Healthcare

[wizards8507]

This Dem argument that the AHCA is a "tax on the elderly" is asinine. No, being elderly is a tax on the elderly. Old people are sicker. Don't like it? Take it up with God, not Paul Ryan.

But the bill still sucks.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

This Dem argument that the AHCA is a "tax on the elderly" is asinine. No, being elderly is a tax on the elderly. Old people are sicker. Don't like it? Take it up with God, not Paul Ryan.

But the bill still sucks.

I get what you're saying, but I think the perspective matters. If progressives on the left are shooting for single payer at some point, then their philosophy is more centered on everyone pays in throughout their life and then "collects" when they're older and sicker. This bill is the opposite direction of that thought process. I don't think that makes them asinine. I just think it makes it a difference in opinion.

 

[wizards8507]

I get what you're saying, but I think the perspective matters. If progressives on the left are shooting for single payer at some point, then their philosophy is more centered on everyone pays in throughout their life and then "collects" when they're older and sicker. This bill is the opposite direction of that thought process. I don't think that makes them asinine. I just think it makes it a difference in opinion.

Their argument is asinine, even if the Dems know exactly what they're doing. I agree with you that they probably have single payer in the backs of their minds, but that's not what they're saying out loud. If they want single payer, nut up and argue for single payer.

 

[Old Man Mike]

"Let's say that it was 24 hours before you were born, and a genie appeared and said, 'What I'm going to do is let you set the rules of the society into which you will be born. You can set the economic rules and the social rules, and whatever rules you set will apply during your lifetime and your children's lifetimes.' And you'll say, 'Well, that's nice, but what's the catch?' And the genie says, 'Here's the catch. You don't know if you're going to be born rich or poor, white or black, male or female, able-bodied or infirm, intelligent or retarded.'

For anyone's reflection.....

Quote is from a very famous wealthy person (not named since a lot of folks here disregard things based upon who said them rather than their inherent worth.)


.... there are also the array of famous quotes about how a society's goodness can be judged on how they treat certain groups (ex. the poor and the elderly). ... but perhaps that is way too liberal ....

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Their argument is asinine, even if the Dems know exactly what they're doing. I agree with you that they probably have single payer in the backs of their minds, but that's not what they're saying out loud. If they want single payer, nut up and argue for single payer.

Meh. I just view it as political posturing. I don't disagree with you. I just think it's par for the course with politicians.

 

[IrishLax]

"Let's say that it was 24 hours before you were born, and a genie appeared and said, 'What I'm going to do is let you set the rules of the society into which you will be born. You can set the economic rules and the social rules, and whatever rules you set will apply during your lifetime and your children's lifetimes.' And you'll say, 'Well, that's nice, but what's the catch?' And the genie says, 'Here's the catch. You don't know if you're going to be born rich or poor, white or black, male or female, able-bodied or infirm, intelligent or retarded.'

For anyone's reflection.....

Quote is from a very famous wealthy person (not named since a lot of folks here disregard things based upon who said them rather than their inherent worth.)


.... there are also the array of famous quotes about how a society's goodness can be judged on how they treat certain groups (ex. the poor and the elderly). ... but perhaps that is way too liberal ....

The classic "veil of ignorance" hypothetical. There's a great West Wing episode where they explore this topic from a policy making perspective.

 

[RDU Irish]

"Let's say that it was 24 hours before you were born, and a genie appeared and said, 'What I'm going to do is let you set the rules of the society into which you will be born. You can set the economic rules and the social rules, and whatever rules you set will apply during your lifetime and your children's lifetimes.' And you'll say, 'Well, that's nice, but what's the catch?' And the genie says, 'Here's the catch. You don't know if you're going to be born rich or poor, white or black, male or female, able-bodied or infirm, intelligent or retarded.'

For anyone's reflection.....

Quote is from a very famous wealthy person (not named since a lot of folks here disregard things based upon who said them rather than their inherent worth.)


.... there are also the array of famous quotes about how a society's goodness can be judged on how they treat certain groups (ex. the poor and the elderly). ... but perhaps that is way too liberal ....

Sounds like something out of Buffet's annual shareholder letter. Similar point I have heard, If not here - Where? If not now - When? What country and what point in human history has better opportunity for the entire spectrum of humanity than today's USA?

