Jpowers

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

26,327 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, T-Falcon said:

It was the government that broke healthcare? Not greedy overpriced pharmaceuticals and financial games played between the insurance cos and medical providers to get more? There's a reason that even before ACA Tylenol was 5 dollars at the store for a bottle and $30 at the hospital for a pill.

What you cite had nothing to do with the high premiums and high deductibles that many cannot afford since the Unaffordable Care Act was enacted. People that previously went to the doctor found (a family) might spend a $1000 in premiums, and $12k a year  in deductibles (conservative estimate) making it 24k a year for that family before $1 of insurance kicks in.

Were there problems before this? Of course there were, but this is where we are. Just because many people have an insurance card doesn't necessarily mean they can afford to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Legendary SB said:

We've already been over this many times so agree to disagree.

That said I'm sick of this kind of rhetoric:

1. Implement government regulations (HMOs, ACA, etc...) to remove any semblance of a free market in health care.  Not that if there's no "shopping" and no "competition" then it's not free market.  That's your first clue.

2. Cry and blame the "free market" for healthcare costs.  

No the free market isn't the reason that healthcare costs are high.  There is no free market in healthcare.  

Not really. Health insurance is to coal as out of pocket is to wood burning. Obsolete... one significantly so.

Your free market ideal was replaced by private health insurance largely due to the same reasons we're facing today: Healthcare costs outstripped peoples ability to pay which led to providers struggling to stay afloat since they weren't being paid or couldn't find enough customers with the ability to pay. So, to deal with that, insurance was started so people could pay bit by bit in a manageable way so there was a large pool they could draw on once they needed it. That alleviated the problem of the failed market of out of pocket... at least partially. Many people were still far too poor to afford even that.

That system kept shuffling along, clinging to life, until WW2 when a large percentage of the population experienced insurance coverage for the first time. They then expected to have it going forward and the present system was born (albeit after Truman's attempt for singlepayer failed): The government would subsidize employer based health insurance, partially to placate their constituents and partially for propaganda against the Soviets ("the free market can do this, too!").

Then over the next few decades the government would step in whenever the health insurance industry started buckling or the system started to look particularly bad. Poor people can't get insurance at all? Remove them from the market. Old people too expensive to cover? Remove them from the market. Patient costs are becoming too great? Implement a regulation on the industry to keep costs down. So on and so forth.

Which leads us to now, where the American healthcare system is a byzantine nightmare and costs twice as much as countries with singlepayer... and all because we really want to keep a Cold War relic around.

I hope this has been informative. ^_^

Billy Ocean and Gritzblitz 2.0 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

lol

 

The GOP is clearly all-in with this so even engaging in debate on whether "send her back" is racist is a silly waste of time for Democrats. 

Democrats would be much better off laying out the consequences of the GOP normalizing this behavior and how it will effect all minorities. 

Leon Troutsky and mdrake34 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

At the provider level is has more to do with Nixon lifting regulations that prevented hospitals from operating as for-profit entities and EMTALA. Hospitals jacked up prices to make the profits they were now allowed to make and then they got hit by being forced to treat people without coverage and no government program to compensate them, so they jacked up prices even more to deal with that sunk cost.

At the insurance level, it's just a failed market... much like the out of pocket system it replaced.

 

Image-by-David-Mulder-700x394.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

With automation looming and a larger population of Americans no longer on the workforce, the idea of employer based coverage is really no longer tenable. 

Let's not forget the hiring of only part time employees now to keep from having to pay health insurance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Not really. Health insurance is to coal as out of pocket is to wood burning. Obsolete... one significantly so.

You cannot go fully out of pocket right away as costs are currently insane.

If it were up to me my goal would be:

1. Make insurance only for catastrophic health issues.  Ie...multiple day hospital stay or bad car accident or something.

2. Since it is only for "catastrophic" health issues, premiums are much lower.

3. All outpatient services are out of pocket.  Ie...people would shop for doctors for check ups and minor procedures.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Legendary SB said:

You cannot go fully out of pocket right away as costs are currently insane.

If it were up to me my goal would be:

1. Make insurance only for catastrophic health issues.  Ie...multiple day hospital stay or bad car accident or something.

2. Since it is only for "catastrophic" health issues, premiums are much lower.

3. All outpatient services are out of pocket.  Ie...people would shop for doctors for check ups and minor procedures.  

 

download (3).jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Legendary SB said:

You cannot go fully out of pocket right away as costs are currently insane.

If it were up to me my goal would be:

1. Make insurance only for catastrophic health issues.  Ie...multiple day hospital stay or bad car accident or something.

2. Since it is only for "catastrophic" health issues, premiums are much lower.

3. All outpatient services are out of pocket.  Ie...people would shop for doctors for check ups and minor procedures.  

That was pretty much the system the UK had prior to NHS.

Needless to say, it was terrible even by the standards of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, The Legendary SB said:

Starting with the HMO act in the 70s, yes the government broke healthcare.  It is not even remotely benefiting from the rewards of capitalism because it's not allowed to.  No free market competition...  All collectivist regulatory nonsense.  

The only way healthcare can operate as a free market is if we as a society are ok letting people who cannot afford it suffer and die. Thing about every other industry that operates as a free market. If you can't afford a car, you don't get one. If you can't afford a coke, you don't get that either. If healthcare is a for-profit endeavor, logically it follows the same thought. If you can't afford it, you don't get that either. So just sit somewhere and wait to die.

