• Study: Trump healthcare plan would end coverage for 21M and cost about $270 billion over 10 years.
    77 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Megadave;49934900]Ha, get a fucking load of this guy. Libertarians are one of the few people actively trying to give the people a shitload of rights, and yet he's comparing us to fucking nazis. You really have your head that far up your ass? We are nothing like Trump supporters, we actually give a shit about the people. Fat White Lump is in no way a libertarian in anymore the way the grand wizard likes Hilary (yes, I made that comparison, get the fuck over it). Also, from what I've seen half the libertarian vote is voting for Sanders so we aren't a bunch of redneck tea partiers. Point being, get the fuck off your high horse. I mean, yes you can argue libertarian ideas aren't the best, but don't go around comparing them to Trump. only a true fucking dumbass thinks libertarians are as bad as Trump (We're only as bad as Hilary).[/QUOTE] While I'm glad that you're holding on to the original meaning of libertarian, that's not what it's really understood to mean in America anymore. Nowadays libertarian usually refers to "pro personal freedom from government but also pro free market and anti government intervention," which is not the type of person who would vote for Bernie Sanders.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49934876]The vast majority of people (around 90%) were happy with their insurance coverage pre-Obamacare.[/QUOTE] Is there a source for that? What about the millions of people who had no insurance but do now? What about the people who were dying because their insurance wouldn't cover "pre-existing conditions"? I think we often forget how terrible the state of healthcare was in this country in 2008. Would you rather we go back to the system we had where a person would pay for insurance for their entire life, and then when they needed to use it, were denied coverage because their diabetes or cancer was a "pre-existing condition", and then die because they had no way to pay for their medical costs?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49937604]Is there a source for that? What about the millions of people who had no insurance but do now? What about the people who were dying because their insurance wouldn't cover "pre-existing conditions"? I think we often forget how terrible the state of healthcare was in this country in 2008. Would you rather we go back to the system we had where a person would pay for insurance for their entire life, and then when they needed to use it, were denied coverage because their diabetes or cancer was a "pre-existing condition", and then die because they had no way to pay for their medical costs?[/QUOTE] Here's the source: [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/10/george-will/will-says-95-percent-people-health-insurance-are-s/[/url] [editline]15th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49937006]The reasoning behind the airbag thing is solid. You've explained the specifics of why airbags might not be the best example, but you've yet to tackle the logic behind it. People being ok with the current system in no way guarantees that it's the best there is.[/QUOTE] You must have missed it because I did address the logic of why the example isn't applicable: 1) They are fundamentally different products. A person cannot know what they are missing when they don't know that something exists. This doesn't happen for health insurance because essentially everyone knows that good insurance exists. It's also different because a person who gets in an accident without an airbag, therefore getting injured, doesn't know any better. A person who has a medical issue, and finds out that their insurance doesn't cover it, immediately recognizes the fact that their insurance didn't cover it. One group doesn't know what they are missing and the other group would know what they were missing. 2) The airbag example not being a good one is actually very important because it goes against the very assumption that people are happy with things even though objectively better alternatives exist. Or in other words: the market and/or corporations are the biggest limiter to good alternatives being provided as opposed to actual consumer desire for those alternatives. [editline]15th March 2016[/editline] There are obvious issues with the US healthcare industry. I'm not denying that, but recognizing that problems exist is not the same as saying that the entire system needs to be destroyed and replaced.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49937909]Here's the source: [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/10/george-will/will-says-95-percent-people-health-insurance-are-s/[/url] [/QUOTE] "We ruled out poll questions that asked about satisfaction with the costs of health care, which we decided goes beyond the scope of Will's comment." AKA healthcare costs. AKA the number one bankruptcy factor in the USA.