Highways & Healthcare

[fskimospy]

Do our Democrats actually want ACA over Single Payer?

It's kind of weird watching you defend the failures of the compromise.
It must be torture trying to convince yourselves that it's working.
Or maybe ignorance is bliss...

No, Democrats generally want single payer. That wasn't available and so we got the ACA. It's much better than what we had before.

What's funny and sad is to watch conservatives endlessly claim through either pronouncements of principles or anecdotal evidence that the ACA has failed despite basically all empirical evidence showing that it has been a resounding success. It has covered millions of people at a lower cost than projected and the overall rate of health care inflation has been very low. That is success by any rational standard.

All I can think is that conservatives are either in a media bubble where they don't know this information or they are so invested in thinking the ACA must be bad that data simply no longer matters.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Need you ask? Free Market! States Rights! Deport all the illegals! More Benghazi!

"Health care, smealth care. Why are we wasting time on health care when there are more important things to talk about like Benghazi!"

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Do our Democrats actually want ACA over Single Payer?

It's kind of weird watching you defend the failures of the compromise.
It must be torture trying to convince yourselves that it's working.
Or maybe ignorance is bliss...

The overwhelming majority of Democrats probably support single payer, aka socialized medicine.

The biggest sham the Repbulicans got away with was labeling the ACA as "Obamacare" when it's really Republicare. The Democrats are terrified of being labeled as socialists, so they won't publicly announce that the a mandate requiring people to buy insurance does not fix the fundamental problem--the system is still Republicare--but with the Republican-originated idea of the individual mandate. (The Republicans came up this idea during the Clinton Administration as an alternative to socialized medicine so that insurance company and hospital executives could keep their jobs.)

IMHO, the our current health care mess is the Republicans' fault. Have you seen any proposals on the Republican side to actually fix our health care system in a way that wouldn't result in hundreds of thousands of people going without health care or even dying from lack of health care?

 

[nickqt]

...
All I can think is that conservatives are either in a media bubble where they don't know this information or they are so invested in thinking the ACA must be bad that data simply no longer matters.

Clearly both.

Observable reality doesn't matter. What matters is the message. Pure reactionary politics.

 

[TheSlamma]

Do our Democrats actually want ACA over Single Payer?

It's kind of weird watching you defend the failures of the compromise.
It must be torture trying to convince yourselves that it's working.
Or maybe ignorance is bliss...

If you can get one to stop their hackery for 10 seconds they will admit they want single payer.. but instead they feel they have to lay down their lives for Obama since it's their "team"'s image on the line.

Maybe one day they will evolve past this primitive thinking and realize that all politicians need to be accountable no matter their party.

ACA still has us paying gobs of money to the same insurance companies that have broken our healthcare industry for decades.. oh and just because everyone has to get covered they can still deny our claims BTW.


Basically what we get here is: "Democrats did this bad thing"
Response "Well republicans did this completely unrelated thing that doesn't even contribute to this discussion, I just want to point out they are worse which makes Dems less worse" Then they vanish into cricketsville.

See post below

 

[senseamp]

Do our Democrats actually want ACA over Single Payer?

Are Republicans offering to replace ACA with single payer? Last I checked they were offering to "replace" it with some "free market" pipe dream, but never putting an actual plan up for analysis and a vote.

 

[chucky2]

I hate to break it to you, but, despite commonly being called Obamacare, and despite Obama championing it for his fellow Dems, Bummer wasn't the one that was pushing ACA - that was the Dem party leaders spearheading it. Obama when he started as POTUS didn't know WTF he was doing, he was still campaigning a year after he took office. The Dem "Leadership" that is responsible for the fucking ACA/"Bummercare" is Reid, Pelosi, etc. We can all thank them we have it instead of Single Payer.

 

[senseamp]

I hate to break it to you, but, despite commonly being called Obamacare, and despite Obama championing it for his fellow Dems, Bummer wasn't the one that was pushing ACA - that was the Dem party leaders spearheading it. Obama when he started as POTUS didn't know WTF he was doing, he was still campaigning a year after he took office. The Dem "Leadership" that is responsible for the fucking ACA/"Bummercare" is Reid, Pelosi, etc. We can all thank them we have it instead of Single Payer.

You can thank Joe Lieberman, who was on the insurance company dole through his wife. He killed the public option.

 

[TheSlamma]

Are Republicans offering to replace ACA with single payer? Last I checked they were offering to "replace" it with some "free market" pipe dream, but never putting an actual plan up for analysis and a vote.

see that.. the very next post made my point.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Fail, again; http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obamacare-repeal-vote-fails-in-senate-120638.html

 

[fskimospy]

Fail, again; http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obamacare-repeal-vote-fails-in-senate-120638.html

The most interesting part of that story is conservatives pushing to effectively eliminate the filibuster entirely. I saw this coming a mile away; they will not hesitate to eliminate it if they retain the House and Senate and get the presidency.

Overall I'm for the elimination of the filibuster, but it makes the Democrats' decision to weaken it make even more sense now than it did then. Deciding to abide by norms your opponents have no desire to abide by is bad strategy.

