Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Republicans with a health care plan
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,972
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1101
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #1
Republicans with a health care plan
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...needs.html

An influential conservative group comes up with a health care plan, something the Republicans had lacked.

It is also the first plan put out by anyone that actually tackles the true problems. The problem is not a lack of insurance. It is the high cost of health care. It works on frivilous lawsuits and middlemen while creating more competition in the insurance market.

"...According to literature reviewed by RealClearPolitics, the proposal is a grab bag of reforms aimed at restoring “the doctor-patient relationship” by:

Changing the way health insurance is bought and sold and regulated by allowing patients to purchase coverage across state lines while giving states more regulatory power.
Lowering drug prices by targeting exemptions that currently allow pharmaceutical middlemen to skirt federal anti-kickback laws.
Creating personal health management accounts, akin to existing health savings accounts, to allow patients to pay for insurance premiums or care with pre-tax dollars.
Targeting medical malpractice laws to better protect physicians from frivolous lawsuits and excessive awards.
Maintaining protections for pre-existing conditions...."
10-17-2019 01:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Claw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,893
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 480
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Orangeville HELP!
Post: #2
RE: Republicans with a health care plan
I strongly oppose the concept of health management accounts. It is not necessary to give the government control of my money to get a tax benefit. No. Simply no. I want freedom for my money. I have no intention of giving the government control of how I spend my money to save a few dollars on my taxes.

Not just no.

Hell no.
10-17-2019 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 21,624
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1891
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Republicans with a health care plan
(10-17-2019 01:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  I strongly oppose the concept of health management accounts. It is not necessary to give the government control of my money to get a tax benefit. No. Simply no. I want freedom for my money. I have no intention of giving the government control of how I spend my money to save a few dollars on my taxes.

Not just no.

Hell no.

These accounts exist today for state and federal employees and in many corporations. They are not mandatory. What they do benefit are those with chronic illnesses and those facing major costs for possibly terminal illnesses.

I would doubt that in this bill, or plan, that they would be mandatory. Tackling the pharmaceutical loopholes is a huge plus, as is permitting the purchase of insurance across state lines. Capping frivolous law suits against doctors (actually their insurers) would also be a huge plus.

The existing laws, like so many of our problems, are a collusion between lawyers who profit by all of this, and big medical corporations like the pharmaceutical industries, who rake in huge profits from the pricing structure even though they sell their products abroad at a much reduced rate. So our companies are raping the citizens of the U.S. and playing sweetly with everyone else, which is a direct result of their lobby in Washington.

The whole affordable care act was nothing more than a boon sweetheart deal to insurers after they helped to bailout the libor crisis of 2007-8. It got them off the hook for payouts at a time when Boomers were hitting retirement age.

At least this plan relieves the system where the issues are, at the doctor's level, and at the patient's level. Restore that and the quality of healthcare goes up.

Hell the HIPAA laws were just a cover for a myriad of new charges to the patient not the least of which is the charge for your provider to retrieve your own damned records.

I hope they do put this forward.
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2019 04:03 PM by JRsec.)
10-17-2019 01:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TigerBlue4Ever Offline
Ban bans
*

Posts: 44,129
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 1725
I Root For: truffles
Location: is everything
Post: #4
RE: Republicans with a health care plan
(10-17-2019 01:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  I strongly oppose the concept of health management accounts. It is not necessary to give the government control of my money to get a tax benefit. No. Simply no. I want freedom for my money. I have no intention of giving the government control of how I spend my money to save a few dollars on my taxes.

Not just no.

Hell no.

Are these HMA's to be mandatory?
10-17-2019 02:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TigerBlue4Ever Offline
Ban bans
*

Posts: 44,129
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 1725
I Root For: truffles
Location: is everything
Post: #5
RE: Republicans with a health care plan
(10-17-2019 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-17-2019 01:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  I strongly oppose the concept of health management accounts. It is not necessary to give the government control of my money to get a tax benefit. No. Simply no. I want freedom for my money. I have no intention of giving the government control of how I spend my money to save a few dollars on my taxes.

Not just no.

Hell no.

These accounts exist today for state and federal employees and in many corporations. They are not mandatory. What they do benefit are those with chronic illnesses and those facing major costs for possibly terminal illnesses.

I would doubt that in this bill, or plan, that they would be mandatory. Tackling the pharmaceutical loopholes is a huge plus, as is permitting the purchase of insurance across state lines. Capping frivolous law suits against doctors (actually their insurers) would also be a huge plus.

The existing laws, like so many of our problems, are a collusion between lawyers who profit by all of this, and big medical corporations like the pharmaceutical industries, who rake in huge profits from the pricing structure even though they sell their products abroad at a much reduced rate. So our companies are raping the citizens of the U.S. and playing sweetly with everyone else, which is a direct result of their lobby in Washington.

