Coronavirus could be considered a preexisting condition if Obamacare is struck down

[Greenbeard]

Well, hell, I need to dig into this more. This being Ca. v Tx, I wonder what the GOP has in the case.... and why.
I'll get further into it.
Thanks G
good day atcha'

The lawsuit was brought by a group of Republican state attorneys general led by Texas. It was Texas v. Azar before reaching the SCOTUS but the Trump administration decided it agreed with the GOP AGs that pre-existing conditions should be brought back, declined to defend the ACA, and indeed has joined the GOP states to argue for tearing it down. So it fell to a group of states led by California (joined by the Dem-led House of Representatives) to defend the law from the Trump administration and the GOP states.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If your entire argument against universal healthcare is to point at poorly run county hospitals, that’s a non-starter. I can point to any number of poorly implemented government items that don’t work well due to lack of budgeting and resources too. The problem with county is that Americans should not have to pay for their healthcare, that we are currently underprioritizing those Americans in need is not proof that a system can’t work. That’s lazy.

I want *every* private healthcare company to go belly up. Every last one. Healthcare is a right.

Then you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

The most successful models combine:

1. Universal Single Payer NON-PROFIT Insurance for the vast bulk of medical care/prevention matters (this is funded through taxation);
   
   
2. supplementary Optional Multiple Payer Insurance for the remainder of medical care/prevention matters (this is funded through insurance premiums paid to for-profit insurance companies;
   
   and
   
   
3. a mix of for-profit and non-profit medical care providers.

By removing the expense of profits from the vast majority of healthcare insurance, the total costs of providing healthcare drops phenomenally.

However, keeping the profit incentive in the provision of actual healthcare services also keeps the incentive to become and remain efficiently operated with those services.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Then you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

The most successful models combine:

1. Universal Single Payer NON-PROFIT Insurance for the vast bulk of medical care/prevention matters (this is funded through taxation);
   
   
2. supplementary Optional Multiple Payer Insurance for the remainder of medical care/prevention matters (this is funded through insurance premiums paid to for-profit insurance companies;
   
   and
   
   
3. a mix of for-profit and non-profit medical care providers.

By removing the expense of profits from the vast majority of healthcare insurance, the total costs of providing healthcare drops phenomenally.

However, keeping the profit incentive in the provision of actual healthcare services also keeps the incentive to become and remain efficiently operated with those services.

No it doesn’t. Profit exists to be expanded. When it needs to be expanded, margins are increased. Increased margins equal service cuts.

Been there, done that.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's ridiculous that Canada, the UK, and most of Europe have free healthcare and the mighty US can't afford it. And don't pull out the ole "Our system is better" because nobody earning under $200K a year can afford private care. The costs are getting outrageous for just basic medical care.

I just got a colonoscopy done that cost a copay of $200 under a Medicare Advantage Plan and an MRI before that for another $200 copay. Two fairly simple tests that should've been covered completely under a gov subsidized insurance.

It is equally ridiculous that anyone thinks that the healthcare in Canada, the UK, and most of Europe is "free". The healthcare in the countries that do have universal health care (and that is primarily [but not exclusively] the "Developed Countries" [11 in Africa, 11 in North and South America combined, 14 in Asia, 26 in Europe, 2 in Oceania]) is paid for through taxation and/or compulsorary insurance premiums. Those countries are indicated in green

​

Admittedly not all of those universal healthcare systems are as successful as the US "Only Get The Conditions You Insured Against and We Feel Like Paying For" for-profit healthcare insurance system and the US "Only Get The Treatment That You Can Pay For" for-profit medical care provision system. But, for every one of them listed in this table

​

you stand a lower chance of dying (a combination of "chance of catching" and "chance of dying if you do catch") from COVID-19 than you do in the US.

