Healthcare

C

Cackalacky

Guest
Not to dogpile on this but how dumb is Paul Ryan? As late as February John Boehner, in a moment of pure honesty, laid out how and why The ACA would never be repealed, only tweeked and he also gave numerous reasons why if the GOP tried to repeal it would be tantamount to breaking it and then they would be blamed for breaking it.

What does Ryan do....this exact thing. So dumb. The House GOP is stupid.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,948
Reaction score
11,230
Yeah I can't wrap my mind around what he's even trying to do....
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
This. I was only a few years or so removed from being a happy liberal, registered democrat when that went down... i guess never say never, but once that went down the way it did the thought of voting democrat for anything, ever again felt like going to Venus and back... and I'm still there, every democrat leader associated with that I have absolutely zero use for.

Ditto...my faith requires me to not wish hateful things upon them...but I have to admit when Harry Reid wounded himself, I laughed and nodded to Karma.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
...And to add insult to injury, the left trotted out that ass hat Jonathan Grubber...SMFH!
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
GOP's best move at this point is probably to draw up a law that's basically Obamacare by a different name and hope that satisfies the base.

Don't think so. All these jackasses (Trump included) ran on and promised full repeal of obamacare. Not ACA Light. Not the GOP version of obamacare.

If it's 2018 and the GOP controlled House, Senate and White House fail to lower taxes, repeal ACA, and boost American manufacturing then everyone who voted these people in may as well have voted Democrat. And the Republicans will get crushed in 2018 like the Dems did in 2010.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Why more than half of hospital bills don't get paid (The Tennesseean)

Medical Debt Among People With Health Insurance (Kaiser Foundation, 2014)

An estimated 1 in 3 Americans report having difficulty paying their medical bills – that is, they have had problems affording medical bills within the past year, or they are gradually paying past bills over time, or they have bills they can’t afford to pay at all.1 Medical debt – and a host of related problems – can result when people can’t afford to pay their medical bills. While the chances of falling into medical debt are greater for people who are uninsured, most people who experience difficulty paying medical bills have health insurance.
 
Last edited:

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Edit: What in the Heck???...the kaiser foundation link...when I clicked on it, went here for some reason: https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2014/12/15/the-average-american-has-1766-in-overdue-medical-debt, so my response was to this link...Shrug...No Idea why that happened.



Telling were the findings expressed in the executive summary of the underlying report (http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201412_cfpb_reports_consumer-credit-medical-and-non-medical-collections.pdf) for your first reference...particularly a string of three subparagraphs:

Medical bills can be a cause of confusion and uncertainty and can result in
collections tradelines for consumers who are uncertain about what they owe, to
whom, when, or for what.


A large portion of consumers with medical debts in collections show no other
evidence of financial distress and are consumers who ordinarily pay their other
financial obligations on time.


Recently proposed rules and recently issued industry best practices pertaining to
medical billing and collections practices may help standardize the timing of when
collectors furnish information about medical debts in collections to the NCRAs.


I don't refute some additional financial stress as the richness of benefits evaporate, and more of the burden is shifted to consumers...however, cost escalation in this arena has a component of "self wounding" from medical facilities and insurance companies. I say that because people are just massively confused by hospitals and insurance companies, which stretches out payment cycle times, and introduces collections. A quarter of the people who have some medical report on their credit have no other issue. While I could not find the 1600 dollar figure in the underlying report quoted in the OP reference, I presume it is some sort of summation of multiple components...but what is clear is that credit reporting agencies are a shitty way to try and read medical debt because of how that debt is taken on...ie if I pay w/ a credit card, but then don't pay my credit card bill...that gets dicey to track.
 