The whole affordable care act was nothing more than a boon sweetheart deal to insurers after they helped to bailout the libor crisis of 2007-8. It got them off the hook for payouts at a time when Boomers were hitting retirement age.

At least this plan relieves the system where the issues are, at the doctor's level, and at the patient's level. Restore that and the quality of healthcare goes up.

Hell the HEPA laws were just a cover for a myriad of new charges to the patient not the least of which is the charge for your provider to retrieve your own damned records.

I hope they do put this forward.

I can't see them making participation in an HMA mandatory but I couldn't see being forced to carry health insurance 9 years ago either...

The ACA was never intended to succeed in reforming the health care industry, its singular purpose was to force single payer. The GOP needs a win on the health care issue so something must be done. On the surface this looks like a good starting point, it at least mitigates one source of objection from the left in maintaining pre-existing condition coverage.
10-17-2019 02:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 21,624
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1891
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Republicans with a health care plan
(10-17-2019 02:21 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  
(10-17-2019 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-17-2019 01:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  I strongly oppose the concept of health management accounts. It is not necessary to give the government control of my money to get a tax benefit. No. Simply no. I want freedom for my money. I have no intention of giving the government control of how I spend my money to save a few dollars on my taxes.

Not just no.

Hell no.

These accounts exist today for state and federal employees and in many corporations. They are not mandatory. What they do benefit are those with chronic illnesses and those facing major costs for possibly terminal illnesses.

I would doubt that in this bill, or plan, that they would be mandatory. Tackling the pharmaceutical loopholes is a huge plus, as is permitting the purchase of insurance across state lines. Capping frivolous law suits against doctors (actually their insurers) would also be a huge plus.

The existing laws, like so many of our problems, are a collusion between lawyers who profit by all of this, and big medical corporations like the pharmaceutical industries, who rake in huge profits from the pricing structure even though they sell their products abroad at a much reduced rate. So our companies are raping the citizens of the U.S. and playing sweetly with everyone else, which is a direct result of their lobby in Washington.

The whole affordable care act was nothing more than a boon sweetheart deal to insurers after they helped to bailout the libor crisis of 2007-8. It got them off the hook for payouts at a time when Boomers were hitting retirement age.

At least this plan relieves the system where the issues are, at the doctor's level, and at the patient's level. Restore that and the quality of healthcare goes up.

Hell the HEPA laws were just a cover for a myriad of new charges to the patient not the least of which is the charge for your provider to retrieve your own damned records.

I hope they do put this forward.

I can't see them making participation in an HMA mandatory but I couldn't see being forced to carry health insurance 9 years ago either...

The ACA was never intended to succeed in reforming the health care industry, its singular purpose was to force single payer. The GOP needs a win on the health care issue so something must be done. On the surface this looks like a good starting point, it at least mitigates one source of objection from the left in maintaining pre-existing condition coverage.

Lost in all of this prior to the ACA is that no hospital could turn away a patient for the inability to pay. The corporations that owned the hospital simply wrote that amount off against their profits at the end of the year and paid no tax on those treatments.

The ACA, as much as Obama was loved by the left, actually profited the corporate health care industry by eliminating a drag on profits (but they all still profited handsomely because the % of indigent care was low prior to illegal immigration, let that sink in), and it profited insurance companies by denying certain later in life procedures which prolonged the life of the patient. Insurance companies knew that Boomer life long self owned health insurance policies were gong to come due in the form of end of life payouts and they didn't want to take the damn knock on their stock values.

So all Obama did was to bail out the Hospitals, bail out the Insurance companies, neither of which needed bailing out because (a.) they were both profitable and (b.) they covered losses with increased rates and tax wright offs, and (c.) by doing this it gave his damned socialist DACA program the opportunity to swell democrat ranks so they could steal elections from the middle class American. Why did corporate hospitals and insurance companies agree? The government (taxpayers) cover the medical cost of the damned illegals.

Single payer as a law, removed the requirement for hospitals to treat someone who has no insurance, although there are many hospital companies that still do by choice (a moral decision). So Obama hailed a hero by the poor, is actually their worst enemy. But hell isn't that how the damned left works with the ignorant public all of the time? The poor are frequently too uneducated to know how the systems over them work.

The average wage and hour worker in Alabama is having to pay 50% of their monthly take home to pay for the ACA and it's killing them literally as many now work 14 hours a day at 2 jobs trying to feed their families.
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2019 03:36 PM by JRsec.)
10-17-2019 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bobdizole Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 989
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 83
I Root For: MT
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Republicans with a health care plan
(10-17-2019 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-17-2019 01:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  I strongly oppose the concept of health management accounts. It is not necessary to give the government control of my money to get a tax benefit. No. Simply no. I want freedom for my money. I have no intention of giving the government control of how I spend my money to save a few dollars on my taxes.

