60 Minutes- Boehner and McConnell can't explain an ACA alternative plan

[SlevinKelevra]

I don't recall saying that I would put that money into stocks but rather mentioned a simple savings account FDIC secured, Over time I would have a few of them. You don't make foolish investments with your retirement income

You seem to judge everyone else by your own standards and beliefs giving people very little credit for making better choices than the govt. So tell me do you have any idea how much money you are going to get in an annuity or lump sum when you retire? Compare that to a simple interest savings account compounded annually for 35 years but then it would be your families money if you died prior to collecting. Do you have a problem with that?

How do you feel about the Federal Govt. using your retirement contribution to pay daily operating expenses of the govt?

Lololol. Nice rates on savings accounts. Interest compounding difficult?

 

[Conservative]

That quote was misleading. Easiest request I'll get all day!



That is a decent point, because effectively the SS system then and now is a transfer of sorts from the unhealthy to the healthy, and given the correlation between longevity/health and wealth, therefore from the poor to the wealthy. Black writers note this all the time - and also that SS was explicitly racist in the early days - carving out predominantly black occupations and excluding them from benefits. We've fixed the latter issues over time, but not the fact that blacks on average die early and so are far more often net contributors to SS.

But the observation about those who die before receiving benefits is just a reflection of SS functioning as old age insurance, and not a pension, especially not a defined contribution pension. Furthermore, the survivor benefits are substantial if the person who died before claiming benefits paid a great deal into the system. My mother in law collects a nice amount from SS and only worked a few very part time jobs in her life, but her deceased husband paid for a lifetime and she's living in part off his benefits. If you had died first, I assume your payment history would have qualified her for substantial SS benefits for the rest of her life.

You miss the point, if my wife had put her money into a savings account and coupled that with her employers, the money would have gone to the family and of course we couldn't have that, could we?

 

[Conservative]

I contact my representatives all the time. Usually I get a fundraising letter back - sometimes a canned letter written by an intern. I still do it.

As to why the Feds? Why not? The states didn't get it done, and there are structural reasons why it's difficult for states to solve this big a problem on their own. I'd go into them if I thought we'd have a conversation about it, but I'm thinking that's unlikely.



There is nothing government does that doesn't help some, hurt others.

And I can't believe you pulled out the "if you truly cared" card. LMAO. So if I truly cared I must agree with you?!!?? No, people who truly care often have disagreements about how to do things that all sides truly care about. No need to question my motives, and no need for me to question yours. We disagree, that's all, and neither has a crystal ball.

But for the record, the reason why I support a Federal solution is decades of history tells me states (and especially my state) won't solve the problem, no matter how many letters I write or calls I make. So because I truly care, I support options with an actual chance of succeeding in my lifetime, instead of relying on wishful thinking.

Decades of history shows an 18.2 trillion dollar debt, trillions in unfunded SS and Medicare liabilities, and cost overruns for programs that always cost more than intended, great intentions but failed results. Your state has an advantage like all states, they have term limits. Not so at the Federal level. IN addition states cannot print money therefore have to put into place cost effective programs. The federal govt. has no incentive to cut costs but it does have incentive to create voters.

 

[Dittohead not!]

.

That simply isn't true, local charities in my community do it all the time and I am involved so should know. Why don't charities pay for the military? Because the military is the responsibility of the govt. as defined in the Constitution





Europe is a continent of nations, not one nation. Individual nations, individual responsibilities, nice diversion or distortion. MA did it in this country so did Hawaii as have others. We don't need a national program to handle state and local responsibility issues. We have been over this


.

That is your opinion. Any idea how much money is require to generate a drug in this country and how much time it takes to get that drug approved? I have not heard that other countries have as sue happy society like we have but I have heard other countries having their citizens come here for healthcare.




Now there is a wonderful thought, single payer. Then what is next? A liberal dream world just like the EU that is bankrupt

More like the EU that pays about half as much as we do for health care.

 

[Conservative]

Lololol. Nice rates on savings accounts. Interest compounding difficult?