When you also take a look at those countries' relative abilities to pay for fighting COVID-19 and/or relative per capita expenditures on their healthcare systems

​

you might start to wonder if the US is getting the "bang for the bucks" out of its healthcare system that it should be expecting to get.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I have at least two pre-existing conditions. I had no trouble being insured for them pre-Obamacare. I did pay a higher rate but that higher rate was much lower than when I was forced onto Obamacare. Do you have proof that the Coronavirus would be labeled pre-existing or is that just your biased claim to scare people? That's not what happened with most other viruses. I believe it is this week that Trump is signing an executive order that insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions. What are you going to do then?

I have some preexisting conditions as well and I do not pay any "higher rate" because of them. This is because I have been enrolled in the same healthcare plan (which cannot be cancelled) since I was born.

While Mr. Trump MIGHT be "signing an Executive Order that insurance companies have to cover preexisting conditions" I rather doubt that he actually has the legal authority to issue such an order that is of any legal effect whatsoever as insurance companies are regulated by their respective states.

On top of that, I doubt that Mr. Trump has the legal authority to order a state regulated insurance company to cover "Conditions A PLUS Condition B" for the same price as it covers "Conditions A alone".

IF the insurance companies ARE required to cover "Conditions A PLUS Condition B" for the same price as they cover "Conditions A alone", THEN there is a very simple solution and that is to raise the rates for everyone even if they have absolutely no chance of ever developing "Condition B".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

View attachment 67296142

New Findings Confirm Predictions on Physician Shortage

The United States will see a shortage of up to nearly 122,000 physicians by 2032 as demand for physicians continues to grow faster than supply, according to new

www.aamc.org

View attachment 67296142

So our current system is producing doctors is what you’re saying.

(Go ahead, tell me this is due to fear of M4A. youv’e made up a raft of shit up til this point, why stop now.)

Don't worry. The US will do what it has done for decades and that is to poach doctors from other developed countries. After all, it is one heck of a lot cheaper for the American taxpayer to have the taxpayers of some other country pay to educate a doctor than it is for American taxpayers to do it.

On the other hand, the situation does sort of remind me of the study that the government of Ontario did back in the late 1960s. It found that the "job death rate" (that's actually "how long does a person actually work at a job" and NOT "how often does someone die at work") for nurses was approximately 2.6 years but that the training program was 3 years long. That meant that the shortage was always going to increase unless something was done. The options were

1. build more training schools;
   
   or
   
   
2. get more efficient and train the nurses in less time.

The Ontario government chose Option 2.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No it doesn’t. Profit exists to be expanded. When it needs to be expanded, margins are increased. Increased margins equal service cuts.

Been there, done that.

When you are dealing with a single "customer" then the only way to compete is by lowering prices.

In business, this is known as "The Walmart Syndrome".

When you are required to produce certain levels of quality, it gets really difficult to sell your goods if they don't meet the quality standards.

You are looking at the situation from the "monopoly vendor" perspective, you should be looking at it from the "monopoly customer" perspective.

 

[grip]

It is equally ridiculous that anyone thinks that the healthcare in Canada, the UK, and most of Europe is "free". The healthcare in the countries that do have universal health care (and that is primarily [but not exclusively] the "Developed Countries" [11 in Africa, 11 in North and South America combined, 14 in Asia, 26 in Europe, 2 in Oceania]) is paid for through taxation and/or compulsorary insurance premiums. Those countries are indicated in green

Admittedly not all of those universal healthcare systems are as successful as the US "Only Get The Conditions You Insured Against and We Feel Like Paying For" for-profit healthcare insurance system and the US "Only Get The Treatment That You Can Pay For" for-profit medical care provision system. But, for every one of them listed in this table you stand a lower chance of dying (a combination of "chance of catching" and "chance of dying if you do catch") from COVID-19 than you do in the US.

When you also take a look at those countries' relative abilities to pay for fighting COVID-19 and/or relative per capita expenditures on their healthcare systems you might start to wonder if the US is getting the "bang for the bucks" out of its healthcare system that it should be expecting to get.

I guarantee that your workers are paid more and the extra taxes don't even come close to the cost of our medical system without insurance.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

When you are dealing with a single "customer" then the only way to compete is by lowering prices.

