Jump to content
Jwherb

First Senate Plan to Replace ACA - the 2017 Patient Freedom Act!

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Jack Bauer said:

I think a big reason we don't have something like the German system is because of the private insurance lobby. 

That's the problem with the government playing favorite and choosing winners.  Someone loses.

I imagine you're right. I have thought that while the German system has its issues, they are less than any other system I've heard of. Room for care and also for the kind of competition that leads to development.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

So someone can walk into the ER and get ongoing cancer treatment? Ongoing physical therapy or long term mental health counseling?

I could cite several instances of people walking in to the ER, being diagnosed with cancer, and being set up with the cancer team to care for them.  Even people without insurance.

Long term mental health counseling is a different animal, the medical system does not to a good job with that stuff at all, imo.  There is a severe shortage of psychiatrists, counselors, and other specialists and all of the mental health care and drug treatment places are generally not covered or covered very little by insurance.  The reasons for this are many.

PT is kind of separate from the medical field as well, meaning I can write for PT or get someone set up for PT, but they are also beholden to insurance regarding visits and other things having to do with the rehab they need.  I think PT access would worsen under straight government health care.  If you mean someone who has no money or resources, it would be hard to get them PT, because those guys usually require a 75 dollar deposit per visit if the patient is uninsured and people are generally not willing to pay out of pocket for it despite it being quite beneficial in many instances.

But what I was referring to above, is that people walk in for care for emergencies all the time and are treated without any questions about their ability to pay, because it's the right thing to do.
That said, it's also the right thing to do to help those who need PT and mental health assistance, but we fall short in those aspects.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

Sorry, I edited and expanded on my thought above.

Gotcha, that makes sense.  I was operating under the assumption that costs for all care would go down and become more efficient but you are right, that would be negated by the longer life expectancy.  

Maybe in 100 years our elderly and dying can just be downloaded into the cloud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

I could cite several instances of people walking in to the ER, being diagnosed with cancer, and being set up with the cancer team to care for them.  Even people without insurance.

Long term mental health counseling is a different animal, the medical system does not to a good job with that stuff at all, imo.  There is a severe shortage of psychiatrists, counselors, and other specialists and all of the mental health care and drug treatment places are generally not covered or covered very little by insurance.  The reasons for this are many.

PT is kind of separate from the medical field as well, meaning I can write for PT or get someone set up for PT, but they are also beholden to insurance regarding visits and other things having to do with the rehab they need.  I think PT access would worsen under straight government health care.  If you mean someone who has no money or resources, it would be hard to get them PT, because those guys usually require a 75 dollar deposit per visit if the patient is uninsured and people are generally not willing to pay out of pocket for it despite it being quite beneficial in many instances.

But what I was referring to above, is that people walk in for care for emergencies all the time and are treated without any questions about their ability to pay, because it's the right thing to do.
That said, it's also the right thing to do to help those who need PT and mental health assistance, but we fall short in those aspects.

That's been my position for a while now and it's something you said in effect.  We already do have universal health care.  It's called the emergency room. The problem is that's a bad way to do it but for some reason we have to jump through all these hoops to avoid calling things like they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Gotcha, that makes sense.  I was operating under the assumption that costs for all care would go down and become more efficient but you are right, that would be negated by the longer life expectancy.  

Maybe in 100 years our elderly and dying can just be downloaded into the cloud.

Maybe you'd prefer if we just banned babies and then we could live forever like St. Germaine.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jack Bauer said:

I think a big reason we don't have something like the German system is because of the private insurance lobby. 

That's the problem with the government playing favorite and choosing winners.  Someone loses.

But government has to, by law,  regulate insurers.  And because there is a significant interest by the insurance lobby to lessen or deaden those regulations,  there you go - we squabble over it and the government "picks" winners and losers.

I worked with the most influential insurance lobbyist in the state of Idaho (maybe ever) before he passed away.  The degree of influence the insurance companies have not only in legislature,  but with the judiciary and executive,  is simply insane.  

  • Like 3

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I would be all for a baby ban.  The world is over populated as it is.  Selective breeding would be great.

Ahhh selctive breeding ahh, are you sinking vut I'm sinking?

giphy.gif

  • Like 2

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

No premiums?  So is single payer ins free? 

The major attraction of single payer is simple minds can wrap their heads around it.  And it sounds good. 

