Bipartisan Health Care Effort

[AFerri48]

Wow, for all the talk on Trump being a “fake-conservative” during the campaign, he’s sure been doing more conservative things that some of these Republican’s in the senate.

 

[stinkcat_14]

So what do you propose, legislating free markets?

Exactly how does that work?

It would appear that few people are actually in favor of a free market in medicine. People seem to want the government to control who gets to practice medicine and the government to control who gets to come to the US to practice medicine as well. When it comes to a free market, they have this fantasy that prices of healthcare are going to magically decrease without anyone’s income decreasing.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Obamacare is going to fail, no matter what, UNLESS some of these Dems’ recommendations are adopted. Among them are:

-More federal money paid into the program. Repubs are not likely to go for that.
-More coverage for everybody. Given the existing mandates, that’s also unlikely.
-Keeping the obamatax. Imaginably Repubs could go for that, at least in part, but not when government subsidies are also increased.
-Single payer. No way Repubs will go for that, and maybe not all the Dems either. Single payer was the objective initially, and obamacare was just a replacement until single payer could be achieved. The Dems had a supermajority in the senate but still couldn’t pass it.

So, at this point, it’s a Repub product or nothing. If it’s nothing, then Obamacare will continue to fall apart.​

Let it fall apart.Maybe then it will become apparent as to what an untenable piece of legislation the ACA( oxymoron) really is.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Mark Meadows: New healthcare bill is coming ‘that can get to 51’

Rep. Mark Meadows, a key negotiator in the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare, said a new effort is underway to write a bill that can pass the Senate that would include proposals offered by Sens. Lindsey Graham, Bill Cassidy, Ted Cruz, and Rob Portman.

“We continue to work on two different plans with our Senate colleagues,” Meadows, R-N.C., told the Washington Examiner. “We will continue to do that over the next couple of weeks on a plan that can get to 51” votes in the Senate.

Meadows said he has talked to senators, including Graham, in the hours after this morning’s failure to pass a “skinny” repeal bill, and the mood is “all hands on deck” to come up with a new deal.

washingtonexaminer.com/mark-meadows-new-healthcare-bill-is-coming-that-can-get-to-51/article/2629982

 

[stinkcat_14]

Mark Meadows: New healthcare bill is coming ‘that can get to 51’

washingtonexaminer.com/mark-meadows-new-healthcare-bill-is-coming-that-can-get-to-51/article/2629982

And this time, they mean it!

 

[WilliamE]

And this time, they mean it!

 

[gnjsdad]

It would appear that few people are actually in favor of a free market in medicine.

A free market in healthcare is only a fantasy propagated by think tanks with a vested interest in profiting from the existing system. These think tanks are paid to produce “studies” which support the bottom lines of those who fund them.

An important question to ponder: is there an advanced country on earth that relies on a free market to deliver healthcare to its citizens without government involvement? I don’t know of any.

The American system is broken, because Americans have not yet come to the realization that private interests are incapable of acting for the public good. Healthcare is an area which absolutely requires acting for the public good. Even Obamacare, a definite improvement over what came before, is deficient because it leaves too much to the vagaries and vicissitudes of the market. Thousands of private actors have their hands in the system, all striving for their share of profit. Anyone who thinks this has nothing to do with the high cost of healthcare in America simply has not studied the problem in sufficient detail.

A market left on its own leads to consolidation. Healthcare based on market competition will inevitably fail because the survivors succeed by eliminating their competition. They eventually get big enough, so that the last thing they want is an environment where other competitors can emerge. They therefore make every effort to get involved with government so government can make the rules that prevent new competition from gaining a foothold. That is why when Obamacare was formulated, every industry lobby in existence made sure they had a place at the table. As Billy Tauzin said, if you’re not at the dinner table, you’re sure to be part of the menu.

This “skinny repeal” would have eliminated the mandates. Without a mandate, Obamacare would collapse for sure. You cannot allow healthy people to opt out. Adverse selection would bring about an insurance situation in which only sick people would be buying insurance.

The existing mandate is onerous, not for the reasons free market advocates suggest, but because it requires people to spend huge amounts that go into the coffers of private interests which can at a moment’s notice, yank away vital healthcare.

 

[Thorolfr]

Let it fall apart.Maybe then it will become apparent as to what an untenable piece of legislation the ACA( oxymoron) really is.

