Republicans unveil new ObamaCare replacement plan

[ivwshane]

They already had. But then Obama stole the idea and passed it off as his own, leaving them with nothing to counter with. :\ Bastard.

Actually they've made this same proposal before back in January of last year, so even this "new" plan isn't new.

 

[ivwshane]

So you support the model where patients go to doctors every time they have a hangnail since it's "free" as their premiums are already a sunk cost? Works the same if you substitute "taxes" instead of premiums. Why you purposely want to create a Tragedy of the Commons situation completely baffles me.

Can you show any evidence that supports your claim? Take your pick, every nation except us has universal health care so evidence should be aplenty

 

[glenn1]

Can you show any evidence that supports your claim? Take your pick, every nation except us has universal health care so evidence should be aplenty

Yes, I think waiting periods in places that have UHC are perfect evidence for my assertion. So the care is either experiencing scarcity which supports my "overconsumption" premise, or underfunded which supports my "financial realism" premise. The field of medicine isn't exempt from the triple constraints, so you're going to need to sacrifice either quality, speed, or lower cost of care to make universal care work since you're adding lots of new demand to the system.

 

[Brainonska511]

So if you are an insurance co in GA why would you sell to someone in NY and have larger payouts in NYC hospitals/doctors.

If GA refuses to pay going rates in NY doctors/hospitals won't accept GA company.

I would be more worried about if I had a problem, I could no longer turn to my state's insurance regulatory board. Or that certain provisions that would have to be covered under plans created under state A's laws could be excluded on plans created under and sold from state B because the latter state lacks those provisions in their laws.

 

[dank69]

So you support the model where patients go to doctors every time they have a hangnail since it's "free" as their premiums are already a sunk cost? Works the same if you substitute "taxes" instead of premiums. Why you purposely want to create a Tragedy of the Commons situation completely baffles me.

Yeah, the only thing keeping me from going to the hospital every chance I get is the cost.

 

[cbrunny]

I agree, but the single payer should be the patient and not the government.

Patient pays through taxes. It's literally the golden standard for how to deliver healthcare in the entire world.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

They already had. But then Obama stole the idea and passed it off as his own, leaving them with nothing to counter with. :\ They had to go back to the drawing board. Bastard.

If you think that regurgitating old political talking points contributes to this discussion...you're quite mistaken.

 

[cbrunny]

according to the libs here, Europe is falling apart and the USA is doing better economically, so I guess if we want to copy failure we should do what Europe is doing right?

lol Healthcare does not run the economy in any country regardless of delivery method.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, the only thing keeping me from going to the hospital every chance I get is the cost.

If your doctor said your diagnosis was likely X, but if you like I can give you an order for an MRI just to rule out some rare but not impossible condition. How likely would you be to get that MRI if your insurance covered all but a $10 copay, versus if you had to pay out of pocket the entire $2,500 "retail" cost of the scan?

That's the type of scenario that drives overconsumption, and the only time it makes a difference is when you're the one primarily responsible for paying the bills rather than an insurance company or government.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, I think waiting periods in places that have UHC are perfect evidence for my assertion. So the care is either experiencing scarcity which supports my "overconsumption" premise, or underfunded which supports my "financial realism" premise. The field of medicine isn't exempt from the triple constraints, so you're going to need to sacrifice either quality, speed, or lower cost of care to make universal care work since you're adding lots of new demand to the system.

Well your gut feelings are assuming quite a bit, so I'll take a real study over your gut, thanks.

 

[sm625]

It is cheaper to fly to Japan and get an MRI done, and have the results read, than it is to have one done in the US. I see nothing in the republican plan that addresses that fact. And we're talking about frickin Japan here, not some 3rd world country. It would be cheaper to build a network of high speed tubes throughout the country that shoot patients to a hospital in Mexico at 780mph, that is how broken our healthcare system is. It is so far gone in fact that we really should consider focusing our efforts on reducing transport costs to countries where the healthcare system isnt broken beyond repair.

 

[cliftonite]

So you support the model where patients go to doctors every time they have a hangnail since it's "free" as their premiums are already a sunk cost? Works the same if you substitute "taxes" instead of premiums. Why you purposely want to create a Tragedy of the Commons situation completely baffles me.

I've had amazing insurance since I graduated college 10 years ago. I've been to the doctor 2 or 3 times. I doubt your scenario would be that widespread.

 

[ivwshane]

If your doctor said your diagnosis was likely X, but if you like I can give you an order for an MRI just to rule out some rare but not impossible condition. How likely would you be to get that MRI if your insurance covered all but a $10 copay, versus if you had to pay out of pocket the entire $2,500 "retail" cost of the scan?

That's the type of scenario that drives overconsumption, and the only time it makes a difference is when you're the one primarily responsible for paying the bills rather than an insurance company or government.

The hallmark of a great healthcare system is the rationing of care! Amiright?!

 

[cbrunny]

If your doctor said your diagnosis was likely X, but if you like I can give you an order for an MRI just to rule out some rare but not impossible condition. How likely would you be to get that MRI if your insurance covered all but a $10 copay, versus if you had to pay out of pocket the entire $2,500 "retail" cost of the scan?

That's the type of scenario that drives overconsumption, and the only time it makes a difference is when you're the one primarily responsible for paying the bills rather than an insurance company or government.

That argument completely ignores that HOSPITALS MAKE MONEY. It is in a hospital's best financial interest to test you for all the shit they can come up with when they literally profit for each test performed. If all hospitals were non-profit, this would not be the case and your argument might have some merit. (EDIT: It still doesn't, but it's closer. See Canada.)

If you have not-for-profit hospitals, efficiency is golden.

