The Republican health care plan Please explain

[MAGAnificent]

Next time you post, could try it in English?

I suspect that you can get past the occasional typo, however I edited the post.

 

[Dittohead not!]

One example would be eliminating the regulatory barriers to purchasing individual insurance policies across state lines. Blue Cross/Blue Shield for instance virtually owns the insurance market in my state. It's virtually total dominance. Their rates wouyld drop if they had competition from across state lines.

Oh, yes, the buying across state lines problem. Do you know what the regulations are currently?

 

[sangha]

You don't even understand your own argument. The competition in regards to the government purchasing high tech diagnostic equipment is meaningless to the patients. Whether the government pays $11,000.00 or $10,000.00 does not mean the government will be providing more services. They will still alott a minimum of resources to the patient. Healthcare will still be rationed.

In single payer systems, the govt doesn't allot the resources.

Single payer remains on the list of things you don't understand

 

[Threegoofs]

I beg to differ:

Litigation Raising Health Care Costs, Study Says | Heartlander Magazine

Differ all you want.

Your still wrong.

 

[sangha]

Differ all you want.

Your still wrong.

He's quoting a "source" that tells its' reader how to think

Holman Jenkins: How to Think About Broadband - WSJ.com

 

[johndylan1]

Everyone? What republican concept makes sure all Americans have access to healthcare? How does the Bush plan insure everyone? Do some poor people get healthcare for "free?"

I think you confuse terms. access to health care and having insurance is not the same thing.

 

[johndylan1]

In single payer systems, the govt doesn't allot the resources.

Single payer remains on the list of things you don't understand

Really? Do you think the government will pay for whatever the Dr. and Patient agree on without limitation? If not, they will in fact dictate care.

 

[sangha]

Really? Do you think the government will pay for whatever the Dr. and Patient agree on without limitation? If not, they will in fact dictate care.

If fact, they will not.

Single payer remains on the list

 

[mak2]

I dont care if they have insurance, I care if they have healthcare.

I think you confuse terms. access to health care and having insurance is not the same thing.

 

[Cassandra]

Really? Do you think the government will pay for whatever the Dr. and Patient agree on without limitation? If not, they will in fact dictate care.

The French have an excellent single-payer system. Everyone has insurance. The Gov't provides funding.

"France, on the other hand, doesn't have a "National Health Service" — it has National Health Insurance. Many French people don't even consider their health system "socialized", Paul V. Dutton, executive director of the Interdisciplinary Health Policy Institute at Northern Arizona University, writes in Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France.

Like the American system, the French system prides itself on choice. "The vast majority of ambulatory care physicians in France are in private practice and patients enjoy extraordinary freedom of choice among them. Virtually all primary care providers and specialists participate in the nation's public health insurance system, Sécurité Sociale", Dutton writes. Notably, France also has the largest private hospital system in Europe."

Read more: Yes, The US Could Probably Learn A Lot From The French Health Care System - Business Insider

 

[MAGAnificent]

Oh, yes, the buying across state lines problem. Do you know what the regulations are currently?

It varies from state to state, however largely prevents buying across state lines unless enough insurance networks obtain licenses in multiple states.

 

[solletica]

Actual reform based on common sense and allowing the free market to work.

That's the opposite of the GOP agenda.

 

[sangha]

It varies from state to state, however largely prevents buying across state lines unless enough insurance networks obtain licenses in multiple states.

Wrong again

Any insurer can sell insurance as long as they get a license in *that* state. There is no need to obtain licenses in multiple states.

 

[MAGAnificent]

In single payer systems, the govt doesn't allot the resources.

Single payer remains on the list of things you don't understand

You do not understand single payer as much as well as you think you do. In the US it would be like putting everyone on Medicare......and the government as the collector of all healthcare funds would be calling the shots.

 

[sangha]

You do not understand single payer as much as well as you think you do. In the US it would be like putting everyone on Medicare......and the government as the collector of all healthcare funds would be calling the shots.

Wrong again

 

[MAGAnificent]

:mrgreen:

If fact, they will not.

Single payer remains on the list

And you claim I do not understand single payer.

 

[sangha]

:mrgreen:

And you claim I do not understand single payer.

You finally got something right!

 

[johndylan1]

I dont care if they have insurance, I care if they have healthcare.

I would like all to have the opportunity to seek and acquire affordable health care too. The fact is that cost has risen with government intervention. Let the market work and provide for indigent emergency care, that's it.

 

[johndylan1]

The French have an excellent single-payer system. Everyone has insurance. The Gov't provides funding.

"France, on the other hand, doesn't have a "National Health Service" — it has National Health Insurance. Many French people don't even consider their health system "socialized", Paul V. Dutton, executive director of the Interdisciplinary Health Policy Institute at Northern Arizona University, writes in Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France.

Like the American system, the French system prides itself on choice. "The vast majority of ambulatory care physicians in France are in private practice and patients enjoy extraordinary freedom of choice among them. Virtually all primary care providers and specialists participate in the nation's public health insurance system, Sécurité Sociale", Dutton writes. Notably, France also has the largest private hospital system in Europe."

