Trumpcare

[TotalInsanity4]

I don't understand your bias against Republicans... However, it definitely is not just their fault Obamacare came to be the nightmare it is.

No, it's pretty common knowledge (even on conservative talk shows, which is interesting to listen to them admit and think they're bragging) that Obamacare was neutered to the point where it was practically sabatoged. The success that it's had are in spite of all the odds against it, and the shortcomings aren't indicative of what proper single-payer would accommodate

 

[Xzi]

No matter, it was useless to people who had zero income and/or couldn't afford it even with income. So yeah, forced medical insurance is bullshit.

Nobody could afford that shit before Obamacare, the uninsured rate was through the roof and it was starting to have a clear impact. The individual mandate brought prices down by quite a bit on average, just not nearly enough to get everyone covered. Which is precisely why Medicare-for-all is the better solution. You're covered even if you can't afford it, and having to compete with that, private insurers would have to lower their rates to reasonable levels and/or include more incentives.

Not to mention it saves us $2 trillion over the current system in the long run.

 

[kuwanger]

We just need Medicare-for-all and be done with it.

Uh, no. Again, the money spent Medicare/Medicaid makes up ~30-50% of health care spending but only covers a fraction of the population. If it were simply extended to everywhere, Medicare/Medicaid costs would simply balloon to the same scope of all health care costs (maybe 80-90%?). That's ludicrous. We don't have enough doctors (lack of required residencies at hospitals) with drives up their salaries. We don't do enough benefit/cost analysis on treatment. We don't do enough of a good job of loan forgiveness for doctors (which is part of the excuse used for their salary).

Those aren't the only things but if you go through all the per capita costs it's clear the US is just more expensive in a lot of areas and without good reason. All that needs worked on as part of the process. Medicare also still requires people make payments for services. Prescriptions are a mess. Really, it's a lot more than one simple "put everyone on medicare".

 

[the_randomizer]

Nobody could afford that shit before Obamacare, the uninsured rate was through the roof and it was starting to have a clear impact. The individual mandate brought prices down by quite a bit on average, just not nearly enough to get everyone covered. Which is precisely why Medicare-for-all is the better solution. You're covered even if you can't afford it, and having to compete with that, private insurers would have to lower their rates to reasonable levels and/or include more incentives.

Really, because when I went to the doctors, Obamacare didn't pay for jack squat, so yeah, it hasn't really helped me all that much. I was never covered when I've gone to ENT specialists and my physician, soooooo yeah. I'm glad that useless penalty is gone.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

No matter, it was useless to people who had zero income and/or couldn't afford it even with income. So yeah, forced medical insurance is bullshit.

So I'm looking at Utah's healtcare government page and so far as I can tell they actually do have a properly implemented Medicaid solution. Do you qualify for it, and if so did you ever actually sign up for it?

 

[Xzi]

Really, because when I went to the doctors, Obamacare didn't pay for jack squat, so yeah, it hasn't really helped me all that much. I was never covered when I've gone to ENT specialists and my physician, soooooo yeah. I'm glad that useless penalty is gone.

It depends entirely on the individual insurance plans available in your area. A lot of states refused to implement Obamacare at all or accept any of the subsidies for it, and those states have been in a much harsher decline for the better part of a decade now.

 

[the_randomizer]

So I'm looking at Utah's healtcare government page and so far as I can tell they actually do have a properly implemented Medicaid solution. Do you qualify for it, and if so did you ever actually sign up for it?

I honestly never found out what I was supposed to do or even how to get on it, wish someone would have told me, but it's too late as I owe $1100 in bills from visiting a doctor to get my ear nose and throat check. Well son of a bitch. Right now, I'm just full cynicism mode, I don't see the point in doing this now as it's not going to magically give me back the money I couldn've saved. Damn our broken healthcare system.

 

[Xzi]

Uh, no. Again, the money spent Medicare/Medicaid makes up ~30-50% of health care spending but only covers a fraction of the population. If it were simply extended to everywhere, Medicare/Medicaid costs would simply balloon to the same scope of all health care costs (maybe 80-90%?). That's ludicrous. We don't have enough doctors (lack of required residencies at hospitals) with drives up their salaries. We don't do enough benefit/cost analysis on treatment. We don't do enough of a good job of loan forgiveness for doctors (which is part of the excuse used for their salary).

Those aren't the only things but if you go through all the per capita costs it's clear the US is just more expensive in a lot of areas and without good reason. All that needs worked on as part of the process. Medicare also still requires people make payments for services. Prescriptions are a mess. Really, it's a lot more than one simple "put everyone on medicare".