In business, this is known as "The Walmart Syndrome".

When you are required to produce certain levels of quality, it gets really difficult to sell your goods if they don't meet the quality standards.

You are looking at the situation from the "monopoly vendor" perspective, you should be looking at it from the "monopoly customer" perspective.

I don’t support for profit healthcare. I don’t think you being ignorant *and* condescending is going to change my opinion.

 

[Luce]

When you are dealing with a single "customer" then the only way to compete is by lowering prices.

In business, this is known as "The Walmart Syndrome".

When you are required to produce certain levels of quality, it gets really difficult to sell your goods if they don't meet the quality standards.

You are looking at the situation from the "monopoly vendor" perspective, you should be looking at it from the "monopoly customer" perspective.

What do you call it when prices go up and services go down?

Because private insurance is a sad joke.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What do you call it when prices go up and services go down?

Screwing the customer that doesn't have any alternative but to pay.

What do you call it when the customer demands you provide the quality of service they demand for the price they are prepared to pay under threat of going elsewhere where they will get the quality of service that they require for the price they are prepared to pay?

Because private insurance is a sad joke.

<SARC>How DARE you slight the very system that has made the US healthcare system the most outstanding healthcare system in the world and resulted in the US response to COVID-19 being better than that of any other country in the world</SARC>!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don’t support for profit healthcare. I don’t think you being ignorant *and* condescending is going to change my opinion.

There is a difference between "for profit healthcare insurance" and "for profit healthcare service".

The biggest issue is "for profit healthcare insurance" since it sucks money out of the system WITHOUT actually providing any "healthcare service".

Keeping the distinction clear in your mind tends to reduce levels of fuzzy thinking.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I guarantee that your workers are paid more and the extra taxes don't even come close to the cost of our medical system without insurance.

The average Registered Nurse salary in Canada is CDN$80,126 per year or $41.09 per hour.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that between May 2017 and May 2018, registered nurses brought in a median salary of US$71,730 per year.

I haven't adjusted the Canadian salary to US dollars since the Canadian RN wouldn't be spending their money in the US and the US RN wouldn't be spending their money in Canada. It might surprise you to learn that, for many things, the Canadian "shelf price" is the same in CDN$ as the US "shelf price: is in US$.

 

[grip]

The average Registered Nurse salary in Canada is CDN$80,126 per year or $41.09 per hour.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that between May 2017 and May 2018, registered nurses brought in a median salary of US$71,730 per year.

I haven't adjusted the Canadian salary to US dollars since the Canadian RN wouldn't be spending their money in the US and the US RN wouldn't be spending their money in Canada. It might surprise you to learn that, for many things, the Canadian "shelf price" is the same in CDN$ as the US "shelf price: is in US$.

My niece makes over $120,000 as an RN in Ontario, though she is the head nurse of an ER. The worst thing about socialized medicine, according to my Canadian sister, is the wait time for non-life-saving surgery.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

My niece makes over $120,000 as an RN in Ontario, though she is the head nurse of an ER. The worst thing about socialized medicine, according to my Canadian sister, is the wait time for non-life-saving surgery.

I recently had an "issue" that isn't all that uncommon with people of my age and gender. That issue can SOMETIMES be the precursor of something that MIGHT be "life threatening".

I received a medical consult within hours. I had the necessary blood chemistry work done within 24 hours of the consult (mainly because I couldn't get to the lab any faster). I received a "specialist consult" within seven days of the return of the blood chemistry results. I had the suggested ultrasound examination within seven days of the "specialist consult". I had the suggested followup MRI and CT scan within 14 days of the results of the ultrasound exam becoming available. Since the initial "issue" had NOT repeated itself after the first day, I consider that I received all of the suggested diagnostic procedures well within a reasonable time frame.

Would I have liked to have had them done faster? Sure - who wouldn't. Would I have liked to pay four times what the current rates are in order to satisfy my whims? Not a chance.