Last edited:

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2026!
Messages
31,521
Reaction score
17,399
Some of the bullshit in that Tennessean article is laughable. Not the information provided per-say, but the quotes from the health and financial experts are laughable. They're saying that people aren't prepared for this shift in financial responsibilities as insured patients have been forced to shoulder more of the health costs with the high deductibles tied to health care plans. They suggest saving some money on the side for health care plans, $2000 a year to start. Despite this, the article acknowledges that 2/3 or more of the country has $1000 or less in the bank and a lot of people live paycheck to paycheck as it is. So, how are they going to come up with $2000 out of thin air each year? A lot of people don't spend their money constantly on stupid stuff, maybe a luxury now and then, but they often have $1000 or less in the bank for a reason. If they think people are going to start saving and this trend will go away, they've got another thing coming. They acknowledge that only 30% pay their complete bill, and another 10% are paying a small portion, while the rest pay nothing. Those that are stretching it to pay are having to forego necessities like heat to make ends meet. So, are they expecting the 2/3 not paying to do the same? Or, can we come to terms with the fact Health Care is broken?

The average person is paying $300 a month or more for a family on a health plan. That's just their individual contribution, their employer pays far more. Despite this, I'm supposed to pay $2000+out of pocket each year before the insurance company pitches in? What the hell is insurance doing for me unless I lose an arm? What it boils down to is I'm paying/contributing for high risk patients with greater medical bills, right? Don't give me that crap. Hospital billing is out of control as it is, they're as bad or worse than federal contract jobs. The NICU wanted to charge $40,000+ to me when my insurance company wouldn't pay after my son spent a week there...mostly caused by the fuck ups at the hospital. I've got news for them, I was never going to pay that $40,000 and I never will. There's no way it cost that hospital $40,000 in services/materials in reality for 7 days of bullshit. When you add up the hours of the nurse, the doctor's fee, the medicine, use of the machines, etc, it still doesn't add up to the $40,000 in reality. It's a bunch of trumped up nonsense.

In short, I'm not going to buy this bullshit. Hospitals are getting their money, they're not struggling here. Every few years they're adding a new wing or building to the health care network here in Dayton. Insurance companies are getting their cash too. They want to say "Oh well, them's the breaks, start saving better?" Nope, this can't continue. You can't squeeze the blood from a stone. Forcing 2/3 of the insured to file for bankruptcy isn't any kind of solution.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Kevin D. Williamson spitting fire as usual.

Health Care Rights? Scarcity Is the Controlling Factor | National Review

Here is a thought experiment: You have four children and three apples. You would like for everyone to have his own apple. You go to Congress, and you successfully persuade the House and the Senate to endorse a joint resolution declaring that everyone has a right to an apple of his own. A ticker-tape parade is held in your honor, and you share your story with Oprah, after which you are invited to address the United Nations, which passes the International Convention on the Rights of These Four Kids in Particular to an Individual Apple Each. You are visited by the souls of Mohandas Gandhi and Mother Teresa, who beam down approvingly from a joint Hindu-Catholic cloud in Heaven.

Question: How many apples do you have?

You have three apples, dummy. Three. You have four children. Each of those children has a congressionally endorsed, U.N.-approved, saint-ratified right to an apple of his own. But here’s the thing: You have three apples and four children. Nothing has changed.

Declaring a right in a scarce good is meaningless. It is a rhetorical gesture without any application to the events and conundrums of the real world. If the Dalai Lama were to lead 10,000 bodhisattvas in meditation, and the subject of that meditation was the human right to health care, it would do less good for the cause of actually providing people with health care than the lowliest temp at Merck does before his second cup of coffee on any given Tuesday morning.

