(03-31-2017 05:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 03:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 03:07 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  We tried a one size fits all government solution. It failed. So let's try an even bigger and even more invasive one size fits all government solution.

Clarified for easier understanding.

Not even close. The private system has failed....and they don't provide any value to the system....just extract unearned rents. They take on no risks, but take premiums based upon risks they don't fund.

And there is NO private system that can work without massive controls on greed. Because demand for being alive is highly price inelastic....that's why Ayn Rand style Libertarian type models fail.

The removal of state regulatory authority will create a REAL one sized fits all system. Based upon the lowest possible denominator of care and coverage with the maximum payouts to healthcare execs.....regardless of the health outcomes.

That's a little over the top. Insurance companies are "for profit" enterprises. The issue here is that the company is being asked to take on a level of risk without receiving a fee that corresponds to the risk. You cant do anything but lose money under that system.

The only way to do universal care is to treat it as what it is---a tax. A real mandate would be handled like FICA. You never see it. Its just sucked from your check before you get it. The people seem to like the coverage for pre-existing conditions. The only way you can have that be part of health care is if the system is a fully mandated single payer. Single payer is the only way that's going to work. I don't like the one size fits all---but Im afraid that's where we are going to end up. I just don't see any way to have pre-existing condition coverage without having everyone included in the system from day one.

LOL. The insurance companies aren't losing money. They're just using cost accounting to throw billions into reserves. Or using all the ACA premiums to pay for overhead that is used to fund their expenses for Medicare supplemental plans, advertising, and other expenses that should be allocated to all lines. And if they're losing money, then why are they paying their CEO's 66 million a year in bonuses?

1) Universal coverage that is comprehensive and an entitlement.
2) Price controls on Pharma set to the average of the G-20 sales price per unit
3) No subsidies for doctors or hospitals outside the system. No access to taxpayer assets for doctors outside the system. Perhaps after 20 years, then it might be allowed to leave.
4) Priority in taxpayer funded Medical schools and Residency Programs for need based providers
5) Replacement of insurance with billing agencies, with cost controls on compensation built into the system
6) Expanded visas for Doctors filling unfilled needs
7) Capture of reserves for persons no longer covered by the entity
8) Limits on executive compensation based upon G20 averages and cost of living increases
9) Tort reform limiting tort damages to some multiple (say 10x) the highest family compensation by a provider group - see its there.
10) A ban on policies not open to all. If you sell to one, you must sell to all.

To fund it, the cost savings embedded above, which on the pharma side alone would be substantial, plus making LT Capital Gains for those making more than 500,000 a year through unearned income ....taxed at ordinary tax rates AND an end to the carried interest loophole. Plus a 10% on all income for all earners (which is probably cheaper than insurance/medical). Most people wouldn't pay a dime more (net-net) than they do now for health insurance plus taxes. And many well to do people would accept this in return for financial security. Only the super rich or super idle/rich would pay more. And no one would go broke financing it. And many rich people would come out AHEAD too, because our corporations would be more competitive too.

Corporations would LOVE this. No more expense for healthcare.

(03-31-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Again, they'll just pocket the reserves we paid in, and use it for some yachts or private jets.

The private healthcare system is a complete failure. Time for a public option.

If only someone had predicted that the system being set up would not fit within a free market.... If only....

(03-31-2017 05:14 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 04:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And what about the RESERVES we paid into the system when we were young and healthy? Please. Those reserves are still there. They never spent them. Its our savings for later. They just stole them from us.

And why are we, the American healthcare consumers, paying 1000 times more than the Germans or Canadians for the same advances?

And LOTS of advances come out of countries with common sense medical systems too.

2. Germans and Canadians pay lower prices because of marginal pricing strategies.

And because the wait times at Canadian hospitals would cause a riot in any US state.

(03-31-2017 06:01 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Again, they'll just pocket the reserves we paid in, and use it for some yachts or private jets.

The private healthcare system is a complete failure. Time for a public option.

If only someone had predicted that the system being set up would not fit within a free market.... If only....

Actually had Congress followed up on the ACA with some of the items listed...then it could have worked. But it would be far less private.

