Paul Ryan: I don't want to work with Democrats on health care

[dainthomas]

The VA isn't like that everywhere. My father gets excellent service from the VA in CT. The idea that everyone or even a majority of people working in the private healthcare sector are all unicorns and rainbows is naive as well.

I was going to say, I go to the VA in Portland and get fantastic care. In fact they opened a suburban clinic on the west side that I go to for most of my labs and appointments. It's extremely convenient.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I was going to say, I go to the VA in Portland and get fantastic care. In fact they opened a suburban clinic on the west side that I go to for most of my labs and appointments. It's extremely convenient.

I'm glad that you and any other vets are able to get great care from your facility. With that said there is far too much disparity in the quality of treatment across the system and I hope that the gap can be closed across the board to bring great care to all veterans regardless of where you might live.

 

[agent00f]

You made a good post, but this part I take issue with. If the insurance companies and providers want to have a nomenclature waggling contest to fleece each other, that's fine, they can play around with weasel words and fight over semantics. But the second one of those bills comes across my inbox? Throw that crap out the window, I need to know what I'm being charged for and why, and why specifically insurance isn't covering it. Do not hide fees from me, do not inflate costs, do not use me as a cost-recovery model. If this cannot be done without clarifying line-by-line, then so be it, hospital can do it line-by-line. If I can be guaranteed to never see a bill, THEN they can play musical chairs with costs all they want.

It's probable hardhat works in that industry and does what he can to defend the capitalism/market that dicks with people's health. Literally every other advanced civilization on earth can see these problems more clearly and have dealt with them better, but in fairness they aren't stuck with so many american conservatives.

 

[Sunburn74]

It's probable hardhat works in that industry and does what he can to defend the capitalism/market that dicks with people's health. Literally every other advanced civilization on earth can see these problems more clearly and have dealt with them better, but in fairness they aren't stuck with so many american conservatives.

The reality is that with certain markets, capitalism fails.
Healthcare is one of such markets, amongst many. Partners for a relationship is another (ie the dating market) and so on and so on.

 

[hardhat]

It's probable hardhat works in that industry and does what he can to defend the capitalism/market that dicks with people's health. Literally every other advanced civilization on earth can see these problems more clearly and have dealt with them better, but in fairness they aren't stuck with so many american conservatives.

Every other first world country uses a very similar coding system for their healthcare encounters. And if you read my posts, you would see that I do think we should address the ridiculous cost of healthcare in our country. Using coding and billing complexity as a scapegoat instead of addressing the real problems won't do anyone any good.

And I personally take offense at the insinuation that I 'defend the capitalism/market that dicks with people's health.' You obviously haven't bothered to read what I posted, or you would know that I already said we should reform the system. Fix obvious things like different prices for the same service. Take advantage of collective bargaining and price controls through single payer. But you just want to jump on the blame wagon without any knowledge of where the real problems are. You should be a politician. Just jump from one issue to the next while trying to look good without caring at all if what you are saying is actually good policy.

 

[agent00f]

Every other first world country uses a very similar coding system for their healthcare encounters. And if you read my posts, you would see that I do think we should address the ridiculous cost of healthcare in our country. Using coding and billing complexity as a scapegoat instead of addressing the real problems won't do anyone any good.

And I personally take offense at the insinuation that I 'defend the capitalism/market that dicks with people's health.' You obviously haven't bothered to read what I posted, or you would know that I already said we should reform the system. Fix obvious things like different prices for the same service. Take advantage of collective bargaining and price controls through single payer. But you just want to jump on the blame wagon without any knowledge of where the real problems are. You should be a politician. Just jump from one issue to the next while trying to look good without caring at all if what you are saying is actually good policy.

You know just as well that inefficiencies in the system are hidden/protected/and ultimately justified via such complexity, not unlike in high finance, obliged as those with vested interest may be to shift blame elsewhere. Government price controls per everyone else certainly do away with much of its purpose in proportion to strictness.

 

[brandonbull]

Can our health care system be reformed without making extensive changes to external health care factors? Cheaper medical schools, reducing administrative layers, improving our food and water supply, immigration, drug pricing and R&D, and wellness programs.

 

[dullard]

Can our health care system be reformed without making extensive changes to external health care factors? Cheaper medical schools, reducing administrative layers, improving our food and water supply, immigration, drug pricing and R&D, and wellness programs.

Yes, it can be reformed. That doesn't make it a good idea though.

Most of people's complaints with our current system are either (a) misunderstandings or (b) costs that are outside what they want to pay. No one is actually addressing the costs. All they are doing is highlighting the misunderstandings to force something non-health care related through (such as tax cuts).

Address the actual costs and people will like our current system much more. The problem really is a branding mismatch. "Affordable" is not the same as "inexpensive".