Health care is physical, not metaphysical. It consists of goods, such as penicillin and heart stents, and services, such as oncological attention and radiological expertise. Even if we entirely eliminated money from the equation, conscripting doctors into service and nationalizing the pharmaceutical factories, the basic economic question would remain.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,625
Reaction score
2,731
Some of the bullshit in that Tennessean article is laughable. Not the information provided per-say, but the quotes from the health and financial experts are laughable. They're saying that people aren't prepared for this shift in financial responsibilities as insured patients have been forced to shoulder more of the health costs with the high deductibles tied to health care plans. They suggest saving some money on the side for health care plans, $2000 a year to start. Despite this, the article acknowledges that 2/3 or more of the country has $1000 or less in the bank and a lot of people live paycheck to paycheck as it is. So, how are they going to come up with $2000 out of thin air each year? A lot of people don't spend their money constantly on stupid stuff, maybe a luxury now and then, but they often have $1000 or less in the bank for a reason. If they think people are going to start saving and this trend will go away, they've got another thing coming. They acknowledge that only 30% pay their complete bill, and another 10% are paying a small portion, while the rest pay nothing. Those that are stretching it to pay are having to forego necessities like heat to make ends meet. So, are they expecting the 2/3 not paying to do the same? Or, can we come to terms with the fact Health Care is broken?

The average person is paying $300 a month or more for a family on a health plan. That's just their individual contribution, their employer pays far more. Despite this, I'm supposed to pay $2000+out of pocket each year before the insurance company pitches in? What the hell is insurance doing for me unless I lose an arm? What it boils down to is I'm paying/contributing for high risk patients with greater medical bills, right? Don't give me that crap. Hospital billing is out of control as it is, they're as bad or worse than federal contract jobs. The NICU wanted to charge $40,000+ to me when my insurance company wouldn't pay after my son spent a week there...mostly caused by the fuck ups at the hospital. I've got news for them, I was never going to pay that $40,000 and I never will. There's no way it cost that hospital $40,000 in services/materials in reality for 7 days of bullshit. When you add up the hours of the nurse, the doctor's fee, the medicine, use of the machines, etc, it still doesn't add up to the $40,000 in reality. It's a bunch of trumped up nonsense.

In short, I'm not going to buy this bullshit. Hospitals are getting their money, they're not struggling here. Every few years they're adding a new wing or building to the health care network here in Dayton. Insurance companies are getting their cash too. They want to say "Oh well, them's the breaks, start saving better?" Nope, this can't continue. You can't squeeze the blood from a stone. Forcing 2/3 of the insured to file for bankruptcy isn't any kind of solution.

Offer them $5k for the $40K bill and they will probably take it. Also, good luck getting a hospital or doctor to pay for their own mistake.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321

Provocative. He wouldn't advocate cost controls, would he? In the halcyon days of health care, non-profit hospitals, needing a new wing or a new hospital, would just raise price prices and doctors would keep patients in the hospitals at their discretion with full reimbursements expected from insurance companies - or price increases were passed along to the consumer. While those days are long gone, reimbursements based on value based payments have helped control costs - something the new health bill would eliminate. Parsing people into higher cost pools would not only charge older patients in the individual markets up to 5 times insurance rates but should, in his mind include women.

Why Shouldn’t Women Pay More for Health Insurance? (Williamson, National Review)

The Affordable Care Act enacted pricing rules that largely prohibited charging women higher health-insurance premiums than men, and the Republican plan would relax some of those restrictions, which probably would result in women’s paying higher premiums. But nowhere in the piece does she consider the actual facts of the case: Women have radically higher lifetime medical expenses than men do, about one-third higher, on average. (At the risk of committing hate crime, I’ll be using “women” in the old-fashioned sense, the way Bill Nye used to before the Minitrue men at Netflix memory-holed all that chromosome talk.) According to “The Lifetime Distribution of Health Care Costs,” (published in Health Services Research and made available online by the National Institutes of Health) per-capita lifetime health-care expenditures for women run $361,200, or nearly $100,000 more than per-capita lifetime health-care expenditures for men. Part of that is related to the fact that women live longer on average, but that does not account for the majority of the difference. If you want to call yourselves “reality-based,” how about taking a little reality into account? You don’t necessarily have to interpret the facts in any particular way, but you ought at least to take note of them. The usual rhetorical strategy is at work here: Ignore the relevant facts and, if someone forces them into the conversation, retreat into high dudgeon. “Harrumph! Sexism! Harrumph!” But maybe the dudgeon here ought not be too high. Yes, you could make a very persuasive argument that women ought not be expected to bear the burden of their higher medical expenses, or at least not the entire burden.