The history of savings accounts is much higher than it is today, suggest you do some research and interest always compounds

 

[Conservative]

More like the EU that pays about half as much as we do for health care.

Probably has a lot to do with Europeans coming here for healthcare and the high costs there

The Ugly Realities Of Socialized Medicine Are Not Going Away - Forbes

As for healthcare costs the grass is always greener on the other side until you get there

https://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/

 

[MAGAnificent]

You can't make Charlie pay. He doesn't have any money. What are you going to do, send him to debtor's prison?

Unless Charlie is blatantly destitute you certainly can make Charlie pay. The hospital would make every effort to work with Charlie....however if he just refuses to pay, they will turn it over to a collection agency. If you want to come off as credible on this issue, you need to work out that not everyone who walks into the ER without insurance gets a free ride. The vast majority of uninsured patients going to the ER end up paying their medical bills. They are not all dead beats.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Probably has a lot to do with Europeans coming here for healthcare and the high costs there

The Ugly Realities Of Socialized Medicine Are Not Going Away - Forbes

As for healthcare costs the grass is always greener on the other side until you get there

https://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/

europeans coming here, to the USA for medical care? Really?

Medical tourism destinations:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Healthcare seekers contemplating an affordable treatment overseas and looking for just the right destination should know that Canada, the United Kingdom, Israel, Singapore and Costa Rica have been ranked as the most attractive destinations for medical tourism in 2014, the International Healthcare Research Center announced today.

The Medical Tourism Index, which measures the attractiveness of a country for medical travel along three key dimensions and 34 underlying criteria, concluded that Canada topped the lists for "Country Environment" and "Medical Tourism Costs"; Costa Rica and Jamaica for "Destination Attractiveness"; and Israel and Singapore for "Medical Facility and Service."

They seem to have left off the USA as a top destination. Maybe they just forgot.

 

[MAGAnificent]

True, it's not much of a success story.

Neither is it the disaster that its detractors would like to claim it is.

It was a baby step forward, that's all it was. There is a lot of work to do yet.

It is multiple steps backward. It is a matter of millions being force to pay much more for the sake of the relatively few on subsidies. Not only does it not do anything whatsoever to address the cost of providing healthcare, it is further weakening medicare. The government now re-imburses doctors at a rate less then it costs to treat medicare patients.

 

[Conservative]

europeans coming here, to the USA for medical care? Really?

Medical tourism destinations:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Healthcare seekers contemplating an affordable treatment overseas and looking for just the right destination should know that Canada, the United Kingdom, Israel, Singapore and Costa Rica have been ranked as the most attractive destinations for medical tourism in 2014, the International Healthcare Research Center announced today.



They seem to have left off the USA as a top destination. Maybe they just forgot.

It does appear that you forgot the costs of healthcare and how they really aren't that much lower in Europe than here when you factor in all costs including wait time for services. Not sure they are lower at all there. Seems that you want to select what parts of the European System and what country in Europe you want to compare to the U.S. As we both have agreed the Federal Govt. is bloated and will not do a thing to lower costs because voters can be bought with access.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Unless Charlie is blatantly destitute you certainly can make Charlie pay. The hospital would make every effort to work with Charlie....however if he just refuses to pay, they will turn it over to a collection agency. If you want to come off as credible on this issue, you need to work out that not everyone who walks into the ER without insurance gets a free ride. The vast majority of uninsured patients going to the ER end up paying their medical bills. They are not all dead beats.

Making Charlie pay can be difficult. That's why some hospitals are requiring up front payments to use the ER:

Last year, about 80,000 emergency-room patients at hospitals owned by HCA, the nation’s largest for-profit hospital chain, left without treatment after being told they would have to first pay $150 because they did not have a true emergency.

Reducing Bad Debt

Hospital officials say the upfront payments are a response to mounting bad debt caused by the surge in uninsured and underinsured patients and to reduced reimbursements by some private and government insurers for patients who use the ER for routine care.

Of course, that's just routine care. No one is going to ask Charlie, broken and bleeding as he is from his motorcycle crash, to pay upfront. It's quite likely that the hospital will wind up with a bad debt as a result.