(03-31-2017 05:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 05:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 03:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 03:07 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  We tried a one size fits all government solution. It failed. So let's try an even bigger and even more invasive one size fits all government solution.

Clarified for easier understanding.

Not even close. The private system has failed....and they don't provide any value to the system....just extract unearned rents. They take on no risks, but take premiums based upon risks they don't fund.

And there is NO private system that can work without massive controls on greed. Because demand for being alive is highly price inelastic....that's why Ayn Rand style Libertarian type models fail.

The removal of state regulatory authority will create a REAL one sized fits all system. Based upon the lowest possible denominator of care and coverage with the maximum payouts to healthcare execs.....regardless of the health outcomes.

That's a little over the top. Insurance companies are "for profit" enterprises. The issue here is that the company is being asked to take on a level of risk without receiving a fee that corresponds to the risk. You cant do anything but lose money under that system.

The only way to do universal care is to treat it as what it is---a tax. A real mandate would be handled like FICA. You never see it. Its just sucked from your check before you get it. The people seem to like the coverage for pre-existing conditions. The only way you can have that be part of health care is if the system is a fully mandated single payer. Single payer is the only way that's going to work. I don't like the one size fits all---but Im afraid that's where we are going to end up. I just don't see any way to have pre-existing condition coverage without having everyone included in the system from day one.

LOL. The insurance companies aren't losing money. They're just using cost accounting to throw billions into reserves. Or using all the ACA premiums to pay for overhead that is used to fund their expenses for Medicare supplemental plans, advertising, and other expenses that should be allocated to all lines. And if they're losing money, then why are they paying their CEO's 66 million a year in bonuses?

1) Universal coverage that is comprehensive and an entitlement.
2) Price controls on Pharma set to the average of the G-20 sales price per unit
3) No subsidies for doctors or hospitals outside the system. No access to taxpayer assets for doctors outside the system. Perhaps after 20 years, then it might be allowed to leave.
4) Priority in taxpayer funded Medical schools and Residency Programs for need based providers
5) Replacement of insurance with billing agencies, with cost controls on compensation built into the system
6) Expanded visas for Doctors filling unfilled needs
7) Capture of reserves for persons no longer covered by the entity
8) Limits on executive compensation based upon G20 averages and cost of living increases
9) Tort reform limiting tort damages to some multiple (say 10x) the highest family compensation by a provider group - see its there.
10) A ban on policies not open to all. If you sell to one, you must sell to all.

To fund it, the cost savings embedded above, which on the pharma side alone would be substantial, plus making LT Capital Gains for those making more than 500,000 a year through unearned income ....taxed at ordinary tax rates AND an end to the carried interest loophole. Plus a 10% on all income for all earners (which is probably cheaper than insurance/medical). Most people wouldn't pay a dime more (net-net) than they do now for health insurance plus taxes. And many well to do people would accept this in return for financial security. Only the super rich or super idle/rich would pay more. And no one would go broke financing it. And many rich people would come out AHEAD too, because our corporations would be more competitive too.

Corporations would LOVE this. No more expense for healthcare.

Fascist health care. Brilliant.

(03-31-2017 03:19 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Freedom caucus Meadows is working "round the clock" to repeal obamacare.

what's taking so long? 7 years

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-31-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Again, they'll just pocket the reserves we paid in, and use it for some yachts or private jets.

The private healthcare system is a complete failure. Time for a public option.

(03-31-2017 06:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 06:01 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Again, they'll just pocket the reserves we paid in, and use it for some yachts or private jets.

The private healthcare system is a complete failure. Time for a public option.

If only someone had predicted that the system being set up would not fit within a free market.... If only....

Actually had Congress followed up on the ACA with some of the items listed...then it could have worked. But it would be far less private.

Wait it needed follow up? how on earth with 60 senators, the white house, and a huge majority on the house of reps did they need followup withing 4 years of a bill being passed in order to keep the system alive...

Heck most of the law did not even go into effect until 2014 and it took only three years, two of them with HHS being run by democrats, for the whole thing to collapse.

I guess we should have known what was in the bill before we passed it.