Not just no.

Hell no.

These accounts exist today for state and federal employees and in many corporations. They are not mandatory. What they do benefit are those with chronic illnesses and those facing major costs for possibly terminal illnesses.

I would doubt that in this bill, or plan, that they would be mandatory. Tackling the pharmaceutical loopholes is a huge plus, as is permitting the purchase of insurance across state lines. Capping frivolous law suits against doctors (actually their insurers) would also be a huge plus.

The existing laws, like so many of our problems, are a collusion between lawyers who profit by all of this, and big medical corporations like the pharmaceutical industries, who rake in huge profits from the pricing structure even though they sell their products abroad at a much reduced rate. So our companies are raping the citizens of the U.S. and playing sweetly with everyone else, which is a direct result of their lobby in Washington.

The whole affordable care act was nothing more than a boon sweetheart deal to insurers after they helped to bailout the libor crisis of 2007-8. It got them off the hook for payouts at a time when Boomers were hitting retirement age.

At least this plan relieves the system where the issues are, at the doctor's level, and at the patient's level. Restore that and the quality of healthcare goes up.

Hell the HEPA laws were just a cover for a myriad of new charges to the patient not the least of which is the charge for your provider to retrieve your own damned records.

I hope they do put this forward.

What do air filters have to do with medical records?

Kidding, HIPAA is far more than just a cover a myriad of new charges just like PCI compliance is a lot more than a cover for selling new payment software. HIPAA/PCI are both the safeguards to force providers to protect your personal information and to punish them when they don't. In the day and age when everything is on the internet that is invaluable. I don't work with HIPAA, but I work in credit card security and it would make you sick to see how lax a lot of these mom-and-pop restaurants are with credit card security. Until they fail a PCI audit and the credit card companies start fining them until they secure their customers information.

Same thing with your family doctor. If they have unsecured electronic records or leave their hard files unlocked for anyone to steal their should be laws and punishments for that.
10-17-2019 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,972
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1101
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Republicans with a health care plan
(10-17-2019 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-17-2019 02:21 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  
(10-17-2019 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-17-2019 01:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  I strongly oppose the concept of health management accounts. It is not necessary to give the government control of my money to get a tax benefit. No. Simply no. I want freedom for my money. I have no intention of giving the government control of how I spend my money to save a few dollars on my taxes.

Not just no.

Hell no.

These accounts exist today for state and federal employees and in many corporations. They are not mandatory. What they do benefit are those with chronic illnesses and those facing major costs for possibly terminal illnesses.

I would doubt that in this bill, or plan, that they would be mandatory. Tackling the pharmaceutical loopholes is a huge plus, as is permitting the purchase of insurance across state lines. Capping frivolous law suits against doctors (actually their insurers) would also be a huge plus.

The existing laws, like so many of our problems, are a collusion between lawyers who profit by all of this, and big medical corporations like the pharmaceutical industries, who rake in huge profits from the pricing structure even though they sell their products abroad at a much reduced rate. So our companies are raping the citizens of the U.S. and playing sweetly with everyone else, which is a direct result of their lobby in Washington.

The whole affordable care act was nothing more than a boon sweetheart deal to insurers after they helped to bailout the libor crisis of 2007-8. It got them off the hook for payouts at a time when Boomers were hitting retirement age.

At least this plan relieves the system where the issues are, at the doctor's level, and at the patient's level. Restore that and the quality of healthcare goes up.

Hell the HEPA laws were just a cover for a myriad of new charges to the patient not the least of which is the charge for your provider to retrieve your own damned records.

I hope they do put this forward.

I can't see them making participation in an HMA mandatory but I couldn't see being forced to carry health insurance 9 years ago either...

The ACA was never intended to succeed in reforming the health care industry, its singular purpose was to force single payer. The GOP needs a win on the health care issue so something must be done. On the surface this looks like a good starting point, it at least mitigates one source of objection from the left in maintaining pre-existing condition coverage.

Lost in all of this prior to the ACA is that no hospital could turn away a patient for the inability to pay. The corporations that owned the hospital simply wrote that amount off against their profits at the end of the year and paid no tax on those treatments.

The ACA, as much as Obama was loved by the left, actually profited the corporate health care industry by eliminating a drag on profits (but they all still profited handsomely because the % of indigent care was low prior to illegal immigration, let that sink in), and it profited insurance companies by denying certain later in life procedures which prolonged the life of the patient. Insurance companies knew that Boomer life long self owned health insurance policies were gong to come due in the form of end of life payouts and they didn't want to take the damn knock on their stock values.