Read more: Yes, The US Could Probably Learn A Lot From The French Health Care System - Business Insider

If there is such choice in insurance plans, why involve the government at all? It's just another layer of bureaucrats, that must be paid with scarce healthcare dollars or euros, between you and your doctor. As if the necessary evil of insurers isn't enough interference.

 

[sangha]

If there is such choice in insurance plans,

:doh

Did you even read the quote?

 

[fedupwithgov]

It was what Obama and Dems wanted all along and why they passed the ACA when they knew it would fail. They knew it would cause those already insured to lose their plans, they knew it would increase premiums, they knew it would fail to cover those well below the poverty level and fail to subsidize their insurance premiums rather choosing to throw them to Medicaid, they knew it would destroy the private health insurance system, they knew it would put many Doctors in private practice into bankruptcy, they knew it would put many hospitals and clinics out of business. They knew it would raise taxes on the middle class, they knew it would raise the deficit and debt. They did it betting on the only alternative to be a "single payer system". A system that would raise taxes on all, decrease the income of physicians and surgeons(to the point that fewer will enter the field), a system that will give the federal government control over all aspects of medical care, treatments, drugs, tests, surgery, and our personal health information and the like. It will be a disaster just as the PPACA will be.

 

[sangha]

It was what Obama and Dems wanted all along and why they passed the ACA when they knew it would fail. They knew it would cause those already insured to lose their plans, they knew it would increase premiums, they knew it would fail to cover those well below the poverty level and fail to subsidize their insurance premiums rather choosing to throw them to Medicaid, they knew it would destroy the private health insurance system, they knew it would put many Doctors in private practice into bankruptcy, they knew it would put many hospitals and clinics out of business. They knew it would raise taxes on the middle class, they knew it would raise the deficit and debt. They did it betting on the only alternative to be a "single payer system". A system that would raise taxes on all, decrease the income of physicians and surgeons(to the point that fewer will enter the field), a system that will give the federal government control over all aspects of medical care, treatments, drugs, tests, surgery, and our personal health information and the like. It will be a disaster just as the PPACA will be.

I see we have another right wing poster regurgitating the same old tired talking points because they just can't admit that the right has no plans and no ideas. The right doesn't even have a clue

 

[Dittohead not!]

It varies from state to state, however largely prevents buying across state lines unless enough insurance networks obtain licenses in multiple states.

Close. It prevents selling across state lines unless the seller gets a license to sell.

To get a license, the seller has to meet the regulations in the state where it is doing business, not in the home state.

Which makes it possible for states to regulate the insurance industry.

 

[JasperL]

President Bush actually proposed a plan that would fit those parameters. It's called buying a reasonably priced catastrophic plan and supplementing that with a Health Savings Account. You would pay for all the routine stuff out of your HSA. The left went bananas.

We had those plans in place, the left didn't actually go bananas, and they didn't work for many people.

Goodness, the problem of healthcare delivery mainly involves the poor, and the sick (those with pre-existing conditions, including the pre-existing condition called being 'old.'). If you're in good health, and not poor, HSA's with catastrophic plans work great, because you can save each year to take care of the occasional big OOP expense. But if' you're sick, you'd have to meet that big deductible every year, and then all you have is crappy insurance with an ANNUAL deductible that you'll meet but cannot afford. And if you're poor, the annual premiums are most likely out of reach, and any big expense that hits your meager HSA would bankrupt you. So again, this doesn't work for the people who most need help.

 

[JasperL]

It was what Obama and Dems wanted all along and why they passed the ACA when they knew it would fail. They knew it would cause those already insured to lose their plans, they knew it would increase premiums, they knew it would fail to cover those well below the poverty level and fail to subsidize their insurance premiums rather choosing to throw them to Medicaid, they knew it would destroy the private health insurance system, they knew it would put many Doctors in private practice into bankruptcy, they knew it would put many hospitals and clinics out of business. They knew it would raise taxes on the middle class, they knew it would raise the deficit and debt. They did it betting on the only alternative to be a "single payer system". A system that would raise taxes on all, decrease the income of physicians and surgeons(to the point that fewer will enter the field), a system that will give the federal government control over all aspects of medical care, treatments, drugs, tests, surgery, and our personal health information and the like. It will be a disaster just as the PPACA will be.

The thing is we have ALL THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD to look at and see the actual results of many different flavors of 'single payer' systems. And what you predict just doesn't come to pass in the real world, except that taxes are obviously higher.

For example, yes, doctors here make about twice or so (depending on the field, country, etc,) than in Europe, but 1) any way we bring healthcare costs down will by necessity reduce salaries of doctors, which are a huge share of total costs, and 2) that hasn't had any impact on people willing to become doctors where single payer is in place - most of them have far more doctors per capita than we do. We have few here because the AMA sets a cap on annual slots for med school and residencies, and Medicare, which funds each resident at least $100,000 each, also limits the number of physicians - plus we limit the number of foreign educated doctors allowed into the country and/or require U.S. based residency for them. MANY more would enter med school were it not for these artificial caps.