 

[Old Man Mike]

"Who has done it better": It is a poor decision-making basis to decide to do things based on other people rather than upon what one oneself might accomplish. (particularly where morals are involved)

Sometimes this is simply an excuse not to try.....

 

[irishroo]

Has anyone come across a valid study of any sort examining the potential impact of opening borders for prescription drugs with Canada? I think it makes sense on the surface from an individual consumer/patient point of view, but obviously would have huge negative effects on the pharma industry here in the States. I'm generally totally fine with that in business - more competition is almost always better - but pharma is an unusual industry. It's widely known that American citizens essentially subsidize the cost of improved treatments for the rest of the world because we pay such higher prices for drugs than nearly every other developed country. What I don't know is the impact on R&D that opening borders for prescription drugs would have. Does allowing Americans to purchase Canadian prescription drugs set the search for a cure for cancer back 5 years? 10 years? 20? No impact at all? I'm just wondering if anyone's come across any data around this or study that's looked into it.

 

[Legacy]

Has anyone come across a valid study of any sort examining the potential impact of opening borders for prescription drugs with Canada? I think it makes sense on the surface from an individual consumer/patient point of view, but obviously would have huge negative effects on the pharma industry here in the States. I'm generally totally fine with that in business - more competition is almost always better - but pharma is an unusual industry. It's widely known that American citizens essentially subsidize the cost of improved treatments for the rest of the world because we pay such higher prices for drugs than nearly every other developed country. What I don't know is the impact on R&D that opening borders for prescription drugs would have. Does allowing Americans to purchase Canadian prescription drugs set the search for a cure for cancer back 5 years? 10 years? 20? No impact at all? I'm just wondering if anyone's come across any data around this or study that's looked into it.

Perhaps this answers some questions and addresses some of the issues, with references:

Drug reimportation practices in the United States (Nat'l Library of Medicine, article appeared in the Journal Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management).

I'll look for something newer, too. Ask your pharmacist, if you are taking a generic, where it is from. Reimportation is the process where a Canadian pharmacy buys American drugs and resells them back to Americans.

Look's like John McCain has introduced a bill "To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow for the personal importation of safe and affordable drugs from approved pharmacies in Canada."

 

[Legacy]

Joint Letter To Congress Regarding Health Care Policy United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)

March 8, 2017

United States Senate / United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510 / 20515

Dear Senator / Representative:

Health care is a vital concern for nearly every person in the country. Discussions on health care reform have reached a level of intensity which is making open and fruitful dialogue difficult, even while most people recognize that improvements to the health care system are needed to ensure a life-giving and sustainable model for both the present and future. Given the magnitude and importance of the task before us, we call for a new spirit of cooperation for the sake of the common good. Legislation has just been introduced in the House of Representatives and the Bishops will be reviewing it closely.

In a letter of January 18, 2017, Bishop Frank J. Dewane reiterated that "[a]ll people need and should have access to comprehensive, quality health care that they can afford, and it should not depend on their stage of life, where or whether they or their parents work, how much they earn, where they live, or where they were born. The Bishops' Conference believes health care reform should be truly universal and it should be genuinely affordable." Bishop Dewane also emphasized that "a repeal of key provisions of the Affordable Care Act ought not be undertaken without the concurrent passage of a replacement plan that ensures access to adequate health care for the millions of people who now rely upon it for their wellbeing."

We ask that you consider and honor the following moral criteria as you debate health care policy in the days ahead:....

(See link for moral criteria the Bishops urged the Congress to consider)

After detailing moral criteria, the letter ends,

The Catholic Church in the United States remains committed to the ideals of universal and affordable health care, and to the pursuit of those ideals in a manner that honors the principles outlined above. Health care is not just another issue for the Church or for a healthy society. It is a fundamental issue of human life and dignity. Health care is a critical component of the Catholic Church's ministry. The Church provides health care, purchases health care and helps to pick up the pieces for those who fall through the cracks of the health care system when it fails. We bring extensive history and teaching, as well as everyday experience to this issue. Our aim, and our prayer, is that this perspective will help make clear the likely impacts of the decisions you are about to debate in Congress.