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yes, it can be reformed. That doesn't make it a good idea though.

Most of people's complaints with our current system are either (a) misunderstandings or (b) costs that are outside what they want to pay. No one is actually addressing the costs. All they are doing is highlighting the misunderstandings to force something non-health care related through (such as tax cuts).

Address the actual costs and people will like our current system much more. The problem really is a branding mismatch. "Affordable" is not the same as "inexpensive".

There's also a not-insignificant amount of misinformation floating around regarding the current state of our health system, what the ACA did/did not do, what is currently available to citizens and how, etc.

 

[theeedude]

Looks like GOP's new big plan is to bring back discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Their obese older base should be happy to pay a lot more for health insurance, if they can get it at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/upshot/freedom-caucus-health-care-pre-existing-conditions.html

Throughout the debate to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President Trump and Republican congressional leaders have insisted they would retain a crucial, popular part of the health law: the promise that people can buy insurance even if they’ve had illnesses in the past.

Their efforts foundered last month, when a House health bill had to be pulled from the floor after it failed to attract enough support. Late Monday night, word emerged that the White House and the group of conservative lawmakers known as the Freedom Caucus had discussed a proposal to revive the bill. But the proposed changes would effectively cast the Affordable Care Act’s pre-existing conditions provision aside.

 

[ElFenix]

Can our health care system be reformed without making extensive changes to external health care factors? Cheaper medical schools, reducing administrative layers, improving our food and water supply, immigration, drug pricing and R&D, and wellness programs.

The water supply is generally very good other than when political appointees who have no idea what they're doing switch up the supply to a formula that leeches lead out of the pipes.

The food supply is ridiculously safe in the short term (no one died from Chipotle and it was still major news and afaik Chipotle's still suffering). But long term, you're probably right: the subsidies and inertia are all in favor of heavily sugared and salted food. But I'm going to guess nothing coming from the Trump admin is going to address any of that and will likely attempt to roll or stop any rule making regarding better labelling.

 

[theeedude]

Americans just need to be better people.

 

[brandonbull]

The water supply is generally very good other than when political appointees who have no idea what they're doing switch up the supply to a formula that leeches lead out of the pipes.

The food supply is ridiculously safe in the short term (no one died from Chipotle and it was still major news and afaik Chipotle's still suffering). But long term, you're probably right: the subsidies and inertia are all in favor of heavily sugared and salted food. But I'm going to guess nothing coming from the Trump admin is going to address any of that and will likely attempt to roll or stop any rule making regarding better labelling.

I agree that our food and water supply is very safe for short term health. Everyone is looking at "health care" as something that will be fixed in a few months after a website works correctly and everyone register for health insurance. IMO until we address all the toxic chemicals bombarding our bodies and the lack of education and mandatory wellness programs from early age, all the tax breaks, mandates, single/universal payer systems will never allow the US to have appropriate health care that is affordable.

 

[agent00f]

I agree that our food and water supply is very safe for short term health. Everyone is looking at "health care" as something that will be fixed in a few months after a website works correctly and everyone register for health insurance. IMO until we address all the toxic chemicals bombarding our bodies and the lack of education and mandatory wellness programs from early age, all the tax breaks, mandates, single/universal payer systems will never allow the US to have appropriate health care that is affordable.

"solutions that work everywhere else in the first world can't here because of conservative ideology" -- self-ownage professional

 

[dank69]

Looks like GOP's new big plan is to bring back discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Their obese older base should be happy to pay a lot more for health insurance, if they can get it at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/upshot/freedom-caucus-health-care-pre-existing-conditions.html

Smells like freedom.

 

[brandonbull]

"solutions that work everywhere else in the first world can't here because of conservative ideology" -- self-ownage professional

None of the other first world countries are the same as the US. You can get 110% RDA of Liberal ideology and are still going to have a mess for healthcare. Until people really focus on wellness of individuals, we are going to be wasting our time.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

until we address all the toxic chemicals bombarding our bodies

I agreed with everything in your post, but be careful with this mentality, it leads down a very silly and caustic road to things like homeopathy and 'anti-establishment medicine'. If you can identify a 'toxic chemical' that is bombarding (collectively) our bodies, then by all means identify it. Otherwise don't FUD this up.

 

[dullard]

I agreed with everything in your post, but be careful with this mentality, it leads down a very silly and caustic road to things like homeopathy and 'anti-establishment medicine'. If you can identify a 'toxic chemical' that is bombarding (collectively) our bodies, then by all means identify it. Otherwise don't FUD this up.

The most likely culprit for poor health and massive health care spending: refined sugars.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

None of the other first world countries are the same as the US. You can get 110% RDA of Liberal ideology and are still going to have a mess for healthcare. Until people really focus on wellness of individuals, we are going to be wasting our time.

