Kasich Steps up to the Plate

[MAGAnificent]

It is my understanding that several Govs are concerned about this bill, as they should be.
Passing a bill that is worse than the ACA will backfire on them and sink the GOP for sure. No doubt about it.
They shouldn't pass this monstrosity because the want to overturn ACA, they should do it to improve our HC system. They can't play with people's lives.
Again, this is a sink or swim for Republicans. If they pass a good bill, they will be the heroes. If they pass nonsense, they might as well pack their bags.

Anything that gets rid of the insanely stupid Obamacare mandates and loses the "one size fits all" approach is a vast improvement over Obamacare. Obamacare is the most piece of sh*t legislation passed in my lifetime. Having said that, I do not like the GOP bill in it's present form and hope it will be improved. I do not see it as a complete repeal of Obamacare. For instance, if they go the one size fits all approach on "pre-existing conditions", we will never really see affordable healthcare. Expecting insurance providers to provide that for all without significantly inflating everyone's premiums is like going liability only on your automobile, then having a wreck that totals your and then adding collison and comprehensive and asking your auto insurance provider to cover it even though it occurred before you were covered. I do not have a problem with the government telling health insurance providers that they must offer pre-existing condition coverage as an option, however it should not be forced on every policy. It should be offered at additional cost. I also do not agree with the concept of a 30% penalty on rates for those who let insurance lapse. Until the cost of healthcare is brought down to an affordable range, such penalties will be counter-productive. We should not punish people for going without insurance, when the reason they are going without is related to affordability.

 

[yankintx]

of course he's worried about it. he's governor, and his state needs medicaid. when they start kicking people off of it out of necessity, guess who those people will blame first?

The Mass Gov has said almost the exact same thing. Another trump empty promise.

 

[MAGAnificent]

never mind the data? ok, then.

as for the US track record, we should have enacted national healthcare when Truman tried to do it. it would be the status quo by this point, and only an extreme fringe would be fighting it. instead, we're still largely operating under the WWII model, which only exists because there was a wage freeze, and health insurance as a benefit was a way to get around it.

If we had.....we would be in pretty sad shape health coverage wise by now. removing the profit motive from providing healthcare simply shrinks the amount of available healthcare. That includes doctors, equipment, and hospital beds. I respectfully understand your preference for single payer, I just believe it would be a good product. It would lead to rationing and long waiting periods. as well as much less innovation.

 

[MAGAnificent]

The real goal is not to improve Healthcare. The real goal is to help Trump fulfill his campaign promise to repeal and replace the ACA.

Or we could let the ACA collapse on it's own. It's in a death spiral now. Ofcourse Trump promised to repeal and replace it. Why wouldn't he follow through on that promise?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Or we could let the ACA collapse on it's own. It's in a death spiral now. Ofcourse Trump promised to repeal and replace it. Why wouldn't he follow through on that promise?

And the GOP would be to blame for letting the healthcare system collapse.

 

[sear]

#153

a) Obamacare was wildly derided by Republican critics when they were the staunch and resolute "party of NO!"

But not they actually realize they have to try to produce something: it's quite a different story.

“... you're seeing an incredible increase in premiums on Americans. Obamacare has failed. We're going to repeal it. But at the same time we're gunna pass the kind of legislation that will lower the cost of health insurance without growing the size of government. I would anticipate in the first hundred days that uh we'll deliver on that promise to the American People.” VP Elect Pence 17/01/15 on FNS

“I'm not gunna cut Medicare or Medicaid. Every other Republican's gunna cut.” candidate Trump on The Daily Signal 15/05/21

“Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” President Trump

b) Hurling tens of millions of U.S. citizens off healthcare may merely send them back to the healthcare provider of last resort, hospital emergency rooms; which provide the most expensive healthcare in the country.

So in Majority Leader McConnell's (R-KY) ostentatious display of cost cutting, per patient costs may actually $increase.

Interestingly, it's widely reported that few if any healthcare organizations support either the house or senate healthcare plan.

 

[Helix]

If we had.....we would be in pretty sad shape health coverage wise by now. removing the profit motive from providing healthcare simply shrinks the amount of available healthcare. That includes doctors, equipment, and hospital beds. I respectfully understand your preference for single payer, I just believe it would be a good product. It would lead to rationing and long waiting periods. as well as much less innovation.

innovating new products that help people to not die will always be a money maker even if we decide not to bankrupt some people for experiencing a significant medical event.

 

[sear]

#157

No need to fly blind here.
The U.S. is at the back of the pack on national healthcare.