Sincerely,

His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan
Archbishop of New York
Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities

Most Rev. William E. Lori
Archbishop of Baltimore
Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty

Most Rev. Frank J. Dewane
Bishop of Venice
Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development

Most Rev. Joe S. Vásquez
Bishop of Austin
Chairman, Committee on Migration

 

[wizards8507]

Ugh, the USCCB strikes again. They want a health care law that is simultaneously Universal, Affordable, Comprehensive, and High Quality. Simple as that, eh USCCB?

"Put no trust in princes, in children of Adam powerless to save."

 

[kmoose]

Joint Letter To Congress Regarding Health Care Policy United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)

(See link for moral criteria the Bishops urged the Congress to consider)

After detailing moral criteria, the letter ends,

I have a suggestion for the USCCB...... get the Vatican to sell off just 1% of the vast treasures(art, precious metals, artifacts, etc.) that they are hoarding, and you could pay the health care costs for every single member of your "flock", for years to come!

 

[zelezo vlk]

I have a suggestion for the USCCB...... get the Vatican to sell off just 1% of the vast treasures(art, precious metals, artifacts, etc.) that they are hoarding, and you could pay the health care costs for every single member of your "flock", for years to come!

Well I mean, not really. Also, this isn't the Vatican (although I'm sure Papa Frankie would agree), this is just the conference of US Bishops. Sadly we do not have a Sistine Chapel to turn into a Pizza Hut for a few million dollars here in America.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I have a suggestion for the USCCB...... get the Vatican to sell off just 1% of the vast treasures(art, precious metals, artifacts, etc.) that they are hoarding, and you could pay the health care costs for every single member of your "flock", for years to come!

So, they believe healthcare is important for all people and your reply is "fund it yourself then"?

 

[MJ12666]

Has anyone come across a valid study of any sort examining the potential impact of opening borders for prescription drugs with Canada? I think it makes sense on the surface from an individual consumer/patient point of view, but obviously would have huge negative effects on the pharma industry here in the States. I'm generally totally fine with that in business - more competition is almost always better - but pharma is an unusual industry. It's widely known that American citizens essentially subsidize the cost of improved treatments for the rest of the world because we pay such higher prices for drugs than nearly every other developed country. What I don't know is the impact on R&D that opening borders for prescription drugs would have. Does allowing Americans to purchase Canadian prescription drugs set the search for a cure for cancer back 5 years? 10 years? 20? No impact at all? I'm just wondering if anyone's come across any data around this or study that's looked into it.

I worked in the pharma business for about 25 years and I never saw any data on this. But personally I would prefer that rather then re-importing drugs from Canada, the Congress pass a law and set prices just like Canada and Europe. When I first started my career in the mid 80's it was a different business. It really was about developing drugs for the good of society and making a reasonable profit. This started to change in the early to mid 90's and prices for drugs still under patent are ridiculous as are profit margins. Sorry to say but the US really needs institute price controls.

 

[kmoose]

So, they believe healthcare is important for all people and your reply is "fund it yourself then"?

No, my reply is, "Your church has hoarded priceless antiquities and grown uber-rich for centuries. If you REALLY cared about your flock, you would gladly trade a miniscule amount of your wealth to care for them. You have had the means to do so for at least decades, so if your beliefs are so strong, then put up or shut up!"

 

[Old Man Mike]

Really uplifting to hear the rather vicious hatred poured out at my Church (without any depth of thought to support it.) Even more uplifting to listen to it on a Notre Dame site. The concept of simple civility for other people's hearts makes no difference at all.

To the issue: I don't have solid data and I'll bet no one else here does either. But:

1). The wealth of the current Vatican is estimated at around two billion --- that's Vatican real estate plus St. Pete's plus the Sistine Chapel;
2). selling those assets would be a one-time sale;
3). there are a third of a billion people in the USA. If the Vatican gave all the profits from its sale to US healthcare, that would be $6 each to fund their health care, on a one year basis;
4). since we're talking about the US here, maybe the better Bible-based approach would be for us to sell the Smithsonian, the White House, the Lincoln Memorial etc (all to rich people of course, so they could charge their lessers for the privilege to experience them.);
5). or maybe certain IE commentators should sell their own Notre Dame memorabilia and car and stash of booze etc and contribute to local charity before enabling oneself to preach to others and the Church from their high moral ground.

