• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

RJKarl said:
The "lie" was ham-handed messaging not an intentional way to deceive the public. Most who "lost" coverage was about their plans previously not including all the mandated items or the insurance company raising prices to reach the norms set by ACA.
Click to expand...

Obama was anything but ham handed.
 
The New Plot Against Obamacare

A reasonably decent summary. And not just about the ACA.


....There are, I’d say, two main implications of what we’re seeing here.

The first is that right-wing partisanship has already corrupted much of the judiciary. At this point it’s clear that there are many judges who will rule in favor of whatever the G.O.P. wants, no matter how weak the legal arguments.

The second is that even though Obamacare is now part of the fabric of American life, even though many of the beneficiaries are Republican voters — think about those numbers for Kentucky and West Virginia — Trump and his party are as determined as ever to destroy it.

And what this means in turn is that the 2020 election will be another referendum on health care. If you’re an American who suffers from a pre-existing condition, or doesn’t have a job that comes with health benefits, you should know that if Trump is re-elected, he will, one way or another, take away your health insurance. [or at least try and make it worse]
Click to expand...
 
Paul Krugman??? :rofl:

So according to members of the Tunnels' Left, a public figure speaking an untruth is a "misstatement" or "ham-handed messaging" but not a lie. Is this correct?

It's mind boggling how the goal posts shift over here as long as you have a (D) following your name.
 
Colonel Angus said:
Paul Krugman??? :rofl:

So according to members of the Tunnels' Left, a public figure speaking an untruth is a "misstatement" or "ham-handed messaging" but not a lie. Is this correct?

It's mind boggling how the goal posts shift over here as long as you have a (D) following your name.
Click to expand...

Do you get a nickel for every time you type “tunnels left?”
 
Colonel Angus said:
Paul Krugman??? :rofl:

So according to members of the Tunnels' Left, a public figure speaking an untruth is a "misstatement" or "ham-handed messaging" but not a lie. Is this correct?

It's mind boggling how the goal posts shift over here as long as you have a (D) following your name.
Click to expand...

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Deacon923 said:
There is plenty of money in the medical system in this country to provide everyone care at M4A rates. Plenty. It's sloshing around all over the place. Go to your local country club directory and see how many of the members are doctors, hospital executives, insurance executives, medical device salespeople, etc. etc. The claims that hospitals "lose money" on Medicare are just like the claims that big time college athletics departments "lose money". Sure, maybe the entity loses money on paper, but all the humans running the entity are making huge dollars and living large. The claims that the medical system "can't afford" to provide care to the poor are just like the claim that college athletics "can't afford" to pay players - in both cases, it's not true at all, it's just that the incumbent people making bank off the system don't want to share the profits.
Click to expand...

I pretty much disagree with this. Private pay is subsidizing govt funded rates. Who is the private pay in your college sports analogy? What do you base this on? Its pretty much the opposite of everything I see first hand every day....
 
RJKarl said:
The "lie" was ham-handed messaging not an intentional way to deceive the public. Most who "lost" coverage was about their plans previously not including all the mandated items or the insurance company raising prices to reach the norms set by ACA.
Click to expand...

This is just wrong. I was literally on the front line of this and can tell you this is just simply false. There was also a last minute policy change (it cost us $80M) once the shit hit the fan and Obama had to reverse his position.
 
CHDeac said:
I pretty much disagree with this. Private pay is subsidizing govt funded rates. Who is the private pay in your college sports analogy? What do you base this on? Its pretty much the opposite of everything I see first hand every day....
Click to expand...

Oh yeah? You slumming it with the poor impoverished docs, hospital admins, and insurance execs? Not to mention the poor impoverished shareholders of Big Pharma and Big Med Device and their execs who can barely put food on the table? Tell me more.


If you don't like the comparison to college athletics, how about this: I was a partner in law firm for 10 years. Every single year, the law firm's corporate tax return showed zero taxable income or a small loss. And yet every partner, including me, made plenty of money, drove nice cars, lots of them had second homes, etc. etc. Every dollar the law firm made was paid out in compensation to the partners, and deducted on the tax return, in a process that was calculated to the penny to prevent corporate tax. Completely and perfectly legal, of course.

The point is that when organizations like "nonprofit" hospitals whine about how they aren't making enough margin on health care, don't look at the hospital's corporate tax return. Look at the tax returns of all the people who are siphoning big money out of the hospital. That includes the docs and hospital execs, but also the exorbitant amounts that the hospitals have to pay Big Pharma and Big Med Device, for the same products that are sold at fractions of the price in other countries. Again, there is PLENTY OF MONEY in the American health care system to care for everyone - it's just being eaten up in corporate profits, insurance middlemen, and big salaries for a small number of market participants.
 
Reading through that, it would represent positive change. Infinitely better than anything Pubs are doing or offering.

Assuming the ACA survives the latest court challenges by Pubs.

If we go that route, I really hope that over time we can disengage the connection between employer and health insurance. Grow dependence on the exchanges, including the public option. Better regulate (limit) consumer (patient) costs, better reward good and value-oriented care, and force everyone to participate in a system that actually will be there to meet their care needs (including long-term care) when they arise.
 
If everyone and every employers could buy Medicare policies for themselves or their employees, insurance premiums would drop dramatically. Insurance companies are allowed a 15% profit and have close to that in overhead costs. Medicare has a 2-3% overhead cost.
 
Turning down money that would have saved the lives of 15,000 humans. That's your pro life party, ladies and gentlemen. Republicans have no souls.
 
If we are looking for a proposal that most closely mimics other successful health care systems worldwide, saves money, and ensures everyone has coverage, Medicare Extra is worth a look.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...-american-progress-single-payer-health-reform

More details

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/reports/2019/07/23/472520/medicare-extra/

Avalere estimates that Medicare Extra would achieve universal coverage by covering 35 million uninsured individuals. Employer coverage would remain a viable option: 121 million employees would choose to remain in their employer coverage.
Click to expand...

Even after the coverage expansion, the proposal would reduce national health expenditures by more than $300 billion each year by 2031 relative to current law. The proposal would reduce premium and out-of-pocket costs substantially across income groups for current Medicare beneficiaries; employees who switch to the Medicare plan; individuals currently enrolled in markets under the Affordable Care Act (ACA); and employees who choose to remain in employer coverage
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
awaken said:
This is yet another example of price gouging by providers and pharma. The government can, and should, do something about price gouging.
Click to expand...

especially since pharma's research is provided through federally funded research

Of the 210 medicines approved for market by the FDA between 2010 and 2016, every one originated in research conducted in government laboratories or in university labs funded in large part by the National Institutes of Health.
Click to expand...
 
In NC, there is an ad trying to scare folks about "government rate setting," and encouraging us to call our senator to vote against it.

First Google search shows this article
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...n-ad-blitz-over-surprise-medical-bills-fight/

Cali considering setting rates at state level
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/11/17226574/california-health-care-pricing-regulation

This is exactly what I've been asking for - the government to prevent price gouging by providers by setting a maximum price that can be charged.
 
It's very confusing to me how people posting on this thread can all agree that our national health care system is beleaguered with corruption and price gouging from providers and insurers, and yet also still argue for half measure reform plans and the necessity of private health insurance. The existence of America private health insurance, as competition for services, prevents a public option from functioning properly. The "public option" theorized in all these centrist "Medicare +" plans would 1.require enormous industry wide regulation and 2. Would drive up the costs of private insurance immensely. Our country already pays as much for health care, per person, as countries with socialized care. How is it feasable that we're going to regulate enough to socialize 1/2 the country without killing the private industry?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top