So all Obama did was to bail out the Hospitals, bail out the Insurance companies, neither of which needed bailing out because (a.) they were both profitable and (b.) they covered losses with increased rates and tax wright offs, and (c.) by doing this it gave his damned socialist DACA program the opportunity to swell democrat ranks so they could steal elections from the middle class American. Why did corporate hospitals and insurance companies agree? The government (taxpayers) cover the medical cost of the damned illegals.

Single payer as a law, removed the requirement for hospitals to treat someone who has no insurance, although there are many hospital companies that still do by choice (a moral decision). So Obama hailed a hero by the poor, is actually their worst enemy. But hell isn't that how the damned left works with the ignorant public all of the time? The poor are frequently too uneducated to know how the systems over them work.

The average wage and hour worker in Alabama is having to pay 50% of their monthly take home to pay for the ACA and it's killing them literally as many now work 14 hours a day at 2 jobs trying to feed their families.

Yes. The idea that people had no coverage was a lie. If you lived in a city you could get charity care (a little tougher in rural areas). There are public hospitals, public clinics and the laws requiring care in other hospitals.

The problem was the cost, not coverage.
10-17-2019 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 21,624
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1891
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Republicans with a health care plan
(10-17-2019 03:48 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  
(10-17-2019 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-17-2019 01:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  I strongly oppose the concept of health management accounts. It is not necessary to give the government control of my money to get a tax benefit. No. Simply no. I want freedom for my money. I have no intention of giving the government control of how I spend my money to save a few dollars on my taxes.

Not just no.

Hell no.

These accounts exist today for state and federal employees and in many corporations. They are not mandatory. What they do benefit are those with chronic illnesses and those facing major costs for possibly terminal illnesses.

I would doubt that in this bill, or plan, that they would be mandatory. Tackling the pharmaceutical loopholes is a huge plus, as is permitting the purchase of insurance across state lines. Capping frivolous law suits against doctors (actually their insurers) would also be a huge plus.

The existing laws, like so many of our problems, are a collusion between lawyers who profit by all of this, and big medical corporations like the pharmaceutical industries, who rake in huge profits from the pricing structure even though they sell their products abroad at a much reduced rate. So our companies are raping the citizens of the U.S. and playing sweetly with everyone else, which is a direct result of their lobby in Washington.

The whole affordable care act was nothing more than a boon sweetheart deal to insurers after they helped to bailout the libor crisis of 2007-8. It got them off the hook for payouts at a time when Boomers were hitting retirement age.

At least this plan relieves the system where the issues are, at the doctor's level, and at the patient's level. Restore that and the quality of healthcare goes up.

Hell the HEPA laws were just a cover for a myriad of new charges to the patient not the least of which is the charge for your provider to retrieve your own damned records.

I hope they do put this forward.

What do air filters have to do with medical records?

Kidding, HIPAA is far more than just a cover a myriad of new charges just like PCI compliance is a lot more than a cover for selling new payment software. HIPAA/PCI are both the safeguards to force providers to protect your personal information and to punish them when they don't. In the day and age when everything is on the internet that is invaluable. I don't work with HIPAA, but I work in credit card security and it would make you sick to see how lax a lot of these mom-and-pop restaurants are with credit card security. Until they fail a PCI audit and the credit card companies start fining them until they secure their customers information.

Same thing with your family doctor. If they have unsecured electronic records or leave their hard files unlocked for anyone to steal their should be laws and punishments for that.
I agree those aspects were good, but buried in that bill were many add on charges for the health care industry. I've even been in advocate situations for people who had reason to sue a doctor over misdiagnosed tests results or in one case a patient who received a diagnosis of melanoma and was never told. In both cases records were filed outside of he Dr.'s office and he/she never revisited the files, even though they were also recorded electronically and in the case of the melanoma incorrectly recorded electronically from the actual lab report. Had records been kept at the office, or hospital, as they once had been the original paper trail would have been easily followed and mistakes caught. In the case of the melanoma a 43 year old father of two died from a small mole behind his ear which had been tagged by the biopsy. To add insult to injury when the wife acquired his records she was charged 10 bucks for the retrieval of records that should simply have been her husband's property. When you pay for a doctors visit it is implicit that record keeping is a part of that charge.

It also paved the way for having biopsies sent off to an extant lab for reading. That way the Hospital or Dr.'s office can charge for external reading instead of paying a lab tech on site to read it. It save's them overhead and adds to the billing for the mailing and testing.

Your dog can go to a vet and get an X-ray read on the spot. You can't go to your doctor and even get an X-ray, let alone have it read. At most hospitals it takes 3 days to get human results as the X-ray tech may be on duty to take the shots, but the radiologist may not be available to read them at that time.

In short the whole billing largess they've been given under HIPAA is the dark side of the privacy bill. And it means your dog or cat gets quicker and better treatment in many cases than you do. And I doubt your VET charges for record retrieval.
10-17-2019 04:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.