 

[JasperL]

Probably has a lot to do with Europeans coming here for healthcare and the high costs there

The Ugly Realities Of Socialized Medicine Are Not Going Away - Forbes

As for healthcare costs the grass is always greener on the other side until you get there

https://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/

I have to say I've rarely seen two article cited in the same place that are so different. Sally Pipe's article in Forbes is typical rw drivel.

But the second is a very nice look at the differences. Basically, we cover fewer, spend far more, visit the doctor less, spend less time in hospital, but die more frequently of treatable diseases. On the plus side, doctors are paid FAR more, which is great if you're a doctor. It's hard to find a more comprehensive indictment of our system versus those in the OECD.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It does appear that you forgot the costs of healthcare and how they really aren't that much lower in Europe than here when you factor in all costs including wait time for services. Not sure they are lower at all there. Seems that you want to select what parts of the European System and what country in Europe you want to compare to the U.S. As we both have agreed the Federal Govt. is bloated and will not do a thing to lower costs because voters can be bought with access.

One thing at a time. I was addressing your assertion that Europeans were coming to the US for medical care, which, we now know, is absurd.

As for the costs, let's see....

and for that, we're getting:

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view.

 

[Conservative]

I have to say I've rarely seen two article cited in the same place that are so different. Sally Pipe's article in Forbes is typical rw drivel.

But the second is a very nice look at the differences. Basically, we cover fewer, spend far more, visit the doctor less, spend less time in hospital, but die more frequently of treatable diseases. On the plus side, doctors are paid FAR more, which is great if you're a doctor. It's hard to find a more comprehensive indictment of our system versus those in the OECD.

Interesting I read it differently than you and don't find the European model one that I support. You obviously benefit from ACA but won't tell us how.

 

[JasperL]

Interesting I read it differently than you and don't find the European model one that I support.

I guess we have different priorities. FAR cheaper, universal access, more doctors, better results - all that sounds pretty good to me!

You obviously benefit from ACA but won't tell us how.

I told you how, you just didn't hear what you wanted to hear I guess.

 

[Conservative]

One thing at a time. I was addressing your assertion that Europeans were coming to the US for medical care, which, we now know, is absurd.

As for the costs, let's see....

and for that, we're getting:

Which of those countries has 312 plus million people, 50 sovereign states with independent budgets as well as different cost of living. We are never going to agree because those that want healthcare insurance at some time in their lives could have gotten it. Those that didn't aren't enough to justify ACA.

I believe in free enterprise and capitalism as well as the U.S. healthcare system just not the way the govt. controls it and costs that govt. puts on the industry.

 

[Conservative]

I guess we have different priorities. FAR cheaper, universal access, more doctors, better results - all that sounds pretty good to me!



I told you how, you just didn't hear what you wanted to hear I guess.

Far cheaper? You have no idea what healthcare costs in Europe and all the taxes that fund it. Guess that is what you want here. Still waiting for how you benefit from ACA and please stop with the bleeding heart liberal BS, I don't buy it. If you truly cared you would focus on ways to lower healthcare costs rather than create another entitlement program. That isn't going to happen is it?

 

[JasperL]

Far cheaper? You have no idea what healthcare costs in Europe and all the taxes that fund it. Guess that is what you want here. Still waiting for how you benefit from ACA and please stop with the bleeding heart liberal BS, I don't buy it. If you truly cared you would focus on ways to lower healthcare costs rather than create another entitlement program. That isn't going to happen is it?

You cited a comprehensive article about how MUCH cheaper it is in the OECD. :doh

And you're cracking me up on the other stuff. You ask how I benefit, I answer, you say you don't like my answer and bring out the "if you truly cared" you would agree with ME, card, AGAIN!

 

[jaeger19]

First of all, if you're going to make a claim like that it would be nice to see something that supports it. I don't know whether it's true or not, but it's a very expansive claim backed by nothing at this point.

Sure.. I have backed it up many times. The proof is in the pudding... most countries have two systems.. one for the rich.. and one for the poor... In America.. everyone uses the same healthcare system and the 85% have it even better.