(03-31-2017 07:21 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 03:19 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Freedom caucus Meadows is working "round the clock" to repeal obamacare.

what's taking so long? 7 years

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

They lied

(03-31-2017 06:04 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 05:14 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 04:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And what about the RESERVES we paid into the system when we were young and healthy? Please. Those reserves are still there. They never spent them. Its our savings for later. They just stole them from us.

And why are we, the American healthcare consumers, paying 1000 times more than the Germans or Canadians for the same advances?

And LOTS of advances come out of countries with common sense medical systems too.

2. Germans and Canadians pay lower prices because of marginal pricing strategies.

And because the wait times at Canadian hospitals would cause a riot in any US state.

If you live in Toronto and need an MRI, the wait time can be up to 4 months. But take a short drive to Buffalo, and you can get your MDI the next day. If you drive into the parking lots of the various MRI services in Buffalo, more than half the license plates are Ontario.

And let's say that the MRI confirms you need rotator cuff surgery. The wait time in Ontario, up to 20 months. If you schedule an ortho in Buffalo, you'll get it done in two weeks.

Wait times for MRI in Ontario

And with regard to drugs, not all the drugs available in the US are available in Canada. Many cutting edge drugs, for which the manufacturers have a high marginal cost, aren't approved by the health services and therefore the Canadians are denied access to treatments that could save their lives because they "cost too much." Sounds a lot like rationing to me..

(03-31-2017 07:21 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 03:19 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Freedom caucus Meadows is working "round the clock" to repeal obamacare.

what's taking so long? 7 years

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

1 - The Freedom caucus was founded on January 26, 2015; 2 years ago
2 - Only 8 of the 32 members of the FC have been in office for 7 or more years

Obama is saying..."I love it when a plan comes together." Single payer was the objective from the start.

Only ones who didn't know that then were the cheerleaders and the gullible.

Tom, I've finally figured out your problem. Your posts make it obvious that you don't understand:

1. The purpose of insurance,
2. How insurance works,
3. The purpose of reserves,
4. How free markets work, specifically the benefits of competition, and
5. How health care works.

Your ten-point plan is great except for oner problem. Who would choose to be a doctor or a health insurer or pharmaceutical manufacturer or operate a hospital under that plan? And why? OK, you could do without health insurance if you went to single payer. But how do you get health care without doctors or pharmaceutical manufacturers or hospitals?

Your problem is that you look at only one side, the consumer side. You never look at things from the producer point of view. We can make health care real cheap if we screw all the providers. Except we can't make anybody provide it.

Kind of like your views on LBGT issues. We can make a great world for LBGT people by screwing all the straight people.

(04-01-2017 07:57 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  1 - The Freedom caucus was founded on January 26, 2015; 2 years ago
2 - Only 8 of the 32 members of the FC have been in office for 7 or more years

Shoot ... he's right guys.

I completely forgot about that law, which physically prevents newly elected members of congress from being briefed about or brought onboard with any kind of ongoing policy project, whatsoever.

Yeah, that law is a pain in the butt. But, he got us. The FC congressmen simply had no idea about the healthcare plan that other GOP had been working on the five years previous, because that law makes it illegal for them to know anything about it!

(04-01-2017 08:08 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Single payer was the objective from the start.

The bedrock, foundational philosophy of healthcare policy in the United States has always been, currently is, and for the foreseeable future will be a multi-payer system, of some kind. Regardless who is in the white house or congress.

It might, hopefully, contain at least one public option, as one of the payers. But multiple payers, nonetheless.

(04-01-2017 09:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Who would choose to be a doctor or a health insurer or pharmaceutical manufacturer or operate a hospital under that plan?

As impossible as it is for you to wrap your mind around, I'm still going to tell you: there are actually people whose sole motivation in life is not money.

Some people find great satisfaction, simply from helping other people. Yes, I know, that concept is foreign to you, because your worldview is so hopelessly mired in the corrupt idea that all individuals must only help themselves or otherwise die.

(04-01-2017 09:18 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 09:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Who would choose to be a doctor or a health insurer or pharmaceutical manufacturer or operate a hospital under that plan?

