-
Features
Republican Health Care Lying Syndrome
- Thread starter Don2 (Don1 Revised)
- Start date
laughing dog
Contributor
I guess I am too cynical. I think the only way this is going to move forward is to take a step or two backwards - the Republicans in 2021 get their way, and all of their supporters who get their healthcare gutted wake up and revolt in 2022 and 2024.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Nope.
Republicans will take away ACA, and people will still blame the democrats for their ills, and thank God they live in a 'let the strongest survive' economy.
Remember right after Trump was elected? A woman was grateful for Trumpcare that saved her out-of-work son, when Obamacare would have failed him? Except Trump hadn't actually created Trumpcare, nor was it in place, nor was ACA yet repealed, nor replaced, and Obamacare WAS what saved him...
Republicans will take away ACA, and people will still blame the democrats for their ills, and thank God they live in a 'let the strongest survive' economy.
Remember right after Trump was elected? A woman was grateful for Trumpcare that saved her out-of-work son, when Obamacare would have failed him? Except Trump hadn't actually created Trumpcare, nor was it in place, nor was ACA yet repealed, nor replaced, and Obamacare WAS what saved him...
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Continuing with cynicism...
People with economic problems are less likely to vote.
So this is win-win for our Republican overlords.
I remember that... It was an uneducated, obese, white woman that was being interviewed on the street. imagine that.
Treedbear
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2016
- Messages
- 2,567
- Location
- out on a limb
- Basic Beliefs
- secular, humanist, agnostic on theism/atheism
I've always said that Trump isn't the problem so much as a symptom of American imbecility. In the same way I don't compare Trump with Hitler so much as how similar his supporters are to the throngs of Germans who adored and idolized everything he said and did. Actually they had better excuses for their irrational behavior and Hitler was a more compelling orator. The problem is that it might not change until the next generation of voters comes along.
southernhybrid
Contributor
I almost always read Krugman, and he's been on a roll lately about this topic. But, Trump isn't going to try and replace the ACA now. He's going to wait until after the 2020 election, when he thinks he and the Republicans will win control of Congress again. I was just watching something on MSNBC, where they interviewed some Trump supporters. They all said that they support Trump but they disagree with him when it comes to health care. WTF! I guess they still believe him when he says he will have this fantastic plan after he gets reelected. I guess a sucker is born every moment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/us/politics/obamacare-aca-trump.html
So, will enough people believe the liar again and think he and his minions are going to come up with this great, low cost health care plan, when they've had years to improve or replace what we have now? WTF! Why can't these people come to terms with the fact that the Republicans are totally clueless when it comes to creating a good UHC plan?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/us/politics/obamacare-aca-trump.html
So, will enough people believe the liar again and think he and his minions are going to come up with this great, low cost health care plan, when they've had years to improve or replace what we have now? WTF! Why can't these people come to terms with the fact that the Republicans are totally clueless when it comes to creating a good UHC plan?
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
The GOP did have a plan. You could set up a tax free medical savings account to pay for your own medical care. Oh yes, and no to a living wage. A plan that didn't even make it to half-assed. So if you started saving at age 18, maybe you could take care of your breast cancer at age 34. Or something. A "plan" so lame there was almost no enthusiasm among the most rabid GOP congress gits to actually push to get it passe.
Treedbear
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2016
- Messages
- 2,567
- Location
- out on a limb
- Basic Beliefs
- secular, humanist, agnostic on theism/atheism
The ACA already provided for HSA's but only for those who wanted (or could only afford) a high deductible policy. I looked into them before the ACA and nobody could tell me anything or even set one up at my bank. And the governement website were extremely ambiguous. Now it's part of the policy description. I guess what the GOP plan would do is open it up to everyone no matter what their deductible is. That would be a major tax cut for those in higher tax brackets. I'm definitely not, but I wish I'd started contributing earlier anyway. It amounts to a nice discount on meds, dental, copays, medicare premiums, etc.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 8,141
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
Not in the least. I'm at the moment in that no-man's land between being covered and not being covered. And I'm absurdly lucky. My former employer is subsidizing my next few months of COBRA, but during the transition I'm not covered. Or I am. Or I'm not. It depends on who you talk to.
I was skeptical of the claim that the US healthcare system is deliberately opaque in order to deny you coverage, but the last couple of days has cemented my belief in that claim. I now firmly believe that when you move beyond the edges of a "good" employer sponsored health care plan, the hoops you have to jump through in order to get something as simple as a doctor's appointment are deliberately designed to frustrate you to the point where you simply give up.
For example, I was told by the insurer that handled both my employer plan and the COBRA plan that my coverage - which began yesterday - would be exactly the same as it was, and there would be no interruption of coverage. They insisted that my member number would remain the same, and that any costs I incurred would be covered retroactively. Then, when the doctor's office checked to see if I had coverage, the insurer swore up and down that I did not exist in their system and denied even the possibility of a claim. My appointment was cancelled due to lack of coverage...by the same company that told me I was covered. I called and they said I had to contact the 3rd party company that was handling my insurance. They told me I had to contact the insurer. Then both of them said I had to contact the HR department of my former employer to verify my coverage, and - surprise - they told me to contact the provider(s).
If anyone thinks that Trump is going to fix this sort of thing, I've got a bucket of Amway soap I'd like to sell you.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Anyone thinking that republicans have any wish for any kind of healthcare plan is seriously deluded. Republican healthcare is a contradiction in terms. They would like to do away with medicare and social security as well because that's socialism too.
The wonderful irony is knowing that republican officials benefit from their healthcare and pensions paid at public expense but tell their constituents that they do not need nor deserve same. But keep paying for mine! Lovely, lovely, lovely how well that works.