Age and gender should be high risk pools? Add to those low-income people.

How the GOP Health Care Bill Hurts Moms, Rape Survivors, and Poor Women

Perhaps he advocates that hospitals become for-profit?

Ten years ago, I was in the office of a very fancy doctor who was always very pleased to see me, because I paid him out of pocket — my insurance card said “American Express” on it. If you can do this, I recommend it. The medical experience is very different when there is cash on the barrelhead: Appointments are kept, prices are known and negotiated beforehand, telephone calls are answered. Markets work, if you let them.

Would market forces work when hospitals are profit based? Those who cannot pay will add to uncompensated care. Then those hospitals could raise prices on those who can afford insurance with scarcity is a deciding factor.
 
Last edited:

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2026!
Messages
31,521
Reaction score
17,399
Offer them $5k for the $40K bill and they will probably take it. Also, good luck getting a hospital or doctor to pay for their own mistake.

Na, I think I'm in the clear. My son was born 5 years ago this month. The hospital tried to bill insurance at that time, and insurance came back quickly and said they wouldn't pay it. That's when the hospital tried to go to me, and I just laughed. I told them they'd have more luck getting money from insurance, because I wasn't paying for their fuck ups. In short, my son went in for a small blood sugar problem (My daughter had the same thing and was able to nurse to correct it) and it turned into an infection because they put the IV in him incorrectly...snowballed from there. I haven't heard anything from them since on that issue, so either insurance gave them some cash or the hospital ate the bill I'm guessing.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
You understand that they pay roughly 50% of total personal Fed income taxes? As a result any tax reductions will probably impact that group the most. Make sense?

Do you understand that despite any such tax burden the wealthy in this country are wealthier than they've ever been and are getting wealthier at the fastest rate in history?
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I totally disagree with the ACA approach...and will never, ever let go of the lies and manipulation used to pass it.

There is no doubt that some shady shit went down. It was a corporate bill passed via strong arm.

Add the fact that 20 Million people are still forced to pay a fine because they can't freakin afford it

I don't think that's a fact.

"about 6.5 million taxpayers last tax season reported owing a total of $3 billion in such tax penalties for failing to have coverage in 2015"

A far cry from 20 million. And a certain percentage of those chose not to buy insurance because the fine was cheaper. That doesn't mean that they couldn't afford the insurance. A healthy 26-year old could opt out and pay the fine and probably save a little cash.

...and even if they can Millions more can't use it because their deductible is 10K.

How is this tied to Obamacare? Deductibles have been increasing as healthcare costs have gotten out of control.

Oh AAAAND insurance companies can't suppoort it.

As I understand it, insurance companies took a loss on the Obamacare plans but have been making enormous sums of money in the new business climate (so much for being a socialist takeover...) and then turned around and withdrew from the Obamcare exchanges because of their fiduciary (read: sociopathic) obligation to absolutely maximize profits for shareholders.

And since there is nothing in Obamacare mandating their participation, they were free to do so. It's another form of the ol' privatize the profits, socialize the losses routine. Without the public/government option, it really shows a weakness in the law.

MW-EU212_health_20160818123502_NS.png


So wailing "oh my God, 24 million people" in response to the Republican Dimwits is like...REALLY!?!