And I'm not sure, but I think you'll point out that the government baseline plan - what is covered by taxes - is somewhat limited and individuals only get the good care if they come out of pocket. That's OK, because the amount out of pocket in those countries is FAR less than we spend. And they spend less on the government side. At any rate, it's impossible to evaluate systems without data, and you haven't provided any.

Bunk... sure its possible to evaluate.. and there is data to support what I state.. the problem is that you have to understand what the data states.. and that's the tricky part. Sure.. you go ahead and make the statement that "they spend less on the government side"... but guess what? That's largely not true... go find the data.. and yep you will see a study that shows that they pay less for healthcare... except what you don't see.. is the money that they spend on say educating physicians.. THAT is in another government expenditure.. You don't see the money that they spend on social programs that allow family members to stay home and take care of their parents (rather than have them in a hospital)... THAT cost isn't factored as Healthcare. You don't see that money that is spent in government programs that allow 30 hour work weeks, and vacation time, and early retirement... all things that reduce their cost of healthcare... but end up costing them in other government expenditures.

I get tired of liberals like you that have no idea what healthcare is about,, that have never spent time in other countries, or worked in them.. and don't understand the costs and business in healthcare talking out their butt. Especially guys that cry for data.. and then have nothing to add on their own.. and if they have data.. don't even understand it.

(And I don't like so called conservatives that do the same thing)

Again, I'm not sure how to respond with no data to back that claim up, especially because you're lumping in dozens of different healthcare systems. I'm sure their results vary dramatically, but you're giving us only a one sentence summary. But the bigger issue is you're pointing out a downside of these unnamed systems, but compared to what? It would be nice to compare, say, Germany to some actual alternative proposal, not "those other countries" to "alternative to be named later."

Bunk.. just another of your cop outs. When you want to discuss in generalities.. you talk about "every other industrialized nation has socialized medicine" and "other countries seem to"... when I point out the general flaws in such statements.. then you cry about the generalities.

I'll tell you what.. you tell me your plan.. pick the country with the healthcare system that you want to adopt.. its costs.. and ALL its costs including its social costs such as physician education.., take into account cultural differences like work hours, vacation hours. stress levels, obesity levels and retirement ages..

Go ahead and do that.. and I will critique your proposal. Love it see it really because JUST ONCE.. I would like to see you take an in depth look at the issue of healthcare.. rather than your rather flippant "well other countries" blah blah.

So here is your chance.. get to it.

 

[jaeger19]

Yes, the world is a big place, there are dozens of different healthcare systems, and they vary in how they pay for care, deliver care, number of doctors, etc. And I don't know what the point is about the U.S. government and the VA. What is our option except the government we have? You said on another thread you were considering running for office - how would you change the system to be more effective/efficient if not through elected officials?

What is the option except the government we have? How about not relying on the government but on free market solutions? Gee their is a crazy thought that doesn't enter the liberal head. So instead of putting ALL our eggs in a basket and hope that our dysfunctional government can develop a socialized plan and manage it effectively.. how about we create an environment that allows the free market to come up with a solution that works.

Yep.. I am considering running for office. Here is what I know... COULD I develop a cost efficient, government healthcare system that everyone.. and I mean everyone would love? (okay.. minus insurance executives).. Absolutely. And other than the politics of getting it in place.. actually the decisions aren't that hard. It would cost less per person, doctors would get paid more, there would be more choice etc (basically the money would come from the savings of cutting out the tremendous profits of the insurance companies. )..

So could I come up with this? Sure.. But here is what I know... I never WOULD want to come up with such a program.. and the reason is that experience has shown that we americans don't want to turn so much power over to the government particularly the federal government. Sure the program would work great while I was president... but then 8 years later..... now we have a Rick Perry in charge, or a Santorum or god forbid a Michell Bachman... and now suddenly we are using healthcare as a way to push a social agenda. Suddenly, my wife can't get a abortion because the government says that she only has a 40 percent chance of death...
Or now people with AIDS can't get medicine because "we aren't going to support the gay lifestyle"...

And that's not unlikely to happen.. Heck right now there is a prohibition on Medicaid and abortion.... and it has withstood democrat and republican congresses.

