• 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

myDeaconmyhand said:
To be fair to CH, I dont think he is defending the relative morality of the profit driven health care industry, he is just stating that nationalizing such a huge private industry will have enormous economic implications re: lost jobs and investments.
Click to expand...

Sure. I haven't denied that at all. In fact, I'm saying that's one of the positives.

I think the goal of the health care industry should be to provide health care. It's not a jobs program.
 
PhDeac said:
Sure. I haven't denied that at all. In fact, I'm saying that's one of the positives.

I think the goal of the health care industry should be to provide health care. It's not a jobs program.
Click to expand...

What are the goals of public education?
 
CHDeac said:
There is a large system in NC (mission health) that claiming its about to go out of business because they need BCBS to pay them more to cover the $ they lose on Medicare and Medicaid. The real world is harsh sometimes.
Click to expand...
Companies and systems whose profitability is dependent upon private insurance rates vs medicare/medicaid rates will need to be restructured, and many will close. Other private companies, with different business models, will open to take their place, and where they don't, government will step in to provide health care infrastructure.
 
The basic truth of universal health care is that there are many parts of the country where it's not going to be profitable, and the people that live there need health care anyway.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
The basic truth of universal health care is that there are many parts of the country where it's not going to be profitable, and the people that live there need health care anyway.
Click to expand...

The fact that those people are the reason for universal healthcare or being able to buy Medicare as an option. By having a larger pool, you can keep rates lower in the outlying areas.
 
I'm sure there are some pretty complicated economic models but I wouldn't be surprised if universal healthcare access and the reduction in mortality and morbidity with increase in productivity and societal contribution leads to a positive over negative jobs, industry, economy for universal healthcare.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
I'm sure there are some pretty complicated economic models but I wouldn't be surprised if universal healthcare access and the reduction in mortality and morbidity with increase in productivity and societal contribution leads to a positive over negative jobs, industry, economy for universal healthcare.
Click to expand...

Well yeah. One reason people have jobs or work a specific number of hours is to get insurance and/or afford health care.
 
PhDeac said:
Yeah. An efficient system would put a lot of people out of business. Again, your main concern is making sure people make a lot of money. That's the problem with our health care system as is.
Click to expand...

Hardly. I'm just explaining how economics work. I'm all for paying less for health care.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
To be fair to CH, I dont think he is defending the relative morality of the profit driven health care industry, he is just stating that nationalizing such a huge private industry will have enormous economic implications re: lost jobs and investments.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the sentiment but I'm not arguing anything specific about jobs. I'm suggesting that we simply cant put our head in the sand and say "pay docs medicare rates and let them become efficient". That ignores the reality of how our health system is structured and would have some serious impacts on the delivery of care (we already have a shortage of docs in rural america). Moreover, its silly to build a system around fee for service.

I'm also arguing that the private sector might, just might, be better at managing trend / spend, so much so that the feds have created a program to do this and share in the results (as have many states with respect to Medicaid programs). I've yet to hear anything substantive in response other than "single payer is more efficient".
 
CHDeac said:
I'm also arguing that the private sector might, just might, be better at managing trend / spend, so much so that the feds have created a program to do this and share in the results (as have many states with respect to Medicaid programs). I've yet to hear anything substantive in response other than "single payer is more efficient".
Click to expand...

Why do you think this?
 
CHDeac said:
Interesting high level summary of Sanders plan.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/bernie-sanders-new-medicare-for-all-plan-explained/ar-AArRLcS?li=BBnb7Kz

Having people pay nothing for their health care at the point of care is a terrible idea.

Also love the point that there's nothing yet on how to pay for it. Clearly a payroll tax of some sort, the question is how much.

And the issue of paying docs at Medicare rates is noted here.
Click to expand...

yeah, this is really rich, from the article:

"The Sanders plan goes into great detail about the type of coverage Americans would receive. But it provides no information on how it would finance such a generous health care system."

and holy shit, the demand on discretionary services with no cost sharing
 
tiltdeac said:
Why do you think this?
Click to expand...

Based on what I see in the market. Most states are turning to managed Medicaid companies to save them $. Same applies to Medicare Advantage. I'm not sure I could tell you the exactly the underlying reasons but clearly these entities have built out effective capabilities that the feds & states lack, specifically in the care management delivery areas.
 
 
 
I don't trust Rand Paul not to eventually vote for this, but this is pretty brutal:

 
This is a serious. How difficult would it be to set up Medicare as an insurance option? I can't imagine that it would be too difficult to set up pricing for different age groups and family sizes.

It would just be another choice like BC/BS or UHC.

Also, by having so many millions more people and more healthy people in the program wouldn't the per person come down dramatically? Wouldn't doctors be able to get raises?

I realize it would put a lot of insurance companies out of business, but more people would get better coverage for less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top