Yeah it would basically undo all of the Medicare/Medicaid enrollments, iirc. It's a big fucking deal to many of the most vulnerable Americans who voted for Trump in hopes he'd improve their lives.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
Some of the bullshit in that Tennessean article is laughable. Not the information provided per-say, but the quotes from the health and financial experts are laughable. They're saying that people aren't prepared for this shift in financial responsibilities as insured patients have been forced to shoulder more of the health costs with the high deductibles tied to health care plans. They suggest saving some money on the side for health care plans, $2000 a year to start. Despite this, the article acknowledges that 2/3 or more of the country has $1000 or less in the bank and a lot of people live paycheck to paycheck as it is. So, how are they going to come up with $2000 out of thin air each year? A lot of people don't spend their money constantly on stupid stuff, maybe a luxury now and then, but they often have $1000 or less in the bank for a reason. If they think people are going to start saving and this trend will go away, they've got another thing coming. They acknowledge that only 30% pay their complete bill, and another 10% are paying a small portion, while the rest pay nothing. Those that are stretching it to pay are having to forego necessities like heat to make ends meet. So, are they expecting the 2/3 not paying to do the same? Or, can we come to terms with the fact Health Care is broken?

The average person is paying $300 a month or more for a family on a health plan. That's just their individual contribution, their employer pays far more. Despite this, I'm supposed to pay $2000+out of pocket each year before the insurance company pitches in? What the hell is insurance doing for me unless I lose an arm? What it boils down to is I'm paying/contributing for high risk patients with greater medical bills, right? Don't give me that crap. Hospital billing is out of control as it is, they're as bad or worse than federal contract jobs. The NICU wanted to charge $40,000+ to me when my insurance company wouldn't pay after my son spent a week there...mostly caused by the fuck ups at the hospital. I've got news for them, I was never going to pay that $40,000 and I never will. There's no way it cost that hospital $40,000 in services/materials in reality for 7 days of bullshit. When you add up the hours of the nurse, the doctor's fee, the medicine, use of the machines, etc, it still doesn't add up to the $40,000 in reality. It's a bunch of trumped up nonsense.

In short, I'm not going to buy this bullshit. Hospitals are getting their money, they're not struggling here. Every few years they're adding a new wing or building to the health care network here in Dayton. Insurance companies are getting their cash too. They want to say "Oh well, them's the breaks, start saving better?" Nope, this can't continue. You can't squeeze the blood from a stone. Forcing 2/3 of the insured to file for bankruptcy isn't any kind of solution.

95% of the healthcare debate is bullshit. These laws... including the ACA... aren't getting written to actually solve problems and help people. There's far too much corporate influence to enact the correct law, because the correct law is going to destroy the profits of insurance companies.

I'm a huge critic of the ACA because it's benefits are grossly overstated... there's a lot of good in the law, but there's way too much that obviously doesn't work (and obviously was never going to work) that I've already talked about ad nauseum on here so I'm not going to rehash.

People love Medicare and it works. A public option similar to Medicare with negotiated rates similar to Medicare that everyone can opt into for a set cost scaled off of your taxable income literally fixes everything. Literally. The reason it isn't happening is the same reason "progressive" like Cory Booker vote against common sense legislation to help the American people... the insurance/big pharma/medical lobby is way too freaking powerful.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
There is no doubt that some shady shit went down. It was a corporate bill passed via strong arm.



I don't think that's a fact.

"about 6.5 million taxpayers last tax season reported owing a total of $3 billion in such tax penalties for failing to have coverage in 2015"



A far cry from 20 million. And a certain percentage of those chose not to buy insurance because the fine was cheaper. That doesn't mean that they couldn't afford the insurance. A healthy 26-year old could opt out and pay the fine and probably save a little cash.

...6.5 million are filings not people. For each filing there is an average of 2.54 people. each of those 2.54 people would have an impact on the premium cost and each would have their own deductible that contributes to the decision to buy or not, thus you gotta count them in the head count. The dollars quoted in revenue from their fines are still the same, but heads impacted by this cluster fuck matter....it is 20 Million.


How is this tied to Obamacare? Deductibles have been increasing as healthcare costs have gotten out of control.