Obviously there are plenty of details to be worked out yet, but it's by far still the best option we have to bring our healthcare system in line with the rest of the civilized world. If other large European countries can guarantee healthcare coverage to their citizens, then there's no good reason we can't. Time to stop worrying about what the corporations might think about our progress and just start making progress. The savings from fixing a broken system benefit them just as much as anyone else regardless.

According to the Mercatus model, total health spending would actually come in about $303 billion lower in 2031 than under current projections, with $7.35 trillion going to healthcare that year versus $7.65 trillion expected now. Total national health spending would be $2 trillion lower from 2022 to 2031 under the plan, the report found.

While the price tag for the federal government would increase significantly, decreased spending by other groups would lower total healthcare spending over that 10-year period. Meanwhile, the model also assumes that 30 million more people would get access to healthcare, and many people would get more robust services.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7

 

[Lacius]

We need Medicare for All and more regulations on pricing.

 

[bi388]

I think you have the right idea. Liberals are busy trying to bash Trump when he is simply trying to implement something that benefits society more then the failed Obamacare did. Of course, you're asking Democrats to work with Republicans. Yeah right! They will refuse to compromise and then when nothing gets done they will blame Trump. Hell, I saw a stray cat today. Must be Trumps fault!

I mean youre not wrong, but thats not a democrat problem. Thats a problem with our entire nation, and republicans are just as guilty. Remember when the government was shut down because they wouldnt cooperate with the democrats? Both parties are shitty, dont try to act like its one party being insolent when the other just wants to get along.

 

[kuwanger]

"According to the Mercatus model, total health spending would actually come in about $303 billion lower in 2031 than under current projections, with $7.35 trillion going to healthcare that year versus $7.65 trillion expected now. "

So, less than a 4% reduction. That's pretty horrible. By 2031 with actual efforts to reduce costs, even without Medicare for all you'd see a lot larger than a 4% reduction. Having to include 9 years to get a $2 trillion savings is horrible when a $2 trillion/year savings is possible. So, yea, that's why Medicare-for-all seems like a joke. :/

 

[Xzi]

"According to the Mercatus model, total health spending would actually come in about $303 billion lower in 2031 than under current projections, with $7.35 trillion going to healthcare that year versus $7.65 trillion expected now. "

So, less than a 4% reduction. That's pretty horrible. By 2031 with actual efforts to reduce costs, even without Medicare for all you'd see a lot larger than a 4% reduction. Having to include 9 years to get a $2 trillion savings is horrible when a $2 trillion/year savings is possible. So, yea, that's why Medicare-for-all seems like a joke. :/

The 4% reduction in cost is only a footnote to the fact that hundreds of millions more Americans would be covered and receive better care on average. There have been no better proposals thus far.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Having to include 9 years to get a $2 trillion savings is horrible when a $2 trillion/year savings is possible.

Which plan are you referencing that gives a potential $2 trillion per year savings to taxpayers? I'd like to take a look at it at some point

 

[Lacius]

I think you have the right idea. Liberals are busy trying to bash Trump when he is simply trying to implement something that benefits society more then the failed Obamacare did. Of course, you're asking Democrats to work with Republicans. Yeah right! They will refuse to compromise and then when nothing gets done they will blame Trump. Hell, I saw a stray cat today. Must be Trumps fault!

I mean youre not wrong, but thats not a democrat problem. Thats a problem with our entire nation, and republicans are just as guilty. Remember when the government was shut down because they wouldnt cooperate with the democrats? Both parties are shitty, dont try to act like its one party being insolent when the other just wants to get along.

Democrats tried to pass bipartisan health care reform reform, which is one of the reasons we got Obamacare in its present form instead of something like Medicare for All. Obamacare is largely based on a free market Republican plan from the Heritage Foundation and is basically Romneycare. Republicans are the ones who decided to uniformly oppose the Democrats' plan no matter what because their number one priority was to "make Obama a one-term President." Trump and the Republicans ran on "Obamacare is bad" but couldn't repeal it because it actually does a lot of common sense good, despite being far from perfect. Now they don't know what to do, like a dog that chased a car. Republicans don't have a substantive health care policy aside from "Obamacare is bad."

It's fair to say both parties can be bad, but it's unfair to say they're equally bad.