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;49938205]"We ruled out poll questions that asked about satisfaction with the costs of health care, which we decided goes beyond the scope of Will's comment." AKA healthcare costs. AKA the number one bankruptcy factor in the USA.[/QUOTE] The comment I responded to was purely about coverage. Context, it matters.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49938238]The comment I responded to was purely about coverage. Context, it matters.[/QUOTE] Oh fair enough. I'm just always mad cause people keep saying this misleading statistic of "95% like the quality of their coverage" also somehow implies "Therefore the system isn't broken and Americans are not playing too much for healthcare"
[QUOTE=sgman91;49934937]There's an inherent difference between the car and the insurance plan: You don't know what you're missing before airbags were invented or popularized, but you sure as hell know when your insurance plan doesn't cover something you need done. I doubt people would say that they were happy with their insurance coverage if it didn't cover them well.[/QUOTE] I was happy with mine. Since ACA, my insurance plan costs have gone up 50%, my deductible has more than quadrupled, and the only added benefit is that I, a male, now have prenatal care.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49937006]Did this research have nothing but 2 options, happy and not happy? Or are you lumping together ratings like slightly satisfied and moderately satisfied to make the statistics more favorable?[/QUOTE] [quote]To determine whether respondents of a given poll were "happy" with their health insurance -- as Will phrased it -- we lumped together the percentages for "very satisfied," "somewhat satisfied" and, where applicable, "extremely satisfied."[/quote] seems like I was spot on (though yes it was Will who lumped them together not you)
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49939087]seems like I was spot on (though yes it was Will who lumped them together not you)[/QUOTE] People being somewhat satisfied are still satisfied as opposed to being dissatisfied. It also wasn't just Will. It was Politifact which essentially agreed with his sentiment, and they are far from right-leaning.
If you damn dirty [I]poors[/I] would just DIE FASTER, we wouldn't be having this problem! Christ almighty, why are we letting ourselves be ruled by sociopaths?
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;49937337]Taking care of its people and saving them from stupidity is one of the primary functions of the government. *Dirty socialism intensifies*[/QUOTE] Why should people be saved from their own stupidity?
I don't understand why American politicians seem to emphasise reform at the insurance level rather than the health provider level. Is it because it's more-sexy to talk about reforming the insurance level? Insurance premiums, deductibles, co-insurance and so on would not be so expensive if physicians were incentivised more by quality of care rather than of quantity of care. Has anyone seen how much American physicians get paid, too? America needs more physicians, for more competition at the health provider level and to put some downwards pressure on a major healthcare expense - physician remuneration. Some credits for Trump for talking about the health provider level in his healthcare plan. Notably point #5, price transparency at the health provider level, and point #7, allowing the importation of cheaper drugs as long as they still meet quality standards. But is that really enough to curb cost growth? [editline]16th March 2016[/editline] Just a point on remuneration: An Australian general practitioner has a salary of just above $100,000 Australian dollars. An American general practitioner has a salary of around $140,000 US dollars - or almost $190,000 Australian dollars.
American Doctors have ridiculous amounts of debt to pay off from tuition/schooling, which increases the amount they're compensated for their work. The price of a college education here directly makes healthcare more expensive. This is a part of why Bernie finds it so critical to make college level education affordable, it provides us with more high skilled/high specialization workers, and decreases the amount they have to earn to pay off debt, reducing the need to pay them that additional amount of money that goes straight back into paying off their college debts.
[QUOTE=viper shtf;49939712]Why should people be saved from their own stupidity?[/QUOTE] What does not being able to afford healthcare have to do with stupidity?