We already KNOW that there are better systems with:
- lower per patient costs
- lower per procedure costs
- better patient outcomes, including better treatment results with longer survival rates.

Yet political ideologues in the U.S. battle improvements tooth & nail because it offends their private sector / profit motive aesthetic.

 

[jaeger19]

innovating new products that help people to not die will always be a money maker even if we decide not to bankrupt some people for experiencing a significant medical event.

Actually no its not always a money maker. Not at all.

In fact. that's one reason that a lot of medical innovations get there start in the US because in the US its likely a money maker unlike other countries under single payer.

 

[jaeger19]

#157

No need to fly blind here.
The U.S. is at the back of the pack on national healthcare.

We already KNOW that there are better systems with:
- lower per patient costs
- lower per procedure costs
- better patient outcomes, including better treatment results with longer survival rates.

Yet political ideologues in the U.S. battle improvements tooth & nail because it offends their private sector / profit motive aesthetic.

Except that's not actually true. The us is actually at the front of the pack when it comes to almost all countries when it comes to healthcare. In fact.. when it comes to quality of care and effectiveness of care we are in the top 5.. or even top 3 in the world.

As far as survival rates.. you might want to check out europes cancer survival rates with the US survival rates.

 

[jaeger19]

Anything that gets rid of the insanely stupid Obamacare mandates and loses the "one size fits all" approach is a vast improvement over Obamacare. Obamacare is the most piece of sh*t legislation passed in my lifetime. Having said that, I do not like the GOP bill in it's present form and hope it will be improved. I do not see it as a complete repeal of Obamacare. For instance, if they go the one size fits all approach on "pre-existing conditions", we will never really see affordable healthcare. Expecting insurance providers to provide that for all without significantly inflating everyone's premiums is like going liability only on your automobile, then having a wreck that totals your and then adding collison and comprehensive and asking your auto insurance provider to cover it even though it occurred before you were covered. I do not have a problem with the government telling health insurance providers that they must offer pre-existing condition coverage as an option, however it should not be forced on every policy. It should be offered at additional cost. I also do not agree with the concept of a 30% penalty on rates for those who let insurance lapse. Until the cost of healthcare is brought down to an affordable range, such penalties will be counter-productive. We should not punish people for going without insurance, when the reason they are going without is related to affordability.

When they go without it decreases affordability.

If you want affordable healthcare.. or affordable to everyone..


Then you need to have everyone on insurance.

Or let people die in the street... and even you aren't going to let that happen.

So as long as you are going to demand that 9 year old without health insurance with acute appendicitis get treated in my hospitals despite ability to pay... that cost is going to get passed on to everyone else. Which increases premiums.

 

[Helix]

Actually no its not always a money maker. Not at all.

In fact. that's one reason that a lot of medical innovations get there start in the US because in the US its likely a money maker unlike other countries under single payer.

innovation wouldn't dry up if the US adopted a system more similar to the rest of the first world. healthcare is an essential service with inelastic demand. someone will find a way to make money off of it no matter how efficient we make the system.

 

[jaeger19]

innovation wouldn't dry up if the US adopted a system more similar to the rest of the first world. healthcare is an essential service with inelastic demand. someone will find a way to make money off of it no matter how efficient we make the system.

If the r

Yes it would. So what if healthcare is an essential service? So what?

A company is not going to spend 9 million dollars.. to develop a life saving drug/procedure that save the life of say 1000 people a year.. if they cannot get their money back because those 1000 people a year don't have a means to pay for it.

That's why we have so much innovation here or start of innovation here.. and that's because our system is WILLING to pay 100,000 for a drug or procedure that saves those 1000 people a year.. our system is willing to pay for the extremes in needed care.

Single payer systems in general are NOT willing to pay for those treatments for those outliers. That in part is how they get such savings.

now when the procedure gets more efficient and costs drop? Then European countries will approve the procedure.

now in some instances.. because a company can get 100,000 in the US.. they are willing to accept say 10,000 in a European single payer system.. because the numbers work out for them. but without the US paying that higher price.. its not feasible for them to accept it at 10,000. So without the US basically subsidizing the treatment for Europe.. the treatment would not get developed.

 

[Helix]

If the r

Yes it would. So what if healthcare is an essential service? So what?

A company is not going to spend 9 million dollars.. to develop a life saving drug/procedure that save the life of say 1000 people a year.. if they cannot get their money back because those 1000 people a year don't have a means to pay for it.