This is a characteristic of for-profit healthcare which so many of its advocates fail to recognize. If you're going make healthcare a free market, do that. Don't pussyfoot around it and try to have a free market while forcing providers to see people who can't afford their services. That, by definition, is not a free market. And it's a big contributor to why healthcare so expensive right now. So either you repeal policies like EMTALA and let providers provide care to only those who can pay.

If you can think of a way to have a free market in healthcare that doesn't allow those who can't afford care to die, let me know. But I have a Masters in Healthcare Policy and Management in all my years of school I never heard of a free market plan that would allow that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are paying to fund these medical breakthroughs that bring about these medicines then charged ridiculous prices to buy the life saving medicine we need.

Burn it down start over do it right by the American people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lostone said:

I haven’t lifted since April last year.  I think that has more to do with it than fasting.  Also losing muscle only happens if you don’t use it.  I’ll be back to normal in a few months.

 

You could try intermittent fasting, with fasted cardio in the morning, and then lift in the afternoon.

The Legendary SB likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bdog 29 said:

The only way healthcare can operate as a free market is if we as a society are ok letting people who cannot afford it suffer and die. Thing about every other industry that operates as a free market. If you can't afford a car, you don't get one. If you can't afford a coke, you don't get that either. If healthcare is a for-profit endeavor, logically it follows the same thought. If you can't afford it, you don't get that either. So just sit somewhere and wait to die.

This is a characteristic of for-profit healthcare which so many of its advocates fail to recognize. If you're going make healthcare a free market, do that. Don't pussyfoot around it and try to have a free market while forcing providers to see people who can't afford their services. That, by definition, is not a free market. And it's a big contributor to why healthcare so expensive right now. So either you repeal policies like EMTALA and let providers provide care to only those who can pay.

If you can think of a way to have a free market in healthcare that doesn't allow those who can't afford care to die, let me know. But I have a Masters in Healthcare Policy and Management in all my years of school I never heard of a free market plan that would allow that.

This is what charities like the Red Cross should be doing.  Free clinics for those who can't afford to pay for healthcare.  

Before we turned into the nanny / welfare state, that's what charities did.  They helped people.  Now everybody wants to rip money out of people's wallet at gunpoint and make them pay for other people's stuff via taxes.  

I can compromise and say that everybody should have "catastrophic" health insurance and those that can't afford it can get some kind of assistance.  Preferably via a charitable organization or state/local government.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Billy Ocean said:

You could try intermittent fasting, with fasted cardio in the morning, and then lift in the afternoon.

That's what we've been saying.

I try to do only light cardio (like walking) fasted though.  Hard cardio when fasted burns muscle.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Billy Ocean said:

You could try intermittent fasting, with fasted cardio in the morning, and then lift in the afternoon.

I technically do IF, just 48 hrs between meals.

on my eat days I do BJJ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Legendary SB said:

This is what charities like the Red Cross should be doing.  Free clinics for those who can't afford to pay for healthcare.  

Before we turned into the nanny / welfare state, that's what charities did.  They helped people.  Now everybody wants to rip money out of people's wallet at gunpoint and make them pay for other people's stuff via taxes.  

I can compromise and say that everybody should have "catastrophic" health insurance and those that can't afford it can get some kind of assistance.  Preferably via a charitable organization or state/local government.  

Like they did when they ripped money out of your hands for unnecessary wars in Iraq and Syria ? Was that nanny stating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, T-Falcon said:

Like they did when they ripped money out of your hands for unnecessary wars in Iraq and Syria ? Was that nanny stating?

My opinion is that war should be a last resort and everything possible should be done to avoid war.

That said WWII and taking out ISIS were very necessary as they both threatened American lives.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Legendary SB said:

This is what charities like the Red Cross should be doing.  Free clinics for those who can't afford to pay for healthcare.  

Before we turned into the nanny / welfare state, that's what charities did.  They helped people.  Now everybody wants to rip money out of people's wallet at gunpoint and make them pay for other people's stuff via taxes.  

I can compromise and say that everybody should have "catastrophic" health insurance and those that can't afford it can get some kind of assistance.  Preferably via a charitable organization or state/local government.  

Again, that was basically the system the UK had prior to the NHS.

There's a reason why the stereotype of Britons looking sickly and having bad teeth is a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Legendary SB said:

My opinion is that war should be a last resort and everything possible should be done to avoid war.

That said WWII and taking out ISIS were very necessary as they both threatened American lives.  

<_< why did isis exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Legendary SB said:

This is what charities like the Red Cross should be doing.  Free clinics for those who can't afford to pay for healthcare.  

Before we turned into the nanny / welfare state, that's what charities did.  They helped people.  Now everybody wants to rip money out of people's wallet at gunpoint and make them pay for other people's stuff via taxes.  

I can compromise and say that everybody should have "catastrophic" health insurance and those that can't afford it can get some kind of assistance.  Preferably via a charitable organization or state/local government.  

Do you think charities had/have the staff and resources to provide adequate care to the indigent population of the United States? In fact the charities you mentioned still exist. Why aren't they serving as that now? And if I know I can go to those charities in the event I need healthcare, why would I even get insurance? And who would be there to say I make too much to use the Red Cross for my checkups? The ACA had the individual mandate which kinda did what you're saying and look how that turned out. Republicans got rid of it.

As far as churches and charities in general, I think it was TD Jakes who talked about this one time. A church is supposed to stand in to provide these services, that is their Christian and moral duty and many churches do. But a local church gets somewhere around 10% of their congregation's income, if the congregants are even faithful givers. Whereas the government gets 15-30% of everyone's incomes, no matter what religion they are. The church should do what they can but the government has much more power to help people and provide these services than the church.

I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to entrust my or my family's healthcare to the kindness of strangers.

achilles return likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now