This is true for most test and treatments. The HC Industry to even exist would be forced to reduce prices.

 

so you want me to do all your homework for you to support your wacky and outrageous claims?

you realize I clearly am saying your claims are bull(*)(*)(*)(*), so how could I ever prove them when clearly I wholeheartedly disagree with them... the onus is on your to backup and justify your claims, clearly you just picked a random 50% number out of the air and now YOU can't demonstrate what you said to be accurate or factual, I'm just supposed to trust you and assume your opinion that has no facts to back it up will come to be? you see the difference between us, I supported my claims, you did not support yours...

"trust me, healthcare spending will fall by 50% if government gets out of healthcare, but I can't prove that, I just think it'll have to happen"... see how stupid that sounds?

 

With millions uninsured and healthcare costs soaring, Romney first promoted and enacted the "individual mandate" approach It was embraced by the conservative Heritage Foundation and praised by tea party star Jim DeMint as "something we should do for the whole country!"

I viewed the nationalization of RomneyCare as inadequate from the start, but Republicans have offered nothing serious since despite their controlling both houses of Congress.

Public opinion is what it is:

"The federally funded system wins among this group by a 2-to-1 ratio, 64% to 32%, meaning this system garners the most support among the initial favor/oppose questions and wins when those who like both approaches are forced to choose.... 27% of Americans say they favor repealing the ACA and say they favor replacing it with a federally funded system. This means the group of Americans in this survey who favor the law's repeal.. includes some who apparently want the ACA repealed to replace it with an even more liberal system... Only 22% of Americans say they want the ACA repealed and do not favor replacing it with a federally funded system."​

I have no idea who your "you guys" are, but the objective reality is that reform was desperately needed, RomneyCare was passed into law by Democrats, and Republicans have legislated nothing to replace it.

I don't think they can continue to ignore the American public, regardless of whatever dogma hardcore ideologues spout.

 

It always has mattered. Public opinion is dead set against the individual mandate, but also very favorable to the placing a child but not being claimed as a dependent until age 27, getting rid of pre-existing conditions, etc.

 

every american citizen should have health insurance.

the financial consequences of not having it, can be disastrous.

bankruptcy, losing your home, losing your car, losing your life.

 

If the Republicans were smart, and so far that they have not demonstrated that attribute yet, the GOP would say we can modify ACA to make it better and get rid of the issues plaguing the system. This would include getting rid of the individual mandate, keep in place all the positive provisions such as eliminating pre-existing conditions and allowing children up to age 27 to be placed on health insurance. The GOP could get rid of state barriers and make health insurance from a group policy standpoint to a individual standpoint while increasing competition in the sector while removing state barriers.

- - - Updated - - -

Even with health insurance, certain medical diagnosis does cause a person to go into bankruptcy and lose their home. It is a catastrophic event like cancer, for instance.

 

Compare to the following scenario.
You have a drug that you need and there are barriers to entry to prevent foreign drugs, that are just as effective while cheaper, from entering the United States. Since the government gave me, the company, the power to choose the price, your cost is $75000 per dose. Without it, you die and you are not rich enough to go and live in a place like Costa Rica or France to get the cheaper drug.

Who do you think wins that scenario?

 

Who do you think the insurance companies are supporting now? The GOP because of those big tax breaks that Republicans want to give.

- - - Updated - - -

When it comes to health expenditures, there is no supply and demand. Companies dictate the price and know exactly what people are willing to pay for despite the fact that many doctors do not want the new drugs but are forced anyway through the insurance contracts.

 

Replacing Obamacare sounds so much nicer.

 

Because the VA system works so good?

 

I agree, but it shouldn't be where money is taken from from the middle class by force to benefit the urban poor. Obama's favourite thing to do in his war on the middle class.

Trump will work something better out.



.

 

You have offered one self-serving study by a hospital association, and I would need to compare it to the findings of other interest groups.

I had recalled the findings of Uwe Reinhardt, the professor of political economy at Princeton whose career has been dedicated to the subject.

After a brief perusal, I found this:

He had written that "... cutting doctors’ take-home pay would not really solve the American cost crisis. The total amount Americans pay their physicians collectively represents only about 20 percent of total national health spending. Of this total, close to half is absorbed by the physicians’ practice expenses, including malpractice premiums, but excluding the amortization of college and medical-school debt.

This makes the physicians’ collective take-home pay only about 10 percent of total national health spending. If we somehow managed to cut that take-home pay by, say, 20 percent, we would reduce total national health spending by only 2 percent, in return for a wholly demoralized medical profession to which we so often look to save our lives. It strikes me as a poor strategy.

Physicians are the central decision makers in health care. A superior strategy might be to pay them very well for helping us reduce unwarranted health spending elsewhere."​

I am unaware of the relative salaries of healthcare workers within the context of income differentials in general among advanced nations. if you can provide a link, I'd like to read it.