The Church, by the way, funds countless charitable programs and projects worldwide. The general estimates are that the intake of funds, though prodigious in total, match the outflow. Of course haters do not want to believe any of that and would rather quote longterm anti-Catholic experts and websites.

Arguing against positions in issues can be done in civil intellectual ways, and if anyone really cares about learning anything about an issue, such are the only ways to discuss. Otherwise it's primal screams hollered down a Black Hole.

"Louder ain't truer. It's just more annoying."
Mountain William.

 

[kmoose]

Really uplifting to hear the rather vicious hatred poured out at my Church (without any depth of thought to support it.) Even more uplifting to listen to it on a Notre Dame site. The concept of simple civility for other people's hearts makes no difference at all.

To the issue: I don't have solid data and I'll bet no one else here does either. But:

1). The wealth of the current Vatican is estimated at around two billion --- that's Vatican real estate plus St. Pete's plus the Sistine Chapel;
2). selling those assets would be a one-time sale;
3). there are a third of a billion people in the USA. If the Vatican gave all the profits from its sale to US healthcare, that would be $6 each to fund their health care, on a one year basis;
4). since we're talking about the US here, maybe the better Bible-based approach would be for us to sell the Smithsonian, the White House, the Lincoln Memorial etc (all to rich people of course, so they could charge their lessers for the privilege to experience them.);
5). or maybe certain IE commentators should sell their own Notre Dame memorabilia and car and stash of booze etc and contribute to local charity before enabling oneself to preach to others and the Church from their high moral ground.

The Church, by the way, funds countless charitable programs and projects worldwide. The general estimates are that the intake of funds, though prodigious in total, match the outflow. Of course haters do not want to believe any of that and would rather quote longterm anti-Catholic experts and websites.

Arguing against positions in issues can be done in civil intellectual ways, and if anyone really cares about learning anything about an issue, such are the only ways to discuss. Otherwise it's primal screams hollered down a Black Hole.

"Louder ain't truer. It's just more annoying."
Mountain William.

I'm sorry, Mike. It really was not my intent to offend anyone. We all have our levels of faith. But even Doubting Thomas was welcomed by Christ, to the point that he was included in the Disciples. I just get fed up by the Catholic Church telling people how to think. I don't mind them reminding us of how Jesus lived, or what Jesus taught us, but they need to just stay out of politics, in my opinion. The Catholic Church has done a lot of great things in this world. They've also perpetrated a lot of injustice on others. Again, my apologies for any offense that I caused.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I, like Francis, welcome everyone. It's a better experience though, when they come to my home, they don't sh1t on my carpet or cook hotdogs over my altar and meditation candles. Just a little caring for one another brings us together.

As to the Church telling people how to think --- well, I don't respond all that well to that either --- but I do keep it behind my teeth until I settle down and have something well thought-out to say. (I'm borderline heretic on many things.) Also, the Council of Bishops addresses itself to Catholics --- so I have to be lumbered by their views while others do not (seems like Republicans and Democrats have been telling me how to think on a far greater scale, and without the moral base, by the way. And to an astonishing degree, posters here on IE do this with the most amazing airs of authority.)

As to the Church's historical atrocities: I wasn't part of that, and I'm sure all the Catholics I admire (a very large crowd) weren't either, and would be even violently opposed to such if they came up today. When I hear people blaming me for Galileo, Alexandria, Aztecs, Incas, Inquisitions etc etc, I feel the same as I do when ethnic groups try to lay their histories on me (I am one-eighth German afterall --- a rue-sarcastic remark for those incapable of getting any subtlety.)

 

[Legacy]

More amendments last night: https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthon...e-rich-reduced-medicaid-funding/#5abfcb86b7d6

Trying to get those far-right no voters to switch...

(Above Article title: In Amended Health Care Bill, GOP Doubles Down On Tax Breaks For The Rich, Reduced Medicaid Funding (Forbes))


The Congressional Budget Office has scored the costs of Trumpcare with the new amendments. H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, incorporating manager’s amendments 4, 5, 24, and 25 (CBO)

A few highlights:

Deficit Reduction
- The initial bill had an estimated net reduction in federal deficits of $337 billion over the 2017-2026 period. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1628, with the proposed amendments, would save $186 billion less over that period, mostly by reducing revenues. The estimated deficit reduction now would be $150 billion.