As impossible as it is for you to wrap your mind around, I'm still going to tell you: there are actually people whose sole motivation in life is not money.
Some people find great satisfaction, simply from helping other people. Yes, I know, that concept is foreign to you, because your worldview is so hopelessly mired in the corrupt idea that all individuals must only help themselves or otherwise die.

To start with, you owe me an apology for making a mistaken and erroneous personal attack on someone that you do not know.

As for your substantive commentary, you are totally off base.

One, I don't know anyone whose sole motivation in life is money. Do you? I've never met one. Have you? I doubt it seriously, because I doubt such people exist. So I have my mind well wrapped around the idea that there are people who are not solely motivated by money. I'm not, for one. How about my two cousin docs who run an AIDS clinic on an island in Kenya? How about my other cousin doc who provides pro bono services through a rural health agency in in eastern Tennessee? Or how about my other cousin doc who performs pro bono medical services for Native American families in the Dakotas? And for the record, those four cousins grew up in three different families in three different states (Colorado, Minnesota, Tennessee).

Two, I don't care what your motivation is, if things are economically impossible you are not going to do them. Further, if your economic opportunities are much better doing something else, there will be extreme pressure on you to do that something else. Some will move to the something else, some may stick it out, but that has nothing to do with being motivated solely by money. Money is always going to be a factor, even though if it is never a sole motivation. It doesn't have to be a sole motivation, or even a major factor, when one is staring down the front end cost of a medical eduction plus the risk of losing everything when some ambulance chaser hits you with a malpractice suit before a bad jury. If you're not reasonably compensated for those risks, then no sensible person is going to take them. And above all, I want my docs to be sensible people.

I wouldn't want a doc who is solely motivated by money, nor one who is totally oblivious to realty. Would you? In between those extremes are a number of competent people who would be good docs, but if the compensation is not appropriate for the risk, they will do something else.

(04-01-2017 07:57 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 07:21 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 03:19 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Freedom caucus Meadows is working "round the clock" to repeal obamacare.

what's taking so long? 7 years

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

1 - The Freedom caucus was founded on January 26, 2015; 2 years ago
2 - Only 8 of the 32 members of the FC have been in office for 7 or more years

so what's that group of 8's problem?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-01-2017 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Money is always going to be a factor, even though if it is never a sole motivation. It doesn't have to be a sole motivation, or even a major factor

Then that contradicts what you said previously. But glad to know you're onboard.

(04-01-2017 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  when one is staring down the front end cost of a medical eduction plus the risk of losing everything when some ambulance chaser hits you with a malpractice suit before a bad jury.

Both of those risks should be completely removed from docs personally. That would greatly free up their minds from having to worry so much about money, and just get to helping people.

(04-01-2017 09:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, I've finally figured out your problem. Your posts make it obvious that you don't understand:

1. The purpose of insurance,
2. How insurance works,
3. The purpose of reserves,
4. How free markets work, specifically the benefits of competition, and
5. How health care works.

Your ten-point plan is great except for oner problem. Who would choose to be a doctor or a health insurer or pharmaceutical manufacturer or operate a hospital under that plan? And why? OK, you could do without health insurance if you went to single payer. But how do you get health care without doctors or pharmaceutical manufacturers or hospitals?

Your problem is that you look at only one side, the consumer side. You never look at things from the producer point of view. We can make health care real cheap if we screw all the providers. Except we can't make anybody provide it.

Kind of like your views on LBGT issues. We can make a great world for LBGT people by screwing all the straight people.

Millions of doctors choose to do so in every other country....And hospitals exist...and pharmaceuticals get created too.

The producer side is already socialized. We pay most of the cost of becoming a doctor, fund most of the research, build and operate most of the hospitals, etc. Now, lets have some friggin' accountability for those welfare queens (doctors. hospital corps, insurance companies) in return for all that welfare.

What are the purposes of reserves? Since they NEVER SPEND THEM, it appears to be a slush fund.

And if a Neurosurgeon only makes 1 million a year as opposed to 10 million, or a Hospital CEO only makes 800,000 a year there will still be demand.