Repeal and Replace - OUR CURE

[274ina]

70% of the people in this nation are satisfied with their health care. Single Payer changes that, and since congress and the elites have already shown how easy it would be for them to exempt themselves from such a plan its a mistake. It is also unnecessary. Please read my link and you'll see why.

Before obama care we had problems to resolve. Uninsured. Extremely high national costs. Denial of insurance to those with pre existing conditions. The link, "Our Cure" solves them - all and without the need for a single payer system for the whole country.

70% are about to get dumped. 70% will be banned from HC for life when they get "expensive".

50 million have NO HC.

the rest have FAKE HC.

Single payer works in every other nation.

What other nation uses CEO care?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I hope the Republicans will stand up to obama and repeal his 2700 pages of regulation and taxation. To do so though they must come up with a reasoned alternative and they've been chastised properly for not having one. I'll give them one:

OUR CURE

2 simple pages plus a 3rd Q&A, a real solution, real jobs, and none of this hyperbole from DC.

If there was a law that required me to punch you in the face every day; and there was discussion of repealing that law, what new law must be proposed, to replace the one being repealed? Surely you wouldn't want to repeal that first law, without there being something to replace it, would you?

 

[CalGun]

The replacement law would require you to

a) Wear a glove or
b) Duck in case I hit back

If there was a law that required me to punch you in the face every day; and there was discussion of repealing that law, what new law must be proposed, to replace the one being repealed? Surely you wouldn't want to repeal that first law, without there being something to replace it, would you?

 

[Rainman05]

 

[Threegoofs]

LOL. The "Our Cure" reads like Herman Cains 9-9-9 plan.

Fantasy.

 

[jaeger19]

I'm for repeal and replace, as long as we replace it with single payer.

You really really don't want single payer.

 

[jaeger19]

Actually if you read it - you would notice the networks would incorporate all public facilities except VA's. Maybe you live in some weird place that doesn't have city, county or state hospitals but we got all kinds of them around here. Always underfunded, always unable to care for people, and always a burden on society - time to put them to use for the public good.

Its not a take over of the health care system at all, its a separation that enables the 70% who enjoy a private system to continue doing so; a 70% that already pays for those without insurance by sharing their emergency rooms with them and getting stuck with the bill.

The proposal can't impact technology costs - nothing can - but it can impact labor costs. It does too. I suspect a lot of people in the industry like labor shortages and don't mind them so they can always earn more, but its time the tax payer fought back and put more people into the labor field to reduce our costs.

I read it..

Most places DO NOT.. have public facilities. Especially rural areas. And those that have public networks are not going to under a federal system. In fact, its a reason why they don't have a lot of federal facilities.. because the Federal system doesn't care to much about states that don't have as many electoral votes.

Second, it places a tax.. a percentage tax by the way, on healthcare insurance. That means the more expensive your healthcare insurance.. the more you pay in tax. This puts greater pressure on people that already are having difficulty paying for their healthcare. Likely pushing more and worse sicker people on to a public system.

Third. reimbursements to providers are already shrinking. this has caused more physicians and providers to get out of the medical field or to simply go to work for someone. The tax on reimbursements will speed up this process.

 

[jaeger19]

While I do not oppose a single payer system, the best in-between would be to fold all government healthcare into a single system and also allow the private policies. It is quite ridiculous to have multiple federal systems even with Obamacare. Consolidating medicare, medicaid, VA, etc into a single system would make it harder for providers to cherrypick certain types of patients over others and create uniformity in benefits. This isn't about providing healthcare to the poor--it is all about maximizing healthcare profits. It is why medical providers fought Hillarycare but not Obamacare--well at least until it was too late and they realized that corporate medicine was about to screw small private practice providers.

Just to point out.. that I cannot treat Medicaid patients and have a profit. The reimbursement combined with the billing and compliance issues are too high. I can basically break even on a VA patient and I see them as a duty for their service. Medicare barely makes a profit.

If you were to do as you say.. you would have two systems.. what the wealthiest have.. and then everyone else.

 

[Fisher]

Just to point out.. that I cannot treat Medicaid patients and have a profit. The reimbursement combined with the billing and compliance issues are too high. I can basically break even on a VA patient and I see them as a duty for their service. Medicare barely makes a profit.