However every first world country has better patient satisfaction
*to my memory someone correct me if I'm wrong but please use a known source

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The most likely culprit for poor health and massive health care spending: refined sugars.

Not refuting that, and I'd honestly call the levels of which we put both sugars and salts into our foods as borderline toxic. Fortunately those are clearly defined and can be avoided if one chooses to. Unfortunately, most don't care/bother/want to, which does indeed lead to higher health care costs for all.

 

[dullard]

Not refuting that, and I'd honestly call the levels of which we put both sugars and salts into our foods as borderline toxic. Fortunately those are clearly defined and can be avoided if one chooses to. Unfortunately, most don't care/bother/want to, which does indeed lead to higher health care costs for all.

I happen to be against too much government interference. Thus I would never suggest we do anything to regulate sugars. But, since we are all paying the higher health care costs, we should as a society fight it with clear, unbiased research. For over 50 years, we've been quietly steered into researching the wrong problem:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?_r=0

It is no wonder that people don't follow nutritional guidelines very well as they were biased from the start. How many times do you hear of some food that was bad is now good or some food that was good is now bad. We can and should support truly independent research into the real causes of health problems. Then, people would start having confidence in our nutritional guidelines and might eventually start following them more.

I'm also all for limiting refined sugars by smartly utilizing government supplied foods. Soft drinks are the #1 purchased food items for people who get SNAP (food stamps). Even if SNAP doesn't cover Coke and Pepsi, people just buy their regular foods with SNAP and then behind that use their own money for soda in a separate purchase. How about doubling the SNAP benefits on non-sugar based drinks so they buy healthy drinks with SNAP? Then they don't need the soda as much. Same goes with school breakfast/lunch, prison foods, etc--provide more tasty and healthy alternatives so that people don't need to resort to the refined sugars.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I happen to be against too much government interference. Thus I would never suggest we do anything to regulate sugars. But, since we are all paying the higher health care costs, we should as a society fight it with clear, unbiased research. For over 50 years, we've been quietly steered into researching the wrong problem:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?_r=0

It is no wonder that people don't follow nutritional guidelines very well as they were biased from the start. How many times do you hear of some food that was bad is now good or some food that was good is now bad. We can and should support truly independent research into the real causes of health problems. Then, people would start having confidence in our nutritional guidelines and might eventually start following them more.

I'm also all for limiting refined sugars in government supplied foods. Soft drinks are the #1 purchased food items for people who get SNAP (food stamps). Even if SNAP doesn't cover Coke and Pepsi, people just buy their regular foods with SNAP and then behind that use their own money for soda in a separate purchase. How about doubling the SNAP benefits on non-sugar based drinks so they buy healthy drinks with SNAP? Then they don't need the soda as much. Same goes with school breakfast/lunch, prison foods, etc--provide more tasty and healthy alternatives so that people don't need to resort to the refined sugars.

It's definitely a complex problem. Government interference is a bad answer, but the govt can usually put pressure on certain unhealthy industries as it's done in the past. Taxation has been the favored tactic, used for alcohol/cigs (and sugared drinks by some state governments). One could argue that the government should step in if it's provable that there's a psychological component (addictive quality) which is encouraging the continued 'use' of the 'drug', as it were. Note that I'm not stating that sugar is a drug, only positing a scenario.

More and better education is definitely a key component here, as the vast percentage of heavy soda drinkers are likely following their parents 'because that's what they've always done'. I personally know a family (relatives) among whom the entire household drinks soda for every meal, breakfast included. It's basically a substitute for water.

SNAP shouldn't cover sodas, I agree. It should only cover required subsistence, preferably nothing packaged outside of maybe pastas. In fact it could be argued that in lieu of providing cash for food, the program should simply provide the food (in the form of MRE's maybe?), but that's probably far less efficient for the money.

The schools, prisons, etc all run into the same problem: commercialism/capitalism. School/prison isn't getting enough money, Pizza Hut offers scratch for a kiosk within the cafeteria, School feels obligated to not leave money on the table, cafeteria now serves (expensive) pizza alongside cheaper, and more healthy 'boring food'. 50% of the school population is now eating pizza every day for lunch. That is exactly what happened to my school back in '99/'00 or so.

How do you halt this without a) government intervention, b) carpet bombing information campaign (which may end up shut down by lobbying)? Plus, B at best leads to a bunch of crunchy granola health hippies, and nobody wants that.

 

[agent00f]

None of the other first world countries are the same as the US. You can get 110% RDA of Liberal ideology and are still going to have a mess for healthcare. Until people really focus on wellness of individuals, we are going to be wasting our time.

Of course they're not the same as evident by our unfair share of dumbass degenerates actively driving the country backwards. Just look at them cheer on removing progressive regs out of health & enviro.