 

[senseamp]

see that.. the very next post made my point.

Which is what? That we are all somehow not aware that Obamacare isn't perfect?
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
BTW, Republicans think Obamacare is better than single payer. Paul Ryan wants to replace Medicare for seniors with Obamacare exchanges.
http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9969

Moreover, it would set up a carefully monitored exchange for Medicare plans. Health plans that chose to participate in the Medicare Exchange would agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking, and to ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.

Obamacare is good enough for America's seniors as far as Republicans are concerned.

 

[TheSlamma]

Which is what? That we are all somehow not aware that Obamacare isn't perfect?
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
BTW, Republicans think Obamacare is better than single payer. Paul Ryan wants to replace Medicare for seniors with Obamacare exchanges.
http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9969

Obamacare is good enough for America's seniors as far as Republicans are concerned.

Way to snip out the portions of your quote of my post of why it's bad, of course Repubs like it, it's still money to private insurance companies, hell it's Romneycare.

 

[senseamp]

Way to snip out the portions of your quote of my post of why it's bad, of course Repubs like it, it's still money to private insurance companies, hell it's Romneycare.

Yes, but there is a 20% limit on overhead (insurance company's cut) put in, which is good. Should it be less than 20%? Maybe. But that is something that can be adjusted later.

 

[TheSlamma]

Yes, but there is a 20% limit on overhead (insurance company's cut) put in, which is good. Should it be less than 20%? Maybe. But that is something that can be adjusted later.

And you better believe that 20% will find it's way into your payments now. Before Obamacare my spinal RF was a $300 copay. Now they go right for my portion with these new plans, same procedure is now $1500 out of my pocket towards that 20% cap.

I found that if I just pay out of pocket I can skip the hoops insurance makes me jump through and I can get the procedure done on my own for $900. Again you are forcing me into the very corporations that have caused the US healthcare system to be in the state it is.. the INSURANCE COMPANIES, the guys that can deny your claim when they want too.

I'm not gonna sit here and count on that 20% possibly being lowered, that is a stretch for your case anyway.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Do our Democrats actually want ACA over Single Payer?

It's kind of weird watching you defend the failures of the compromise.
It must be torture trying to convince yourselves that it's working.
Or maybe ignorance is bliss...

No, democrats do want single payer, but much like the gay marriage issue a decade ago, they know that politically this is not the right time to advocate for it since the American public has an irrational fear of such a thing, despite the high marks that Medicare receives. I believe the public option that was on the table while the ACA legislation was being drafted was a trojan horse to single payer, because it would have been superior to all the private plans that were offered, and would eventually grow to muscle out the private plans and implement effective cost controls due to sheer market dominance.

Those defending the ACA do so because it gets us closer to the goal of universal coverage, and is much better than what we had before.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Slightly off-topic:

My biggest beef with our healthcare is the drug costs. Let me get this straight. A doctor says "You need to take x". Your INSURANCE can reply and say "No, you don't need x". How does that make sense in any way? This is why our insurance system needs to go - it's a pure conflict of interests of doctors saying medical coverage is needed, and medical insurance saying "No, you don't".

I have epilepsy, so I'm a WEE bit on the required side to take medications. So this isn't by any means optional pain meds. Well, unless you want me to have a seizure while driving and smash into you going 70mph. But I've had to try a lot of medicines over the years (it's very hard to find the perfect cocktail of medications to best suite someones epilepsy). So you will find yourself switching medications, trying new ones, etc... Lately I've tried out some new ones and since they are new they are the top tier (pretty much because they aren't 1000 years old and don't have a generic). It always blows my mind that my insurance can stop paying and deem it not in my best interest. Currently, my medicine costs my insurance ~$700 for one month of treatment. Since it's Tier 3, it's also $65/copay for me.

Regardless of ACA, Single Payer, Insurance, etc... How do you liberals here plan to address our issue surrounding the price of drugs?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Slightly off-topic:

My biggest beef with our healthcare is the drug costs. Let me get this straight. A doctor says "You need to take x". Your INSURANCE can reply and say "No, you don't need x". How does that make sense in any way? This is why our insurance system needs to go - it's a pure conflict of interests of doctors saying medical coverage is needed, and medical insurance saying "No, you don't".

I have epilepsy, so I'm a WEE bit on the required side to take medications. So this isn't by any means optional pain meds. Well, unless you want me to have a seizure while driving and smash into you going 70mph. But I've had to try a lot of medicines over the years (it's very hard to find the perfect cocktail of medications to best suite someones epilepsy). So you will find yourself switching medications, trying new ones, etc... Lately I've tried out some new ones and since they are new they are the top tier (pretty much because they aren't 1000 years old and don't have a generic). It always blows my mind that my insurance can stop paying and deem it not in my best interest. Currently, my medicine costs my insurance ~$700 for one month of treatment. Since it's Tier 3, it's also $65/copay for me.

