GOP ACA Replacement Imminent....Predictions

[Doc Savage Fan]

The amount of self-delusion necessary to believe it is possible Dems can settle fundamental internecine warfare between moderate & far-right R's on healthcare while also believing that keeping ACA in place & not doing anything to improve it will be a Dem problem despite R gov't in all 3 branches......oy. And you support single payer to boot? DSF, your cognitive dissonance is off the charts.

Such complexities are often perceived so simply by those who are unable to conceive much beyond their desire to understand.

 

[First]

You obviously don't understand insurance. Have you ever shopped for it on the open market? I have my whole life. A barebones plan does cover breast cancer but does not cover preventative visits, colonoscopies, mental health, birth control and many other things

Yes, lots of times. I'm afraid you're badly misinformed.

 

[First]

Such complexities are often perceived so simply by those who are unable to conceive much beyond their desire to understand.

Another way of saying you can't square the circles you drew in whatever insane asylum you must have been in to support R's on healthcare while simultaneously hoping for single payer.

 

[Jhhnn]

Another way of saying you can't square the circles you drew in whatever insane asylum you must have been in to support R's on healthcare while simultaneously hoping for single payer.

Maybe it's like burning the village to save the village...

 

[Ns1]

Believe it or not, the official name of the bill is "The World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017." https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275/text I guess Paul Ryan knows what is likely to appeal to Herr Twitler.

holy fuck I can't believe this is actually true.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; PURPOSES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the “World’s Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017”.

 

[First]

holy fuck I can't believe this is actually true.

Haha, holy fuck that's great, can't believe that's true. A perfect example of the alternate universe these R's are living in.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Another way of saying you can't square the circles you drew in whatever insane asylum you must have been in to support R's on healthcare while simultaneously hoping for single payer.

No it's another way of saying that if you genuinely wanted to understand where I was coming from, you would ask respectfully rather than choosing instead to denigrate me. Why play games...you got what you really wanted here.

 

[fskimospy]

holy fuck I can't believe this is actually true.

That actually refers to a different health care bill put forward, not the one under consideration now. Still horrible though.

While generally I appreciate people having a sense of humor, joking about taking away health care from millions of people, some of whom will quite literally die because of it is downright ghoulish.

 

[First]

No it's another way of saying that if you genuinely wanted to understand where I was coming from, you would ask respectfully rather than choosing instead to denigrate me. Why play games...you got what you really wanted here.

DSF, I long ago discovered you're fundamentally a politics-as-team-sports kind of guy, so while I have no doubt there's some rationalization you believe isn't partisan that you have at the ready for supporting single payer, unlike many Trump voters I won't be easily conned into believing it.

 

[mect]

Yeah, except end-of-life decisions are pretty subjective, and gov't making the ultimate decision there is one choice most people don't want to give up (and I don't blame them).

I think you just need to frame it different. For the wealthy that can pay out of pocket (or afford supplemental private insurance) to pay for end of life care, they should always be free to do so. However, there needs to be a check in place for government funded healthcare that prevents the elderly from bankrupting the rest of the country. Our government healthcare programs are the inverse of what they should be. Government healthcare should prioritize the young where guaranteed healthcare is critical and has a much larger impact per cost.

 

[First]

I think you just need to frame it different. For the wealthy that can pay out of pocket (or afford supplemental private insurance) to pay for end of life care, they should always be free to do so. However, there needs to be a check in place for government funded healthcare that prevents the elderly from bankrupting the rest of the country. Our government healthcare programs are the inverse of what they should be. Government healthcare should prioritize the young where guaranteed healthcare is critical and has a much larger impact per cost.

The ultimate decision should be left to families on end-of-life, but there indeed should be some pressure from the gov't to best inform people that spending millions of dollars is not in the best interest of their dying loved ones. To place end-of-life care decisions in the hands of people disconnected entirely from the patient seems to be ripe for unintended outcomes.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

DSF, I long ago discovered you're fundamentally a politics-as-team-sports kind of guy, so while I have no doubt there's some rationalization you believe isn't partisan that you have at the ready for supporting single payer, unlike many Trump voters I won't be easily conned into believing it.

I've advocated single payer for many years. If you don't want to believe that...go for it, as I could give a flying shit about your twisted view of reality.

 

[fskimospy]

The ultimate decision should be left to families on end-of-life, but there indeed should be some pressure from the gov't to best inform people that spending millions of dollars is not in the best interest of their dying loved ones. To place end-of-life care decisions in the hands of people disconnected entirely from the patient seems to be ripe for unintended outcomes.

But families will rarely make rational decisions and how can you blame them? How could you ask a husband or wife to voluntarily discontinue treatment of their lifelong partner in order to save the government money? In the end we need the government to say not what kind of end of life care is permitted, but what kind of end of life care the government will pay for. People will invariably hate whatever group is tasked with doing it, but it's something that must be done.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

But families will rarely make rational decisions and how can you blame them? How could you ask a husband or wife to voluntarily discontinue treatment of their lifelong partner in order to save the government money? In the end we need the government to say not what kind of end of life care is permitted, but what kind of end of life care the government will pay for. People will invariably hate whatever group is tasked with doing it, but it's something that must be done.

Part of the problem is we are used to paying for insurance either from a pay check or out of pocket. Paying makes us want the maximum benefit and its natural to expect that. Paying for healthcare thru some kind of tax isn't the same feeling even-though we are still paying. For example I've never heard anyone say since we pay so much for the Military in taxes I expect them to be constantly deployed and at war to get my perceived value.
We all need to have new expectations and it would be nice to see a group of respected Politicians from all sides start addressing the matter as a group.