 

[bi388]

Democrats tried to pass bipartisan health care reform reform, which is one of the reasons we got Obamacare in its present form instead of something like Medicare for All. Obamacare is largely based on a free market Republican plan from the Heritage Foundation and is basically Romneycare. Republicans are the ones who decided to uniformly oppose the Democrats' plan no matter what because their number one priority was to "make Obama a one-term President." Trump and the Republicans ran on "Obamacare is bad" but couldn't repeal it because it actually does a lot of common sense good, despite being far from perfect. Now they don't know what to do, like a dog that chased a car. Republicans don't have a substantive health care policy aside from "Obamacare is bad."

It's fair to say both parties can be bad, but it's unfair to say they're equally bad.

Oh yes Im not saying theyre equally bad. Im opposing the idea that democrats are always trying to be uncooperative and blame everything on trump (which they do sometimes do) but republicans only have the best interests of the people in mind and want to get along.

 

[kuwanger]

Which plan are you referencing that gives a potential $2 trillion per year savings to taxpayers? I

It's not "a plan" per se. It's the fact that the US spends an average of 100% more than other countries with Universal Healthcare. Looking at what they do and copying it would be "part of the plan". The actual $2 trillion/year is just sort of "out of the ass" figure as it'd mean we'd still be spending about 50% more than other countries with Universal Healthcare. Realistically, though, I don't think I've seen anyone actually draw up a plan to address the obvious issues with the US system that even curious reading tells you about.

So, sorry if I come across like I know of something complete. I think with all the resistance, basically no one with the experience has went through the effort of putting forth a whole Universal Healthcare plan that'd include all the necessary reform. I mean, people are gun-ho about Medicare-for-all probably precisely because it doesn't include reform. And as my first post pointed out, you'd basically need a Constitutional Amendment to have Universal Healthcare. It's not necessarily for the legality of it but because it indicates substantial buy-in.

 

[Xzi]

So, sorry if I come across like I know of something complete. I think with all the resistance, basically no one with the experience has went through the effort of putting forth a whole Universal Healthcare plan that'd include all the necessary reform. I mean, people are gun-ho about Medicare-for-all probably precisely because it doesn't include reform. And as my first post pointed out, you'd basically need a Constitutional Amendment to have Universal Healthcare. It's not necessarily for the legality of it but because it indicates substantial buy-in.

Not sure what you're on about...Medicare-for-all is reform. There's also absolutely nothing in the constitution that might prevent universal healthcare in the US, only some stipulations on how it can be billed.

 

[kuwanger]

Not sure what you're on about...Medicare-for-all is reform. There's also absolutely nothing in the constitution that might prevent universal healthcare in the US, only some stipulations on how it can be billed.

It's not any sort of substantial reform. Substantial reform wouldn't show a sub 4% drop in costs after 10+ years. And like I said, it's not necessarily about the legality*. The point is that if enough of Congress and States are on board, they won't be trying to undermine what is passed in lawsuits. The point then of making it into the Constitution is precisely to make it abundantly clear it's here to stay. Put another way, the only way I see Universal Healthcare happening is if we're so behind it that it is put into the Constitution. Everything will just be whittled away, including things like Medicare-for-all.

* Legislatures rarely pass things that don't need fixed because some of it is unconstitutional in some fashion (thanks to jurisdiction or precedent). So, there's a need for Congress to be receptive to positive change to fix those things, not trying to dump the whole thing.

 

[Kioku]

No, it's pretty common knowledge (even on conservative talk shows, which is interesting to listen to them admit and think they're bragging) that Obamacare was neutered to the point where it was practically sabatoged. The success that it's had are in spite of all the odds against it, and the shortcomings aren't indicative of what proper single-payer would accommodate

Definitely not an all-republican decision. There were some democratic hands on it as well. I'm not saying it wasn't torn apart by Republicans, just that it wasn't unanimously decided by the Republican party.

 

[Xzi]

It's not any sort of substantial reform. Substantial reform wouldn't show a sub 4% drop in costs after 10+ years. And like I said, it's not necessarily about the legality*. The point is that if enough of Congress and States are on board, they won't be trying to undermine what is passed in lawsuits. The point then of making it into the Constitution is precisely to make it abundantly clear it's here to stay. Put another way, the only way I see Universal Healthcare happening is if we're so behind it that it is put into the Constitution. Everything will just be whittled away, including things like Medicare-for-all.

Your argument is pretty poor when you're against reform that would cover millions more people and improve care because it saves money but it doesn't save enough. The fact that it saves any money at all shows how insanely broken the status quo is, and maintaining that is the only opposition plan proposed by Republicans.

It doesn't need to be enshrined in the constitution, that's just complicating things unnecessarily. Once we implement new social programs, we almost never repeal them, and that's why corporations oppose enacting them to begin with.