Personally, I think the biggest reasons for our increased costs are: 1) The long copyright on drugs. I'm not sure how to deal with this, but something probably has to be done. Drug companies are some of the most profitable in the nation, therefore showing that they don't need as much government assistance as they're getting. 2) Somehow increase customer responsibility in choosing their own care. There are SO many preventative and extraneous procedures done by doctors simply because they can. The insurance pays for the it, the doctor gets paid for it, and the patient doesn't care because it doesn't really affect them. This needs to be changed. Customers need to have some incentive to only get care that is actually helpful for them. This would also help take care of examples like hospitals charging $20 for a plastic cup. 3) Information. Customers need to know the reputations of hospitals and individual doctors. They need to have enough information to choose those that provide the best care for the best prices.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49939897]What does not being able to afford healthcare have to do with stupidity?[/QUOTE] As we all know, if they'd just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps like us middle class folk they wouldn't have gotten cancer.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49939890]American Doctors have ridiculous amounts of debt to pay off from tuition/schooling, which increases the amount they're compensated for their work. The price of a college education here directly makes healthcare more expensive. This is a part of why Bernie finds it so critical to make college level education affordable, it provides us with more high skilled/high specialization workers, and decreases the amount they have to earn to pay off debt, reducing the need to pay them that additional amount of money that goes straight back into paying off their college debts.[/QUOTE] I don't doubt that paying off student loans is a significant expense for younger physicians, but I don't think it explains the huge discrepancy of physician remuneration across countries. After all, physicians here also need to go into debt for medical school. That's not to say that the structure of American student loans couldn't change. One idea I've read about is having a variable interest rate on federal student loans, depending on what the student is studying. If the student is studying a STEM or medical degree, degrees which are economically useful, their loans will have more-favourable, lower interest rates. Like maybe 2%. If students are studying degrees which aren't as economically useful, such as a history degree, they would be subject to a higher interest rate, like 8%. That system would bias a number of students towards the 'more-productive' degrees.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49934861] We could let you buy a car with no seatbelts, no bumpers, no safety glass, or airbags, but you're going to die in an accident. the state shouldn't let insurance companies sell plans that don't cover what people actually need, even if they sell them cheaper[/QUOTE] Not quite the same thing, and you still can buy a car without any of those things provided you buy an older model that was built before they were commonplace.
The only problem with this is they don't seem to mention if the health insurance those people are losing is even effective. I'm going off personal experience so I may be wrong but I was paying $170 a month all last year. That was the cheapest plan I could get and all it payed for was a free annual physical. It had a $6000 deductible and after that one free physical it didn't help me with anything else. So there I was paying $170 a month and paying out of pocket for my Adderall rx for ADHD and the doctors visits every 3 months to have my treatment monitored. If it wasn't for the Good Rx app that saves you money on your prescriptions I'd be paying a lot more out of pocket. And to top it all off this past January they raised my plan to $240 a month and everything stayed the same still paying a ton out of pocket. I told them they can shove their plan this year because it's ridiculous. I'm all for helping people but that plan didn't help me at all. It's supposed to help with the cost of Healthcare benefits not increase them.
Oh no millions would be uninsured under threat of being fined a shitload for not having a garbage plan off the exchange I was excited for ACA but it looks like the only people it really helps are the poorest and oldest at the expense of everyone else
It's basically a tax on health insurance but it's far from affordable and effective unless your dirt poor. It might as well be a charity. I'm all for helping people but I'm not going to throw my money out the window.
When the United States ceded from the United Kingdom we wrote a document called "The Declaration of Independence". It was stated simply that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Life. Liberty. The Pursuit of Happiness. I don't see how making it more difficult (via price) for people to access healthcare services or a higher education upholds any of those values we based our succession on. How can one have Life if they are sick and dying, and can not pay to be cured? How can someone be guaranteed life, but not able to get their life saving medication? How can we promise the Pursuit of Happiness when in order to do so you need to not live in Poverty, and that requires an education? How can someone be guaranteed life, but not able to actually live one outside of their 3 jobs because they can barely afford living expenses and pay is so low?
[QUOTE=bdd458;49944550]When the United States ceded from the United Kingdom we wrote a document called "The Declaration of Independence". It was stated simply that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Life. Liberty. The Pursuit of Happiness. I don't see how making it more difficult (via price) for people to access healthcare services or a higher education upholds any of those values we based our succession on. How can one have Life if they are sick and dying, and can not pay to be cured? How can someone be guaranteed life, but not able to get their life saving medication? How can we promise the Pursuit of Happiness when in order to do so you need to not live in Poverty, and that requires an education? How can someone be guaranteed life, but not able to actually live one outside of their 3 jobs because they can barely afford living expenses and pay is so low?[/QUOTE] Those rights are negative, not positive rights. It guarantees that no one can take your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, not that the government is required to give you life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49946373]Those rights are negative, not positive rights. It guarantees that no one can take your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, not that the government is required to give you life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.[/QUOTE] I'm not urging the government to literally clone me, I just want help maintaining the life I currently have going.