...I never saw a damned 10-12 K deductible plan that wasn't part of a catastrophic plan, and those cost peanuts on the premium side comparatively speaking... People are now faced with a shitty deductible, and a shitty premium, and they can't actually use the insurance. Most of those enrolled will not meet their deductibles, which means they are out of pocket all year, every year. (I say this based upon the Trends provided here...https://www.americanactionforum.org/weekly-checkup/most-exchange-enrollees-will-never-reach-deductible/) They are basically getting the service level of an old time catastrophic plan for the cost of the old time Cadillac plan. Not hard to see there are millions more beyond those who would pay fines and have nothing, who can't use their plan anyway.

As I understand it, insurance companies took a loss on the Obamacare plans but have been making enormous sums of money in the new business climate (so much for being a socialist takeover...) and then turned around and withdrew from the Obamcare exchanges because of their fiduciary (read: sociopathic) obligation to absolutely maximize profits for shareholders.

And since there is nothing in Obamacare mandating their participation, they were free to do so. It's another form of the ol' privatize the profits, socialize the losses routine. Without the public/government option, it really shows a weakness in the law.

MW-EU212_health_20160818123502_NS.png

So...the insurance is largely unusable, and for whatever reason, now unattainable...hand waving and blame asside...that is the fucking reality...Yes?

Yeah it would basically undo all of the Medicare/Medicaid enrollments, iirc. It's a big fucking deal to many of the most vulnerable Americans who voted for Trump in hopes he'd improve their lives.

It is, but you can't ignore the 20+ million I'm telling you about here, and think it is credible to bitch about a different 20+ million and think it is ok.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
One of the challenges healthcare faces to deliver quality care efficiently by experienced personnel:

How Should We Prepare For The Wave Of Retiring Baby Boomer Nurses? (Health Affairs Blog)

Beginning in the early 1970s, career-oriented and largely female baby boomers embraced the nursing profession in unprecedented numbers following large increases in health care spending after the introduction of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. By 1990, baby-boomer registered nurses (RNs) numbered nearly one million and comprised about two-thirds of the RN workforce. As these RNs aged over the next two decades, they accumulated substantial knowledge and clinical experience. The number of boomer RNs peaked at 1.26 million in 2008, and, after a brief delay in the early part of the current decade (likely associated with the Great Recession), the baby-boomer RN cohort began retiring in large numbers. Since 2012, roughly 60,000 RNs exited the workforce each year, and by the end of the decade more than 70,000 RNs will be retiring annually. In 2020, baby-boomer RNs will number 660,000, roughly half their 2008 peak.

The retirement of one million RNs from the nursing workforce between now and 2030 will mean that their accumulated years of nursing experience leave with them. We estimate that the number of experience-years lost from the nursing workforce in 2015 was 1.7 million (multiplying the number of retiring RNs by the cumulative years of experience for each RN), double the number from 2005 (see Figure 1). This trend will continue to accelerate as the largest groups of baby-boomer RNs reach their mid to late sixties. The departure of such a large cohort of experienced RNs from the workforce means that patient care settings and other organizations that depend on RNs will face a significant loss of nursing knowledge and expertise that will be felt for many years to come.

The exit and replacement of retiring RNs will not occur uniformly because health care delivery organizations in some regions of the country will confront faster RN retirements and slower replacements of their RN workforce (especially the New England and Pacific regions) compared to other regions of the country (the Southern and Central regions). Consequently, some organizations will experience bursts in RN retirements that may result in temporary nursing shortages and disruptions in care delivery. How can health care delivery organizations overcome the loss of so much nursing knowledge, wisdom, and expertise?....

Presently, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics, we have 2,857,180 nurses with job growth - above and beyond replacing a million retiring nurses - expected to be:

Job Outlook
Employment of registered nurses is projected to grow 16 percent from 2014 to 2024, much faster than the average for all occupations. Growth will occur for a number of reasons.

Demand for healthcare services will increase because of the aging population, given that older people typically have more medical problems than younger people. Nurses also will be needed to educate and care for patients with various chronic conditions, such as arthritis, dementia, diabetes, and obesity.