The wonderful irony is knowing that republican officials benefit from their healthcare and pensions paid at public expense but tell their constituents that they do not need nor deserve same. But keep paying for mine! Lovely, lovely, lovely how well that works.
Actually, if you do the math almost everyone who doesn't get a subsidy should go with a high deductible plan. For almost all levels of health care spending the extra premium cost is more than the savings on medical bills.
Treedbear
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2016
- Messages
- 2,567
- Location
- out on a limb
- Basic Beliefs
- secular, humanist, agnostic on theism/atheism
Indeed! I think if people who get insurance coverage as a benefit realized how much was paid on their behalf they'd wish they were given the cash instead and could opt for a high deductible plan. During the several years I was in an ACA plan I compared all 16 or so that were offered to me and decided the Bronze level was the best fit assuming average health problems. But I can't imagine how people with a lot of dependents get through it with all the uncertainties. It's like the insurance companies purposefully make it confusing with options like copay vs co-insurance. WTF?
The thing is uncertainties don't matter--in virtually every case you're better off going Bronze.
If you're below the deductible it's obvious the cheaper plan is better--the higher premiums cost far more than the lower copays in this realm.
If your out of pocket is above the stop-loss it's even clearer--the stop loss is the same.
This leaves only the realm between the deductible and and the stop loss it comes down to the increased premium vs the lower deductible--and the increased premiums are not that far below the lower deductible. There's probably a narrow window in which the lower deductible is better but can you expect to hit it?!?!
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
The problem that the Republicans have with health care is that the ACA is their health care plan. What came to be called ObamaCare was initially authored by the libertarian Heritage Foundation and first put forward and enacted in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney and first proposed to be adopted for the nation by John McCain in 2008, with the mandate. It is near-universal health care without reducing health care costs, and therefore, without reducing private profits in health care, especially for the financial sector's insurance companies and the corporate-owned hospitals.
Obama and the Democrats adopted it as a half measure that could be passed at the time to solve half of the problem, the lack of coverage for millions while leaving the other part of the problem, the high costs of medical care, to the slow arch of everyone having coverage. They expected to have little opposition from the Republicans, not anticipating the Republican stonewalling of anything connected to Obama. The health insurance companies torpedoed previous Democratic health care proposals by campaigns against socialized medicine. The ACA kept them quite by paying them 24 billion dollars a year in government subsidies to ensure the near poor who could pay pay part of their premiums but not all. And by putting back in the individual and company mandates from the McCain proposal to the bill.
The federal government has been described as an insurance company with an army. It doesn't need to depend on private insurance companies to ensure the poor. At the time it already paid for more than fifty percent of all medical costs between the military's TriCare, its direct employees and Medicare/Medicaid.
Last edited:
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
I don't think that is true. What the Republicans don't like are taxes because their sponsors and the only people that they care about, the already rich, pay virtually all of the taxes in one way or another, or they think that they do. If a program doesn't require new taxes, they will pass it. Just look at the Medicare drug benefit which was even a sweeter program because they let drug companies charge anything that the drug companies wanted to and the government had to pay it, which increased health care costs and increased drug company profits, not to mention the increased budget deficit and the national debt.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
What is true is that on average everyone will incur 50% of their lifetime of medical costs in the last year of their life. This means that if you never die you should buy the lowest cost plan. Or if you are resigned to dying you should plan your death accordingly. [/rhetorical scarcasm]
What it means is that medical care should be underwritten by the government, not by for-profit insurance companies who profit from increased health care costs. Otherwise it is a case of the healthy have to pay for the unhealthy and the young have to pay for the old, instead of the government will pay for me when I am sick and when I am old.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
https://www.cbpp.org/research/feder...ts-for-the-wealthy-proposes-deep-program-cuts
The 2019 GOP budget plan calls for $2.1 trillion in cuts for health plans. And tens of billions in cuts for other various safety net programs.
Like hell they have any plans worth mentioning for creating a better health plan for the US.
The 2019 GOP budget plan calls for $2.1 trillion in cuts for health plans. And tens of billions in cuts for other various safety net programs.
Like hell they have any plans worth mentioning for creating a better health plan for the US.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 8,141
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
Like hell they don't have a plan! The plan is actually quite simple. When Billie Joe who makes 8 bucks an hour working at the Wal Mart in Podunk needs a prescription for his diabetes medication, he just goes to the multi-billion dollar health insurance conglomerate and says "without these pills I will probably die, so if y'all could give me a break on the price that would be helpful."
Then the company - realizing the awesome power of the nearly destitute individual consumer - says "well now that you put it that way, here's a 90 day supply of Metformin for ten bucks. Sorry to inconvenience you!" and that's the magic of the free market. The company makes a little less profit, but that's a secondary concern to their primary mission of helping people no matter how much it costs them.
Alcoholic Actuary
Veteran Member
Nope, I'm still here, still correcting your obvious misconceptions about how for-profit insurance works. I don't disagree that 'underwritten by the government' is a great way to go, but suggesting that insurance companies profit from increased health care costs is just insane. And I'm super tired of delivering this 'news' to you. You are in a bubble. Do you think that if the government took control of car accident repatriation, the system would be more efficient? No. Or not necessarily, at least. And that is precisely because we know exactly the cost of replacing an auto/auto parts. Why can't we know it for medical services?
No, really. Why can't we know how much it costs to fix a broken arm, or get an MRI? I fully understand variance in conditions, but I'm talking about 400+% variance in cost between 2 zip codes.
If we get that sorted, it doesn't matter who pays for it - government or private insurance. Or a hybrid - like Canada, Germany, France, GB, etc.
aa