[QUOTE=Levithan;49946388]I'm not urging the government to literally clone me, I just want help maintaining the life I currently have going.[/QUOTE] That's fine, I'm just saying that the wording of the Declaration of Independance doesn't really have anything to do with it. They never intended those rights as things that the government provides for you. Those are things that the government ensures that no one can take from you.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49946407]That's fine, I'm just saying that the wording of the Declaration of Independance doesn't really have anything to do with it. They never intended those rights as things that the government provides for you. Those are things that the government ensures that no one can take from you.[/QUOTE] *without due process*
[QUOTE=sgman91;49946407]That's fine, I'm just saying that the wording of the Declaration of Independance doesn't really have anything to do with it. They never intended those rights as things that the government provides for you. Those are things that the government ensures that no one can take from you.[/QUOTE] There's honestly too much interpretation here. I can already think of a few different ways to interpret that statement so that the government has to provide some things to ensure those rights aren't removed. They can't really ensure anything without taking actions.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49946421]There's honestly too much interpretation here. I can already think of a few different ways to interpret that statement so that the government has to provide some things to ensure those rights aren't removed. They can't really ensure anything without taking actions.[/QUOTE] I think it's clear based on their actions after making that statement what they intended. Of course, if you follow the whole "living document" ideology then what they intended is irrelevant.
It's hilarious how ACA is touted as a success, yet there are still people without insurance or are under insured. I thought the ACA was suppose to make all this affordable? Why can't these people afford it? What happened?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49939913]Personally, I think the biggest reasons for our increased costs are: 1) The long copyright on drugs. I'm not sure how to deal with this, but something probably has to be done. Drug companies are some of the most profitable in the nation, therefore showing that they don't need as much government assistance as they're getting. 2) Somehow increase customer responsibility in choosing their own care. There are SO many preventative and extraneous procedures done by doctors simply because they can. The insurance pays for the it, the doctor gets paid for it, and the patient doesn't care because it doesn't really affect them. This needs to be changed. Customers need to have some incentive to only get care that is actually helpful for them. This would also help take care of examples like hospitals charging $20 for a plastic cup. 3) Information. Customers need to know the reputations of hospitals and individual doctors. They need to have enough information to choose those that provide the best care for the best prices.[/QUOTE] 1) I can get behind adjusting the patent laws to allow for greater competition in drugs and/or generic offshoots of them. 2) How is this the customers' responsibility? I don't know about you, but I don't have a medical degree. If a doctor tells me I need a medical procedure, I am not going to argue with him about it because I simply wouldn't have any reason to doubt him. I think the notion that people are going out and recklessly getting unnecessary healthcare on a large scale is ridiculous, and I think the idea that the way to fix that is by [I]increasing[/I] the risk and responsibility that customers face is absolutely a step in the wrong direction. It is not the patients who need to be held accountable for decisions relating to their treatment and procedures, but the providers recommending and performing them. 3) I can agree with this to a certain point, but again, patients ultimately don't have the expertise to determine what kind of treatment, procedures, and care they actually need, and never will short of attending medical school themselves. Additionally, in emergency situations you simply don't have the privilege of shopping around for "the best" hospital. You simply go to the nearest hospital as quickly as you can. Nobody is checking reviews while arterial blood gushes into the dirt. What's more, people oftentimes [I]literally[/I] don't have a choice, such as in situations where patients are delirious, unresponsive, or otherwise unable to make such decisions for themselves. I must reiterate, the responsibility of providing effective, efficient, and necessary care with a minimum of waste does not fall on the consumers, but the providers. Policies which propose to cut down wastage by increasing the risk to [I]consumers[/I] are inherently broken. It is the providers themselves who must be held accountable. [editline]16th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=LtKyle2;49946457]It's hilarious how ACA is touted as a success, yet there are still people without insurance or are under insured. I thought the ACA was suppose to make all this affordable? Why can't these people afford it? What happened?[/QUOTE] The ACA extended health insurance coverage to as many as 23 million previously uninsured people, myself included, so your criticism of this particular aspect of it falls pretty flat. It is hardly a flawless system, and certainly not my [I]preferred[/I] solution, but it's disingenuous to imply that the ACA didn't dramatically widen coverage. Of all the legitimate points to criticize about the application and effects of the ACA, this one simply doesn't hold water.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.