Coverage
- The rate of people estimated to lose insurance coverage is the same - 14 million more by 2018 than current law, 21 million more by 2020, 24 million more in 2026.

Compared with the previous version of the legislation, H.R. 1628, with the proposed amendments, would have similar effects on health insurance coverage: Estimates differ by no more than half a million people in any category in any year over the next decade. (Some differences may appear larger because of rounding.) For example, the decline in Medicaid coverage after 2020 would be smaller than in the previous estimate, mainly because of states’ responses to the faster growth in the per capita allotments for aged, blind, and disabled enrollees—but other changes in Medicaid would offset some of those effects.

Effects on Premiums

H.R. 1628, with the proposed amendments, would tend to increase average premiums in the nongroup market before 2020 and lower average premiums thereafter, relative to projections under current law. In 2018 and 2019, according to CBO and JCT’s estimates, average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market would be 15 percent to 20 percent higher under the legislation than under current law. By 2026, average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market would be roughly 10 percent lower than under current law.

So, the amendments with tax concessions would:
- lower the reductions for the federal deficit from $337 billion to $150 billion
- coverage loss would be the same - 24 million
- premiums (for the individual nongroup market) would go up 15-20% for the next two years, and be lower by 10% by 2026

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Trump gives ultimatum on vote. Circus.

 

[wizards8507]

None of this matters because the thing will die in the Senate

 

[wizards8507]

Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) just said the AHCA will literally pull the rug out from people. LITERALLY. In written, prepared remarks. We elect 535 members of Congress in a nation of 300 million citizens and we can't find Representatives with a fundamental understanding of the English language.

Also, C-SPAN is my new favorite channel.

Also, I'm trying to figure out which of our elected leaders are stupid, which are liars, and which are both. I'm guessing most are both. "The AHCA will end maternity care." Um, what? As if maternity care never existed before the Affordable Care Act.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) just said the AHCA will literally pull the rug out from people. LITERALLY. In written, prepared remarks. We elect 535 members of Congress in a nation of 300 million citizens and we can't find Representatives with a fundamental understanding of the English language.

In my (admittedly brief) time on this earth, I'm not sure that I've found 535 Americans with an excellent grasp of the English language. It stands to reason that our Representatives will be flawed as well. Back to diagramming sentences!

 

[wizards8507]

"It is not liberty to be forced to go to work two weeks after having a child."

Um, what?

 

[wizards8507]

Now Charlie Crist says we can't pass the AHCA because it's Lent.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) just said the AHCA will literally pull the rug out from people. LITERALLY. In written, prepared remarks. We elect 535 members of Congress in a nation of 300 million citizens and we can't find Representatives with a fundamental understanding of the English language.

Also, C-SPAN is my new favorite channel.

Also, I'm trying to figure out which of our elected leaders are stupid, which are liars, and which are both. I'm guessing most are both. "The AHCA will end maternity care." Um, what? As if maternity care never existed before the Affordable Care Act.

Need a website that tracks every politician from POTUS down to local on quotes, donors, voting history, etc. If that exists, please let me know.

The best thing to do is for constituents to hold their representatives accountable. That's what is so fascinating about the town halls right now. People are pisssssssed and there are a lot of Rs not showing up to even talk to people.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Need a website that tracks every politician from POTUS down to local on quotes, donors, voting history, etc. If that exists, please let me know.

The best thing to do is for constituents to hold their representatives accountable. That's what is so fascinating about the town halls right now. People are pisssssssed and there are a lot of Rs not showing up to even talk to people.

Good luck with that.

The fact is that districts are very much rigged today, so even if you hold someone accountable, it won't change anything. The same stooges will keep coming in.

Senate elections are a different animal, but is similar. Given the perceived rise of single issue voters, I find it hard to believe that flip flopping on non-core issues, or issues where the single issues voters is low, will move the needle.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

So Koch Bros publicly throwing money around to get a no vote because it doesn't go far enough to support their money interests. Vote no, we'll give you money for your campaign. Vote yes, no soup for you. But Trump wants this to pass so he can look good. This is a prime time HBO Fight Night throwdown.

People who vote yes, help Trump, but lose Koch support dollars and also (most likely in certain states) lose their seat at mid-terms.

People who vote no, turn their back on Trump, gain Koch dollars and most likely keep their seat.