 

[Chromagnus]

But families will rarely make rational decisions and how can you blame them? How could you ask a husband or wife to voluntarily discontinue treatment of their lifelong partner in order to save the government money? In the end we need the government to say not what kind of end of life care is permitted, but what kind of end of life care the government will pay for. People will invariably hate whatever group is tasked with doing it, but it's something that must be done.

Part of the problem does seem to be cultural, in general we don't seem to like to talk about end of life care and thus the default is to "do everything you can". Having things like living wills become more common would help with some of the end of life costs because not everyone personally wants "do whatever you can to extend my life" but if their family doesn't know that it's really hard for them to make that decision. I've had conversations with my parents about the types of things they do and do not want when the end comes and ultimately that will lead to lower overall healthcare spending because my default will not be to do whatever is possible. It's also a win/win because I will be following the wishes of my parents.

End of life care is complicated but the more we talk about it most likely the lower costs should be. Living wills are a good tool that should be more widely used.

 

[mect]

The ultimate decision should be left to families on end-of-life, but there indeed should be some pressure from the gov't to best inform people that spending millions of dollars is not in the best interest of their dying loved ones. To place end-of-life care decisions in the hands of people disconnected entirely from the patient seems to be ripe for unintended outcomes.

I agree if it is the families money. However, forcing the rest of society to forego affordable health care so that families can choose to spend millions extending a life six months is not acceptable in my opinion. If it is public money, there need to be public restraints on how it is used. Families losing the choice of what to do with 92 year old grandma (financed by the government) is an acceptable cost to me in order to give hundreds of families the choice to save 35 year old mom (financed by the government).

 

[Fanatical Meat]

This is going to have to head back to the drawing board

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/08/media/gop-obamacare-replacement-trump-media-allies/index.html

Pro-Trump media breaks with Trump on health care bill
The revolt against the legislation, which Trump called "wonderful," constitutes the first major break between the president and the cohort of pundits and news outlets that have propped him up since the launch of his presidential campaign.
Breitbart News, where White House strategist Steve Bannon previously served as chairman, derisively labeled the bill "Obamacare 2.0."

 

[Blackjack200]

This is going to have to head back to the drawing board

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/08/media/gop-obamacare-replacement-trump-media-allies/index.html

I don't think they don't care half as much about health care as they do about seeing ICE break up brown families on TV. I think this can be rammed through. If anything can stop it, it's the AARP.

 

[Sea Ray]

Yes, lots of times. I'm afraid you're badly misinformed.

You sure don't come across as being very educated on this. I'm not misinformed. I've lived it.

It's possible that Congress will not be able to agree on a new health care bill. If that's the case then I may have to settle for our HHS secretary to merely drop the myriad of regulations and requirements of every insurance policy. He can do that on his own as I understand it. That'd at least be a start.

Here is a list of essential benefits that is required of each and every health ins plan. This administration can drop these by executive order:


https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/what-marketplace-plans-cover/

What you'd have left after dropping these essential elements would be a barebones policy

 

[Chromagnus]

Here is a list of essential benefits that is required of each and every health ins plan. This administration can drop these by executive order:

Can they? I'm not trying to be snide, I've just never heard that Trump could change these essential benefits with and EO. Could you provide a source, I'd love to read about that?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This is going to have to head back to the drawing board

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/08/media/gop-obamacare-replacement-trump-media-allies/index.html

The far-right wheels are coming off the Republican bus as expected.

 

[Chromagnus]

Can they? I'm not trying to be snide, I've just never heard that Trump could change these essential benefits with and EO. Could you provide a source, I'd love to read about that?

Never mind, I found an article talking about it. That is rather fascinating and wonder why I haven't seen it before. Maybe it'll be more widely talked about after this first proposed "repeal and replace" fails.

 

[Homerboy]

The AMA and other medical groups aren't enjoying the new bill all that much...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ama-ph...antly-affect-medical-system/story?id=45203025

 

[First]

You sure don't come across as being very educated on this. I'm not misinformed. I've lived it.

It's possible that Congress will not be able to agree on a new health care bill. If that's the case then I may have to settle for our HHS secretary to merely drop the myriad of regulations and requirements of every insurance policy. He can do that on his own as I understand it. That'd at least be a start.

Here is a list of essential benefits that is required of each and every health ins plan. This administration can drop these by executive order:


https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/what-marketplace-plans-cover/

What you'd have left after dropping these essential elements would be a barebones policy

You're confused. You're talking about catastrophic coverage or something else, not barebones plans. The issue with barebones plans has always been about how many won't cover major illnesses. Below's an article before ACA plans became available on the exchanges, link here:

Consumer Reports calls it “junk health insurance.” A California regulator described them as “skeleton policies.” To an expert from the American Cancer Society, they “are a perfect example of why health care reform is so crucial.”

They are bare-bones health plans, and critics say they could leave consumers who become seriously ill on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in medical costs. The Affordable Care Act was supposed to do away with them.

Read more if you're interested.

More than likely you don't know/remember what you actually purchased, and are using terms you don't understand (barebones).

 

[First]

I've advocated single payer for many years. If you don't want to believe that...go for it, as I could give a flying shit about your twisted view of reality.

I've never doubted you supported single payer, I doubt your ability to reconcile disparate facts, or even just to separate fact from fiction, due to your partisan nature. Pretty straight forward.