Why Repeal and Replace? Just Repeal!

And they or theirs likely benefit the most from social policies and programs. Hypocrites all!

 

Sometimes, it just isn't worth the trouble or the time. This time was one of them where it is best to just ignore stupid, and move on. Don't encourage it any further.

 

Maybe she wouldn't stop drinking and was excluded from being a candidate.

 

I think I placed two posters on ignore just this week. Funny, but when I looked at my ignore list many were banned from the forum altogether. So many trolls...especially since Trump and the Russians thing.

 

"Why Repeal and Replace? Just Repeal!"

because they woudl lose in 2018 if they did that, they have to replace it with something better like they promised

 

Tax the rich. Give us everything we want.

 

I don't care about their jobs.

 

Prior to 2010, that is EXACTLY what you had!

Didn't do a damn thing to stop premiums from rising into the double digits.

 

Not true in the Greatest State of California. ​

Even before MediCaid 1964.
A cancer patient would be managed with one of several medical schools.
Stanford. University of California San Francisco and L.A. Loma Linda.
Later joined by Medical Schools in Irvine, San Diego, Davis.
California's county hospitals were never "death houses". They were quality.

And this boys and girls is the difference between Progressive and Liberal.
California has always been a Progressive State.

Moi, M.D. ret.
UCSF class of '74
Volunteer L.A. County Hospital early sixties

 

why can a corp discriminate based on disabilities, one price for all

 

Yeah, HMO's, ......catastrophic only policies.
You are deluded.

 

Do you really think this is a problem that has a geographical component? You’re right, in 2007, nobody was waiting outside of an emergency room for healthcare. Care was extended. What you do not report is that having the emergency room as your primary physician is non tenable. Drug therapy is much cheaper than invasive procedures to remove inflamed organs, diseased tissue, etc… What you don’t also report is that resistance to paying that you illustrate is precisely what you were doing when your tax monies went to pay for the county trauma centers, the stamps to send bills out to those who receive care that you paid for, and the sure to fail collection efforts for those who cannot pay.

 

Is there any country on the planet where this has worked?

That's assuming everyone has the capability of buying insurance. Some people cannot afford it, either because they are low income or their preexisting conditions make it unaffordable. When health expenses are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the country, it is to everyone's better interest to get people coverage. It is to our own economic benefit to reduce the number of people who go bankrupt from healthcare expenses to 0.

 

I would love to reply, if I thought I understood your poetic twists & turns well enough.
Truly. I do have a reading problem. I did not read until age 13 and reading trouble ghoats come back in old age.

What I can respond to is -
1) Trauma Centers came late. And often failed such as Mission Community Hospital in Mission Viejo (south Orange County) California. A failure both in quality of care and financially to maintain a "ready" trauma team. It could be, as it occurs to me at this writing, the Trauma Centers represent the problem of government mandated vs market mandated? Y'think.

2) And a big "NO" to drug therapy is cheaper than removing diseased tissue, etc.
No, No, No.


Thank you.

Moi, M.D. ret.
I like both Doctor Pauls too.
They seem so clear to me.

 

We can all find horror stories to support our position on health care. Is single payer the answer? Why is the heart disease mortality rate 36% higher under Britain's National Health Service? Would American's accept the long wait times (ranked last) for health care under Canada's system. Being a veteran, can't think of anything worse than government health care as run by the VA. Is that what is proposed by Democrats? How can we design a health plan that covers all residents of the US when our open borders would attract even more people if guaranteed health coverage existed? Lot of question, no easy answers.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotta...ndalous-national-health-service/#2c30cce3136a
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/when-it-comes-to-waiting-canada-is-last-in-line-2/
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=621
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24455

 

It's The Billing System
I tell ya! ​

Seeking ways to fund a diseased health care system will continue to result in inadequate funding and the most expensive per capita health care system in the modern world.

The disease that first must be cured is a billing system based on procedures.

Consider the Cardiologist. We believe the Cardiologist should be reimbursed equally over time whether he is conducting a physical examination, teaching a patient about their disease and how to affects its' course toward a more positive outcome or threading a catheter into a coronary artery regardless of whether none, one, two or three stents are placed.