Not to mention that mis-diagnosing someone could be considered malpractice.

 

[cliftonite]

If your doctor said your diagnosis was likely X, but if you like I can give you an order for an MRI just to rule out some rare but not impossible condition. How likely would you be to get that MRI if your insurance covered all but a $10 copay, versus if you had to pay out of pocket the entire $2,500 "retail" cost of the scan?

That's the type of scenario that drives overconsumption, and the only time it makes a difference is when you're the one primarily responsible for paying the bills rather than an insurance company or government.

So what, there will be cases where that MRI will show that the doctor made a wrong diagnoses and let let the patient start treatment earlier, which could save their life and potentially end up saving the insurance company $$$

 

[Blanky]

So you support the model where patients go to doctors every time they have a hangnail since it's "free" as their premiums are already a sunk cost? Works the same if you substitute "taxes" instead of premiums. Why you purposely want to create a Tragedy of the Commons situation completely baffles me.

Considering the model you decry works in other nations and polls in other western nations show consistently people are quite happy with the state of their health care we know that tragedy of the commons doesn't apply here.

I appreciate low wait times in the US. To extend your hangnail comparison I can go to a sports doctor today, say my knee hurts (but not much) and after a $30 copay I get an MRI. That is arguably an abuse of healthcare just as an ER visit for an achy finger is in canada. Most importantly we know that the wait times in other western nations do not actually result in appreciably worse outcomes in most patients, and of course some do far better because they are not squeezed out like in the US.

My biggest problem with the US model is that the insurance industry owns Washington and had added an egregious cost to every fucking procedure under the sun.

Look at post 36. It is not entirely jocular. Even comparing treatment costs to other first world countries it can be cheaper to fly out of the US to get something done.

 

[glenn1]

The hallmark of a great healthcare system is the rationing of care! Amiright?!

You tell me since you're the one who wants to install the system in countries where that's common.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/04/04/94-free-healthcare/

 

[glenn1]

Considering the model you decry works in other nations and polls in other western nations show consistently people are quite happy with the state of their health care we know that tragedy of the commons doesn't apply here.

I appreciate low wait times in the US. To extend your hangnail comparison I can go to a sports doctor today, say my knee hurts (but not much) and after a $30 copay I get an MRI. That is arguably an abuse of healthcare just as an ER visit for an achy finger is in canada. Most importantly we know that the wait times in other western nations do not actually result in appreciably worse outcomes in most patients, and of course some do far better because they are not squeezed out like in the US.

My biggest problem with the US model is that the insurance industry owns Washington and had added an egregious cost to every fucking procedure under the sun.

Look at post 36. It is not entirely jocular. Even comparing treatment costs to other first world countries it can be cheaper to fly out of the US to get something done.

You know what other treatments are cheap and getting cheaper all the time? Ones not covered under insurance like laser vision correction where people need to pay out of pocket. How could that possibly be since it's not universally covered by government?

 

[dank69]

If your doctor said your diagnosis was likely X, but if you like I can give you an order for an MRI just to rule out some rare but not impossible condition. How likely would you be to get that MRI if your insurance covered all but a $10 copay, versus if you had to pay out of pocket the entire $2,500 "retail" cost of the scan?

That's the type of scenario that drives overconsumption, and the only time it makes a difference is when you're the one primarily responsible for paying the bills rather than an insurance company or government.

So your theory is that people with insurance now get too many medical tests and that if we went to UHC everyone would do the same?

 

[cbrunny]

You can easily tell which individuals are shareholders in for profit hospitals by reading this thread. It's pretty disgusting to think that shareholders profit off of illness, disease, sickness, loss, and death.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Single Payer Universal FTW

Because the people who gave us Iraq, the NSA domestic spying, and fight like cats and dogs are best at running your life.

 

[cbrunny]

Because the people who gave us Iraq, the NSA domestic spying, and fight like cats and dogs are best at running your life.

So you don`t like who is in control - change it. Shit, for a country that was founded because it won a war of independence, you guys are a bunch of whiners. Boo freakin hoo. Change the damn system.

Personally I`d still prefer the government to deliver my healthcare than to think some asshole was profiting off of my sickness.

 

[First]

It's early, so withholding too much judgement makes sense. But damn, so far it looks like a shitty version of Obamacare. Many with pre-existing conditions will be discriminated on (granted smokers are discriminated on now, but that we all understand). Medicaid is kept intact, though it's partially castrated by block grant meaning inevitably states will raid it thereby cutting Medicaid health insurance and transferring the cost to the poor, i.e. those who can least afford it. It'll repeal taxes and mandates, which means increasing the deficit. I suppose they'll say it'll magically increase economic growth, but the reduced health inflation and increased job growth we've seen since ACA makes that argument specious at best. By now all the worst ACA predictions have fallen to the wayside.

Basically, until this gets out of committee and passed by either Congress/Senate and scored by the CBO (which hopefully doesn't use some bullshit dynamic scoring nonsense to rate it), it's just more posturing without very many specifics.

 

[Genx87]

That argument completely ignores that HOSPITALS MAKE MONEY. It is in a hospital's best financial interest to test you for all the shit they can come up with when they literally profit for each test performed. If all hospitals were non-profit, this would not be the case and your argument might have some merit. (EDIT: It still doesn't, but it's closer. See Canada.)

If you have not-for-profit hospitals, efficiency is golden.

Not to mention that mis-diagnosing someone could be considered malpractice.

There are quite a lot of hospitals that are non-profit. For instance in the Minneapolis area I think most if not all of them are non-profit. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester MN is also non-profit.

 

[theeedude]

Republican constituents area about to be let with no subsidies to the efforts and cheers of their own party, so GOP is pretending to give a sh!t.