Regardless of ACA, Single Payer, Insurance, etc... How do you liberals here plan to address our issue surrounding the price of drugs?

One of the big benefits of a single payer system is that the government would achieve enormous leverage to ratchet the costs of these drugs down. As it stands now, drug makers will charge whatever the market will bear, often times achieving ENORMOUS profit margins. Why do you think drug makers lobbied Republicans into adding a provision into the Medicare Part D legislation barring medicare from negotiating lower drug prices for seniors?

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...sam-barred-bargaining-medicare-drug-prices-s/

There are some areas of our economy where the public good has to be weighed against natural market tendencies, and health care should be at the top of that list. Nobody seems to object to price gouging laws during disaster situations, so why cant health care be treated the same?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

One of the big benefits of a single payer system is that the government would achieve enormous leverage to ratchet the costs of these drugs down. As it stands now, drug makers will charge whatever the market will bear, often times achieving ENORMOUS profit margins. Why do you think drug makers lobbied Republicans into adding a provision into the Medicare Part D legislation barring medicare from negotiating lower drug prices for seniors?

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...sam-barred-bargaining-medicare-drug-prices-s/

There are some areas of our economy where the public good has to be weighed against natural market tendencies, and health care should be at the top of that list. Nobody seems to object to price gouging laws during disaster situations, so why cant health care be treated the same?

It's conflicting, because you have to have SOME type of drive for R&D the next drug. How else do you expect to find cures for cancer and such? It's all profit driven. There is a reason why (as insane as our healthcare system is) we still pump out the newest cures before everyone else.

So there has to be an incentive - A 50 year exclusive patent is way too damn much. But say... 5 years of being able to charge higher costs would be some what reasonable. If all medicines have to be sold at a certain price, why toss any money into R&D when it won't be sold any higher than one that is 100 years old and still going strong?

 

[Mxylplyx]

It's conflicting, because you have to have SOME type of drive for R&D the next drug. How else do you expect to find cures for cancer and such? It's all profit driven. There is a reason why (as insane as our healthcare system is) we still pump out the newest cures before everyone else.

So there has to be an incentive - A 50 year exclusive patent is way too damn much. But say... 5 years of being able to charge higher costs would be some what reasonable. If all medicines have to be sold at a certain price, why toss any money into R&D when it won't be sold any higher than one that is 100 years old and still going strong?

I agree with you in principle. In such a sensitive area as healthcare, we would have to entrust our elected representatives to find the right balance while negotiating with drug makers on our behalf. You dont see hospitals turning away medicare beneficiaries from their doors do you, even though Medicare pays quite a bit less than private insurers due to a cost plus payment model?Things like this are why we choose to have government. Also, bear in mind that big pharma spends more on marketing than they do R&D.

 

[TheSlamma]

Slightly off-topic:

My biggest beef with our healthcare is the drug costs. Let me get this straight. A doctor says "You need to take x". Your INSURANCE can reply and say "No, you don't need x". How does that make sense in any way? This is why our insurance system needs to go - it's a pure conflict of interests of doctors saying medical coverage is needed, and medical insurance saying "No, you don't".

I have epilepsy, so I'm a WEE bit on the required side to take medications. So this isn't by any means optional pain meds. Well, unless you want me to have a seizure while driving and smash into you going 70mph. But I've had to try a lot of medicines over the years (it's very hard to find the perfect cocktail of medications to best suite someones epilepsy). So you will find yourself switching medications, trying new ones, etc... Lately I've tried out some new ones and since they are new they are the top tier (pretty much because they aren't 1000 years old and don't have a generic). It always blows my mind that my insurance can stop paying and deem it not in my best interest. Currently, my medicine costs my insurance ~$700 for one month of treatment. Since it's Tier 3, it's also $65/copay for me.

Regardless of ACA, Single Payer, Insurance, etc... How do you liberals here plan to address our issue surrounding the price of drugs?

All you are going to get is the "step in the right direction crap" from them.

But single payer would probably come with regulations on how much can be charged like they do in places like Japan.

 

[overst33r]

Does it really matter? Everyone that "Has insurance" now is still 100% fucked if they have any health issue. They can't afford their 6000$ deductible, let alone the amount due in addition to the deductible.

The deductible is generally close to, if not the same as the out of pocket max. What additional amounts are you referring to?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The deductible is generally close to, if not the same as the out of pocket max. What additional amounts are you referring to?

What the fuck insurance do you have? The out of pocket is usually TWICE the amount of the deductible at bare minimum.

Do you understand the difference between the two? It wouldn't make sense if they were close together...

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I do believe with the high deductible plans, the max out of pocket is much closer than the low deductible plans. Mine the max out of pocket is almost 7 times the deductible ($300 deductible, $2,000 max out of pocket).

 

[overst33r]

What the fuck insurance do you have? The out of pocket is usually TWICE the amount of the deductible at bare minimum.

Do you understand the difference between the two? It wouldn't make sense if they were close together...

Relax.

I have a HDCP with humana. My deducitble is $6300 and my OTPM is $6300.