If you were to do as you say.. you would have two systems.. what the wealthiest have.. and then everyone else.

And if most people were denied care because the payments were too low, they would raise the payments. I am not unaware of what medicare pays out on and I am also not unaware that quite a few poor people who think they are going to be getting anthem will be getting medicare instead and people like you won't treat them, so they effectively are not better off.

 

[jaeger19]

And if most people were denied care because the payments were too low, they would raise the payments. I am not unaware of what medicare pays out on and I am also not unaware that quite a few poor people who think they are going to be getting anthem will be getting medicare instead and people like you won't treat them, so they effectively are not better off.

Only if that group has the political clout to raise said payments. And so far.. medicare, Medicaid, and VA have been lowering reimbursement over the last 7 years or so. .. its why people are getting less care. you see the physician less, if you even see the physician and not a PA or a NP, if you can even find a place that will take your even your Medicare.
Lumping them all the programs together will only exacerbate the problem.

As far as "they are going to be getting anthem"... sorry, but I am unaware what anthem they are going to get.

 

[CalGun]

Thank you for a well reasoned critique and reading - actually reading it.

I would disagree with some points, and like your input. As I recall the plan called for a $15 per month tax (eventually) on existing health care premiums. Aren't most premiums in the $500 - $1500 a month range? Its seems like $15 a month increase would hardly be noticed with premiums going up so much each year. And also wouldn't premiums decline if the uninsured were removed from the private health care practices for which premiums are paid? Isn't a good deal of the current premium used to fund private hospitals and facilities for taking care of the uninsured? Finally would they not benefit by the increase in trained professionals put forth each year by the colleges and schools?

I agree that city, state and county facilities avoid federal control, and the program as I saw it said they "could" join with the new institution to collect premiums from those denied insurance - thus a dreaded "public option" but only for those who have no other choice. If you ran a city hospital wouldn't you want your hospital in that network to share that revenue?

I read it..

Most places DO NOT.. have public facilities. Especially rural areas. And those that have public networks are not going to under a federal system. In fact, its a reason why they don't have a lot of federal facilities.. because the Federal system doesn't care to much about states that don't have as many electoral votes.

Second, it places a tax.. a percentage tax by the way, on healthcare insurance. That means the more expensive your healthcare insurance.. the more you pay in tax. This puts greater pressure on people that already are having difficulty paying for their healthcare. Likely pushing more and worse sicker people on to a public system.

Third. reimbursements to providers are already shrinking. this has caused more physicians and providers to get out of the medical field or to simply go to work for someone. The tax on reimbursements will speed up this process.

 

[Fisher]

Only if that group has the political clout to raise said payments. And so far.. medicare, Medicaid, and VA have been lowering reimbursement over the last 7 years or so. .. its why people are getting less care. you see the physician less, if you even see the physician and not a PA or a NP, if you can even find a place that will take your even your Medicare.
Lumping them all the programs together will only exacerbate the problem.

As far as "they are going to be getting anthem"... sorry, but I am unaware what anthem they are going to get.

Doctors in my area with medicare patients churn procedures. They have them in the office constantly for things like bloodwork, ekg's, shots, etc. that they can have staff do instead of doing a lot of things at once or the doc seeing them for more than a couple minutes. Pretty sad considering getting to and from the doc can be a bit of an undertaking with some elderly people, yet I see it all the time even if the person is relatively healthy for their age.

 

[jaeger19]

Doctors in my area with medicare patients churn procedures. They have them in the office constantly for things like bloodwork, ekg's, shots, etc. that they can have staff do instead of doing a lot of things at once or the doc seeing them for more than a couple minutes. Pretty sad considering getting to and from the doc can be a bit of an undertaking with some elderly people, yet I see it all the time even if the person is relatively healthy for their age.

Yes.. its a consequence of lower reimbursement. Volume and "churning" as you call it is the only way to turn profit to some degree. Its a constant worry in my office because my practice is based on one on one, patient focused care.and I have resisted what my competitors have done (using assistants, multiple patients at the same time etc). But its getting harder.