In addition, the number of individuals who have access to health insurance is expected to continue to increase because of federal health insurance reform. People who previously were uninsured or found treatment to be cost prohibitive will obtain health insurance and have access to primary and preventive care services. More nurses will be needed to care for these patients in offices of physicians, clinics, and other ambulatory care settings.

The financial pressure on hospitals to discharge patients as soon as possible may result in more people being admitted to long-term care facilities and outpatient care centers, and greater need for healthcare at home. Job growth is expected in facilities that provide long-term rehabilitation for stroke and head injury patients, and in facilities that treat people with Alzheimer’s disease. In addition, because many older people prefer to be treated at home or in residential care facilities, registered nurses will be in demand in those settings.

Growth also is expected to be faster than average in outpatient care centers, where patients do not stay overnight, such as those which provide same-day chemotherapy, rehabilitation, and surgery. In addition, an increased number of procedures, as well as more sophisticated procedures previously done only in hospitals, are being performed in ambulatory care settings and physicians’ offices.....

U.S. BLS, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2016
29-1141 Registered Nurses
 
Last edited:

EvilleIrish

Well-known member
Messages
2,182
Reaction score
1,336
95% of the healthcare debate is bullshit. These laws... including the ACA... aren't getting written to actually solve problems and help people. There's far too much corporate influence to enact the correct law, because the correct law is going to destroy the profits of insurance companies.

I'm a huge critic of the ACA because it's benefits are grossly overstated... there's a lot of good in the law, but there's way too much that obviously doesn't work (and obviously was never going to work) that I've already talked about ad nauseum on here so I'm not going to rehash.

People love Medicare and it works. A public option similar to Medicare with negotiated rates similar to Medicare that everyone can opt into for a set cost scaled off of your taxable income literally fixes everything. Literally. The reason it isn't happening is the same reason "progressive" like Cory Booker vote against common sense legislation to help the American people... the insurance/big pharma/medical lobby is way too freaking powerful.

Your last sentence is spot on. The Citizens United ruling from 2010 was a death blow to the idea of corporations not having enormous influence on elections. I firmly believe if we could limit the amount donated to campaigns that we could solve many of our problems.
 

MJ12666

New member
Messages
794
Reaction score
60
Do you understand that despite any such tax burden the wealthy in this country are wealthier than they've ever been and are getting wealthier at the fastest rate in history?

Are you referring to wealth or taxable income?
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The price tag on a California single payer plan is in, and it’s bigger than the state budget <a href="https://t.co/uDir1RKZdk">https://t.co/uDir1RKZdk</a></p>— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) <a href="https://twitter.com/joanwalsh/status/866735388731351042">May 22, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


SHOCKER! Joan Walsh shares ‘single payer’ reality that might FLOOR lefties – twitchy.com
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,948
Reaction score
11,230
I can tell you where all that will go:

right out the window... while they continue screaming about how just taxing the rich more will solve everything then reacting like this when it comes their turn to contribute to anything:

giphy.gif
 

dshans

They call me The Dribbler
Messages
9,624
Reaction score
1,181
Well, well, well.

Where are the facts, the analysis, and the examination and discussion of structure and sources of funding?
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
CBO releases new estimates on Obamacare repeal bill; 23 million would lose insurance coverage

Most of the coverage losses still would occur next year, when 14 million more people would become uninsured than would otherwise be if Obamacare remained in place, CBO said in its new report.

The controversial bill would "tend to increase" average premium prices of individual health plans by about 20 percent relative to the current law in 2018, according to the analysis, but just 5 percent higher than Obamacare prices would be expected to be in 2019.

H.R. 1628, American Health Care Act of 2017
May 24, 2017
Cost Estimate CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the American Health Care Act would reduce federal deficits by $119 billion over the coming decade and increase the number of people who are uninsured by 23 million in 2026 relative to current law.
 

irishroo

The CNN of Irish Envy
Messages
572
Reaction score
44
Top