Reinhardt had identified administrative costs as the primary reason that US costs are so much higher that Europe's:

Reinhardt criticized the United States for spending 24% of every health care dollar on administration, and pointed out that Canada spends less than half of the U.S. amount and Taiwan spends significantly less than Canada. Reinhardt faulted the seeming U.S. preference for an unwieldy "mishmash of private insurance plans" for the inefficiency.[12] He said if the U.S. could spend half as much on administration, it would save more than enough money to cover all the uninsured."​

 

Like a single payer system? He has advocated that you know, this year.

 

"Something", no doubt.

What?

- - - Updated - - -

That would reflect the prefence of Americans, but he'll need to first provide specifics.

 

That's certainly a possibility.

The important thing is to benefit all Americans equally, unlike Obama's shaft the middle class to help the urban poor.

 

A single payer system is not going to work in this country. What will happen is that barriers between states will be repudiated. There is really no difference in health care in NC or California. The difference is who accepts payment. Having uniformity of what a health insurance contract with standardization of insurance code and payments with no excessive overcharges outside of the insurance policy would go a long way. The allowance would be more transparent with definitive numbers instead of percentages.

 

you're citing a SINGLE employee in the entire equation... the PHYSICIAN alone accounts for 20% of the cost, you also have the nurse, the person at the window greeting you, the people behind the scenes doing the paperwork... you have SOOOO much more than that ONE employee in the equation, WHICH IS WHY ITS 66% OF THE COST...

you are seriously being deceptive or ignorant, at this point I'm not sure which one... I mean you're clearly trying to dismiss an UNBIASED study released by the VERY people running the healthcare, the actual association representing all these hospitals divulging the costs its very members have!!!! you seriously just want to fight and fuss because you got caught stating something that is factually inaccurate, and now you're rejecting UNBIASED proof showing you what an entire association is experiencing...

all because you can't stand someone else provided relevant proof documenting the costs... this is why this website annoys the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of me... people like you who reject anything factual from clearly a reputable source, all because it doesn't fit the made up numbers you used, that you can't even substantiate now, and when you tried to, clearly we can reject your source since it only shows ONE employees cost, which accounts for 100% of the total number you cited... your own proof defeats your claims..

P.S. *******n why don't you just acknowledge "wow I wasn't aware it accounted for that much of the cost, thats something to think about"...

 

I don't think it would be possible. If Trump is President, the GOP is not going to pass a single payer system. Not in this lifetime that is. Trump will find out exactly how little power he has as president and no executive order will save him either. What Trump will do, however, is spin the information so much that lies are truth and truth are lies with the general, ignorant public believing him like a continuous reality TV show.

 

No, the entire time the MAJORITY of doctors consistently opposed Obamacare and still do to this day and in fact the more its implemented the less popular it becomes with physicians. This isn't semantics this is fact.

You want good health care then let hospitals and physicians set up their own networks and then the patients can pay them DIRECTLY instead of going through insurance companies. The only thing insurance should be for is for catastrophic stuff that is really expensive like surgeries. That is how every other insurance from auto to home works. Your auto insurance doesn't cover oil changes nor does you homeowners insurance cover your cleaning service. Consierge medicine without insurance and especially without government involvement is not only better with more doctor to patient face time, more relaxed doctors who aren't stressing about paperwork (which you would think would lead to better care), but its also have the cost of what you pay for the same care with insurance.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/220715-why-doctors-give-obamacare-a-failing-grade

 

Gee, go check the Republican plans that are out there you'll find most of that is in there in one form or the other.

 

Most of the Republican plans do not account for the increase in Medicaid. In fact, they call for either the elimination of Medicaid or reducing it significantly, like Ryan's plan for instance. So far, the GOP have either proposed repealing it altogether with no alternative, like Ted Cruz's plan, or repealing and keeping everything in place except for birth control or increase in Medicaid, the infamous group of 5 for instance.

There was the Utah plan that conservatives could have used, but they ignored that when the debate started.

 

This statement just show how ignorant you are on this topic. Go away. Insurance companies like most major corporate entities give money to both sides almost equally. They will donate the big bucks to whomever is in office at the time or did you forget that Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate? As a whole right now the GOP has far more seats and thus more donations but if you go back and look at when Dems had the majority such as the early 90s then they are almost equal.

Hillary Clinton has received twice as much money as the next biggest recipient Ted Cruz this election cycle.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=f09

If you look at the graphs you can see that just before Obamacare was passed there was an large increase to the Democrats because they wanted it passed. After it levelled off and now there is a large increase to the GOP in an attempt to stop them from repealing or gutting the ACA.

 

I've been saying for years that once the predicted failure of FullRetardCare becomes fully evident, Leftists will claim that more government is what's needed to fix the problems that more government created in the first place.

It's the definition of "progressive" insanity writ large...

 

Medicaid and Medicare are bureaucratic nightmare that causes nearly as many problems as it solves.