That's why we have so much innovation here or start of innovation here.. and that's because our system is WILLING to pay 100,000 for a drug or procedure that saves those 1000 people a year.. our system is willing to pay for the extremes in needed care.

Single payer systems in general are NOT willing to pay for those treatments for those outliers. That in part is how they get such savings.

now when the procedure gets more efficient and costs drop? Then European countries will approve the procedure.

now in some instances.. because a company can get 100,000 in the US.. they are willing to accept say 10,000 in a European single payer system.. because the numbers work out for them. but without the US paying that higher price.. its not feasible for them to accept it at 10,000. So without the US basically subsidizing the treatment for Europe.. the treatment would not get developed.

the demand for health care will always be high even if we choose to provide the service more efficiently. innovation won't cease to exist.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Canadians pay OUT OF POCKET or have to have private plans for pharmaceuticals.

Medicaid pays for it.

If you're on Medicaid. That still doesn't make it free. Someone pays.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Or we could let the ACA collapse on it's own. It's in a death spiral now. Ofcourse Trump promised to repeal and replace it. Why wouldn't he follow through on that promise?

Because neither he nor the Republican Congress has a clue as to what to replace it with.

 

[Hawkeye10]

If you're on Medicaid. That still doesn't make it free. Someone pays.

In theory.....back during the late 90's there were more than a few folks arguing that generational warfare debt is free money, that it will never be paid back.

If we charge it to the kinds and grandkids charge card will it ever get Paid in Full ?

My son assures me that his generation has no intention of paying it either.

Maybe nobody pays?

 

[MAGAnificent]

And the GOP would be to blame for letting the healthcare system collapse.

Which is why they are seeking to repeal it and replace it. I am not yet sure I will like the bill they end up passing, however they will certainly pass something superior to the so-called Affordable Healthcare Act.

 

[MAGAnificent]

innovating new products that help people to not die will always be a money maker even if we decide not to bankrupt some people for experiencing a significant medical event.

There will be very little innovation if we take the profit motive out of healthcare.

 

[prometeus]

It's odd that democrats and RINOs criticize that method when pretty much everything the democrats did to get Obamacare passed was one sided. Therir message was "Our way or the highway".

So it is OK for the GOP to be total assholes because others before them were also? What an asshole excuse.

 

[prometeus]

You mean make our healthcare worse with single payer? Why don't you value your health more than that?

All developed nations with single payer systems have healthier populations, but do not let facts divert you from partisan talking points.

Next you face the issue of doctors simply not taking it along with drug companies.

Yes because there are no doctors in the countries with single payer systems and the good ones are out of work...

So what do you do then?

Stick with reality not ignorant talking points.

Other single payer systems doctors are employees of the state that doesn't work here in the US.

Bull crap.

 

[MAGAnificent]

When they go without it decreases affordability.

If you want affordable healthcare.. or affordable to everyone..


Then you need to have everyone on insurance.

Or let people die in the street... and even you aren't going to let that happen.

So as long as you are going to demand that 9 year old without health insurance with acute appendicitis get treated in my hospitals despite ability to pay... that cost is going to get passed on to everyone else. Which increases premiums.

Mandating that everyone is enrolled in healthcare certainly blew up any concept of affordability in regards to Obamacare. Forcing everyone on healthcare only manages to create a captive customer base, which removes any real incentive for the health insurance providers to seriously compete. The one size fits all approach also blows up affordability. If people were allowed to buy as much or as little insurance as they want, the rates would stabilize and fall. Same with pre-existing conditions. It should not be forced onto every policy. It should be offered as an option available for additional cost at least initially. And there are other ways to make health insurance affordable. Removing the bans on selling individual plans across state lines would spur competition. Tort reform would be helpful. The government should ease up on the restrictings on Health Savings Accounts. And concierge healthcare would be helpful for many. As for your 9 year old appendicitis example, when I was 9 years old, health insurance was only needed for catastrophic issues. That's what we need to get back to.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Because neither he nor the Republican Congress has a clue as to what to replace it with.

Try a bit of objectivity. Wait and see what they pass. It may not be perfect. I may not even like it. However it will be vastly superior to Obamacare with has clearly been a disaster.

 

[Helix]

There will be very little innovation if we take the profit motive out of healthcare.

no one argued for completely removing the profit motive. i'm arguing that this isn't the best way to do it :

 

[MAGAnificent]

So it is OK for the GOP to be total assholes because others before them were also? What an asshole excuse.

So from that, can I assume that you agree that the Obama and the democrats were assholes in regards to Obamacare?