It's why it's so disappointing that when conservatives talk about healthcare, you can almost bet that the UK comes up, the VA comes up, and Canada. Why not Singapore. The system relies heavily on MSAs, with every procedure requiring an out of pocket expenditure. It might not work here because a key feature is sharing across an extended family and we have dispersed families in the U.S., but the idea of MSAs with those accounts 'filled' by taxpayers for the poor is incredibly market based. Why have no serious conservatives put that kind of proposal together, in serious form, and scored it, etc.? The answer is i don't think the GOP actually cares about solving the problem, unfortunately

Actually there is support for the idea of HSA plans which are close to MSA'sas they are sometimes called....

Here is an example from Culberson from texas:

Empowering families with tax-free Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are popular savings accounts that provide cost effective health insurance to those who might otherwise go uninsured. Letting families save more for health care expenses will encourage financial stability. House conservatives support improving HSAs by making it easier for patients with high-deductible health plans to use them to obtain access to quality care. We also support repealing the Affordable Care Act, which prevents the use of these savings accounts to purchase over-the-counter medicine.

Just to point out.. conservatives are not going to support the Singapore system since it is not a market based solution but relies heavily on a subsidized government plan coupled with extreme government intrusion into the healthcare market to artificially keep prices low.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

Lol. Hsas . Cute

 

[jaeger19]

You miss the point, I wouldn't have purchased the insurance policy as a retired elderly person, would have taken personal responsibility a long time prior. So rather than take my money, put it into a Medicare fund, have my employer do the same thing matching it, give the money to me and let me buy my own healthcare insurance or pay for my employer's private plan after I retired. How many years could I purchase with the Medicare dollars I and my employer have spent, all after I retired?

Where does personal responsibility rest in your world? States have a large number of plans available but you simply ignored those.

And you don't understand... NO YOU WOULD NOT HAVE GONE OUT AND BOUGHT YOUR OWN PLAN... and the reason is because it either didn't exist or because it would cost WAY WAY too much for you to afford. Go try to find a private primary policy now... certainly if it was financially viable their should be a plethora of plans out their that you could decide to put you money into NOW..

But you will find that their aren;t those plans because elderly people are not financially viable to insure with healthcare. Medicare only makes it because you pay your whole working life. Private insurance cannot do that.

You know how many years you could have purchased? Probably not more than two. because men at your age cost too dang much for an insurance company to insure.

I believe strongly in personal responsibility.. but personal responsibility doesn't create make elderly people fiscally viable to insure. States don't have a large number of plans for elderly people to buy as a primary plan.

 

[sangha]

So tell me Sangha, was I forced to contribute to Medicare and SS?? Was my employer forced to contribute on my behalf?

No one forced you to purchase and use Medicare. Your attempts to distract from your dishonest claim are destined for failure.

 

[Conservative]

And you don't understand... NO YOU WOULD NOT HAVE GONE OUT AND BOUGHT YOUR OWN PLAN... and the reason is because it either didn't exist or because it would cost WAY WAY too much for you to afford. Go try to find a private primary policy now... certainly if it was financially viable their should be a plethora of plans out their that you could decide to put you money into NOW..

But you will find that their aren;t those plans because elderly people are not financially viable to insure with healthcare. Medicare only makes it because you pay your whole working life. Private insurance cannot do that.

You know how many years you could have purchased? Probably not more than two. because men at your age cost too dang much for an insurance company to insure.

I believe strongly in personal responsibility.. but personal responsibility doesn't create make elderly people fiscally viable to insure. States don't have a large number of plans for elderly people to buy as a primary plan.

We have a country of over 312 million Americans, 42 million are uninsured, and you want to create a national universal healthcare plan for about15% of the population, many of whom can afford whatever it takes to pay their own way, many who don't want insurance because they are invincible, and none of those live in the same state with the same cost of living. No, it is you that doesn't get it

 

[Conservative]

No one forced you to purchase and use Medicare. Your attempts to distract from your dishonest claim are destined for failure.

No one purchases Medicare, you are forced to contribute to Medicare.