Curing a procedure based billing systems will no doubt help reduce the excessive amount Americans spend on health care. It will encourage doctors to be physicians and remove any procedure fee inducements.

As long as the American medical billing system rewards procedures, General Family Practice Primary Care physicians will remain very under compensated and an unattractive career goal for students who do have loans to pay off. It is not suggested all physicians' time should be equally compensated. Only that billing be based on time spent with a patient regardless of the activity during that time.

Author
Moi.
I had it in my files.


r > g

izm The problem, not the solution
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

You're right the dialysis thing is a misremembrance.

She did not have Medicare as she was 37 at the time and had applied for Medicaid but did not receive a determination before she died.

 

Yeah, it's called Obamacare.

 

My experience over the last dozen or so years is usually seeing a nurse practitioner or a PA before seeing the cardiologist surgeon just before and just after surgery for stents, with followups by the NP. On the other hand, for thoracic surgery for an abdominal aneurysm, I just dealt with the surgeon because you need to have it fixed ASAP.

 

Disabilities that a person is born with should not be considered, besides if the disabilities are severe they will be on government disability anyway.

Disabilities that were incurred due to an accident while the person was not insured is tricky. If they are disabled they will also be on disability.

 

Agreed, please note my question. How many didn't have that could have; not couldn't get. As for the bankruptcy, I agree it's a problem, but why only help people with medical? Why not bankruptcy due to job loss, poor money management, bad investment.....and so on. I don't mean to sound heartless, but people are having troubles all over for all kinds of reasons and there are programs to help most of them through private and public programs. Why do all people have to help with this one and only one?

 

Maybe because getting an emergency gall bladder removed, with complications, or a crippling fall from a ladder -- or a heart attack that can send someone (who survives) into the poor house, isn't quite the same as poor money management or bad investments.

Ya think?

 

If you think a bottle of pills is going to costs more than a surgeon, anesthesiologist, the drugs they use, a nursing staff, post-op pain management etc... you have much more severe shortcomings in understanding the debate than a reading problem. I'd like to think you're kidding.

 

Why is bankruptcy from healthcare more important? because in the US it is the #1 cause of bankruptcy. We have the ability to eliminate the primary cause of bankruptcy in our country, which is something that many nations have already accomplished. There is an economic case for why we need to expand healthcare coverage, and that is that not having coverage is costly.. for all of us. Economically speaking, eliminating the #1 cause of bankruptcy is to our own benefit.

Now the assumption is that going down this course means asking for more of our citizens' hard earned money to fund such a program.. but this is not nessisarily true. There are two methods that have been used in many countries that have both accomplished universal healthcare coverage that have also required less funds per capita than what we are already paying in the US.

1. Is single payer healthcare, this is where the government creates a single trust fund, and then that trust fund is then used as an insurance provider for all citizens in that country. While this method would require an additional source of tax revenue to fund, the tax that people pay is actually significantly cheaper than what people are currently paying in premiums. The private sector still remains an option for those who wish to buy insurance from private insurance companies. Some economic analysis have shown this course being over half a trillion dollars cheaper than our current system. http://tu9srvbirvvtocr3d3cuzg9sbgfyc2fuzhnlbnnllm9yzw00.g00.ign.com/g00/2_d3d3Lmlnbi5jb20=_/TU9SRVBIRVVTOCRodHRwOi8vd3d3LmRvbGxhcnNhbmRzZW5zZS5vcmcvYXJjaGl2ZXMvMjAxMi8wMzEyZnJpZWRtYW4ucGRm_$/$/$/$

2. Is the insurance mandate. This is a system that is closer to what we currently have in the US, only in every nation that has used this method to accomplish universal coverage, all mandated healthcare plans are non-profit. The insurance companies do not profit off of the healthcare plans that people are mandated into buying, they may only profit off of the supplemental plans. This works more efficiently, as any additional revenue gained through the standard healthcare plans ends up having to go into covering more people. This allows for us to cover more people at a lower cost.

These are the only two methods that other nations have used to accomplished universal coverage, and in some countries they have combined the two methods to achieve universal coverage. Again, this may seem costly, but it is actually more cost efficient than what is currently being used in the US.