SP does nothing to lower health care costs.  

There would probably be nominal premiums and taxes to cover it..........a 0.1% to 0.25% tax on Wall Street trades could probably fund a good portion of the program.

And no, it will not be government healthcare with government doctors and hospitals - which would be the first lie to come out, same lie as ObamaCare being a "government takeover" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, UNLV2001 said:

There would probably be nominal premiums and taxes to cover it..........a 0.1% to 0.25% tax on Wall Street trades could probably fund a good portion of the program.

And no, it will not be government healthcare with government doctors and hospitals - which would be the first lie to come out, same lie as ObamaCare being a "government takeover" 

No. This is Bernie's silliness.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466465333/sanders-favors-a-speculation-tax-on-big-wall-street-firms-what-is-that

Pollin believes such a tax could raise as much as $340 billion a year over the next decade. But the Tax Policy Center said the potential revenue would be less than one-tenth of that.

One reason for the big disparity between the estimates is that no one really knows how Wall Street firms would respond if such a tax was imposed.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/09/the-17-trillion-problem-with-bernie-sanderss-health-care-plan-2/

The studies, published jointly by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the Urban Institute in Washington, conclude that Sanders's plans are short a total of more than $18 trillion over a decade. His programs would cost the federal government about $33 trillion over that period, almost all of which would go toward Sanders's proposed system of national health insurance. Yet the Democratic presidential candidate has put forward just $15 trillion in new taxes, the authors concluded.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CPslograd said:

The opposite is true.  The more technology advances, the more old people we have, the more elderly we have, the more unsustainable single payer is.

20 years ago my dad would be dead, now he costs tens of thousands a year in Medicare.  I'm not pretending to know what the answer is, but imo the problem gets more intractable, not less.

Not necessarily. Even though people may live longer, there may be such advancements in treatments that costs are reduced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 4UNLV said:

 

assuming pharmaceutical companies are willing to take that hit.

 

 

Are you saying the companies that make the products that save, extend, and improve life are going to stop doing so because they wouldn't be able to save, extend, and improve life?

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

Are you saying the companies that make the products that save, extend, and improve life are going to stop doing so because they wouldn't be able to save, extend, and improve life?

no, that's not what i'm saying. in reference to what toonkee said,  "  there may be such advancements in treatments that costs are reduced..."    i'm saying they are not easily inclined to give up the profits from the billions they are making from, say, cancer treatments. hopefully i am just extremely cynical of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries 'altruism' and i will be proven dead wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 4UNLV said:

no, that's not what i'm saying. in reference to what toonkee said,  "  there may be such advancements in treatments that costs are reduced..."    i'm saying they are not easily inclined to give up the profits from the billions they are making from, say, cancer treatments. hopefully i am just extremely cynical of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries 'altruism' and i will be proven dead wrong.

We'll just have to wait a few extra years so they can start producing the generic version of the cancer cure drug, lol.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 4UNLV said:

no, that's not what i'm saying. in reference to what toonkee said,  "  there may be such advancements in treatments that costs are reduced..."    i'm saying they are not easily inclined to give up the profits from the billions they are making from, say, cancer treatments. hopefully i am just extremely cynical of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries 'altruism' and i will be proven dead wrong.

It's not altruism, no. If we relied on altruism we would have scant few of those cancer treatments at all, let alone any that will be coming in the next 10 or 20 years. It's because of those profits you so casually disparage. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, toonkee said:

We'll just have to wait a few extra years so they can start producing the generic version of the cancer cure drug, lol.

 

Hardy har har, do you have a better way to do it genius?

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It's not altruism, no. If we relied on altruism we would have scant few of those cancer treatments at all, let alone any that will be coming in the next 10 or 20 years. It's because of those profits you so casually disparage. 

could be. potential profits from more effective treatments for cancer would be great motivation.  and then the insurance companies will put their two cents worth in.

and it will come down to whether or not toonkee's hope of 'reduced costs' will be passed on to the masses, which is what i was skeptical about in the first place.. i'm still thinking probably not, but at least maybe we will have the treatments available. hopefully we will be to afford them if we need them.

or maybe we'll get lucky and the 'cure' will end up being something so simple and inexpensive, something sort of like a vaccine...i'm thinking they might not be quite as motivated for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...