• 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

Bernie single player plan is basically the yin to the Yang of all the repeal and replace votes that Republicans held during the Obama era.
 
Is it an actual plan?
 
Will Graham-Cassidy be cutting edge enough to include selling insurance across state lines and tort reform, or will those be phased in slowly over time?
 
ChrisL68 said:
Bernie's single payer "plan"
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, why not make Medicare/Medic-Aid into a program everyone can buy into? By having such a large base already, prices should be lower. Companies with under 50 employees could pay the same, low price as companies with 5000 employees.

An immediate saving to companies of all sizes would be to eliminate the percentage that goes to insurance companies that doesn't help a single patient.

By having so many more people involved, doctors could get paid more and maybe Congress would believe in the free market again and cut prescription prices dramatically.
 
BubbaJean said:
Will Graham-Cassidy be cutting edge enough to include selling insurance across state lines and tort reform, or will those be phased in slowly over time?
Click to expand...

Selling insurance over state lines on a nationwide basis is a terrible and dramatically anti-consumer concept. The first reason is that as bad as competition is today, it will get much worse with this idea. There will be many more states that have monopolies as the big companies swallow up everyone else. the next issue is equally as horrible for consumers. Insurance companies will move HQs to states that have the least consumer protection as many have done with credit card services.

It's a typical RW bumper-sticker concept that will screw every day people.
 
RJKarl said:
Selling insurance over state lines on a nationwide basis is a terrible and dramatically anti-consumer concept. The first reason is that as bad as competition is today, it will get much worse with this idea. There will be many more states that have monopolies as the big companies swallow up everyone else. the next issue is equally as horrible for consumers. Insurance companies will move HQs to states that have the least consumer protection as many have done with credit card services.

It's a typical RW bumper-sticker concept that will screw every day people.
Click to expand...
Why are arbitrary state lines boundaries for insurance? Seems dumb from an actuarial standpoint, which is what should drive rates.
 
Of course, pinocha neglects the major reasons why this is terrible.
 
pinochadeac said:
Why are arbitrary state lines boundaries for insurance? Seems dumb from an actuarial standpoint, which is what should drive rates.
Click to expand...

Why are arbitrary state lines boundaries for anything then?
 
Yet another finger in the wind government plan. Ask England where random lines got them
 
So what's the problem with Medicare for All? Medicare is popular. It presumably works for the olds. We'd pay for Medicare instead of all the health insurance spending we do. I don't know the numbers but it's hard to imagine how we'd pay even more than we're paying now.

So what's the problem?
 
PhDeac said:
So what's the problem with Medicare for All? Medicare is popular. It presumably works for the olds. We'd pay for Medicare instead of all the health insurance spending we do. I don't know the numbers but it's hard to imagine how we'd pay even more than we're paying now.

So what's the problem?
Click to expand...

Healthcare spending has become such a huge part of the economy that it would really upend a lot of people's businesses/jobs if something this major happened. A Medicare for all would reimburse a lot less (part of how to control costs, btw) but that would squeeze some businesses and put other out of business entirely. Not to mention all the redundant insurance support structure that wouldn't be needed. This would have to be a long phase in
 
DEACisGO said:
Healthcare spending has become such a huge part of the economy that it would really upend a lot of people's businesses/jobs if something this major happened. A Medicare for all would reimburse a lot less (part of how to control costs, btw) but that would squeeze some businesses and put other out of business entirely. Not to mention all the redundant insurance support structure that wouldn't be needed. This would have to be a long phase in
Click to expand...

Definitely, but that's not politically feasible.
 
Personally I'd rather just do it bc the long term benefit is much better than the status quo and it has real world examples that support it working
 
DEACisGO said:
Personally I'd rather just do it bc the long term benefit is much better than the status quo and it has real world examples that support it working
Click to expand...

Right. But Republicans would oppose it every step of the way and make sure it doesn't work.
 
In reality we probably get there eventually through many iterations of "healthcare reform" over the course of multiple administrations. Probably a 2 steps forward one step back scenario along the way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top