Why not fix the ACA instead. The ACA has problems but all the Republican alternatives offered in the House and the Senate are even worse.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why not fix the ACA instead. The ACA has problems but all the Republican alternatives offered in the House and the Senate are even worse.

Fix it how? Pour more money into it? Is there any “fix” offered other than that?

One of its main problems is the discriminatory nature of it. It creates artificial “pools” of the favored and the disfavored. That is a very big part of the reason why congress is having such trouble with R&R. You really can’t help the disfavored without negative effects on the favored.

 

[meltzerboy]

Why not fix the ACA instead. The ACA has problems but all the Republican alternatives offered in the House and the Senate are even worse.

Are any members of Congress personally affected by Obamacare in either a positive or negative way? In other words, do any of them have a vested personal interest in Obamacare, and I am not talking about their constituencies being pro or con, which might influence their re-election? I think if there are any such, it would motivate them to work harder in a bipartisan effort to maintain and strengthen the good features of the ACA (and there are some) and replace the bad features (and there are some of those too). OTOH, if they or family members are not personally affected, they probably have less incentive to do very much about it one way or the other. That is the kind of society and culture in which we live.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Are any members of Congress personally affected by Obamacare in either a positive or negative way? In other words, do any of them have a vested personal interest in Obamacare, and I am not talking about their constituencies being pro or con, which might influence their re-election? I think if there are any such, it would motivate them to work harder in a bipartisan effort to maintain and strengthen the good features of the ACA (and there are some) and replace the bad features (and there are some of those too). OTOH, if they or family members are not personally affected, they probably have less incentive to do very much about it one way or the other. That is the kind of society and culture in which we live.

Congress is EXEMPT from ObamaCare.

So are the unions.

So are “certain” religious groups. [In fact, you can subscribe to a CATHOLIC health care program.]

Go here:

solidarityhealthshare.org/program-choices/?

 

[Theo520]

It would appear that few people are actually in favor of a free market in medicine. People seem to want the government to control who gets to practice medicine and the government to control who gets to come to the US to practice medicine as well. When it comes to a free market, they have this fantasy that prices of healthcare are going to magically decrease without anyone’s income decreasing.

I think such people imagine the evil insurance companies are secretly squirreling away all the money, and the drug companies.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I think such people imagine the evil insurance companies are secretly squirreling away all the money, and the drug companies.

Oftentimes the people in favor of occupational licensing have no problem with insurance companies.

 

[Sy_Noe]

And they are not increasing now?

And they were before too. So until for profit companies have less control over people’s health and their care and healthy people buy insurance to spread the cost around, I’m not sure they won’t continue to increase. But what the Republicans proposed was not the answer. And yes I know people with accident records pay more for auto insurance. People are not SUVs though.

 

[stinkcat_14]

And they were before too. So until for profit companies have less control over people’s health and their care and healthy people buy insurance to spread the cost around, I’m not sure they won’t continue to increase. But what the Republicans proposed was not the answer. And yes I know people with accident records pay more for auto insurance. People are not SUVs though.

The net profit margin for health insurance companies is about 4.5% of revenue. Do you really think that government will provide insurance more cheaply given how inefficient government tends to be. Government bureaucrats have no incentive to keep costs low.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Why not fix the ACA instead. The ACA has problems but all the Republican alternatives offered in the House and the Senate are even worse.

Because the Dems per form want everything their way.They won’t concede on any part of thecACA.Having said that,this is to be expected from them.I am thoroughly disgusted with the Republicans for squandering their ability through majority of getting something pushed through. This has always been the case and frankly I am weary and over them.Pftttt!

 

[Ridgerunner]

And they were before too. So until for profit companies have less control over people’s health and their care and healthy people buy insurance to spread the cost around, I’m not sure they won’t continue to increase. But what the Republicans proposed was not the answer. And yes I know people with accident records pay more for auto insurance. People are not SUVs though.

Among the “for profit” companies that have a lot of control over peoples’ care, I would say the medical conglomerates and trial lawyers’ associations have a lot more control over it than the insurance companies do. yes, I know, most medical conglomerates purport to be “not for profit”. But that does not mean they don’t profit. It just means they don’t have shareholders.

Insurance just pays providers. It does not determine costs of care except very marginally.

And after all, Mutual of Omaha, one of the biggest insurance companies, is “not for profit” too.

One of the problems with obamacare is that it doesn’t really “spread the cost around”. It gives big employers a big break, to some degree at the expense of small businesses. It throws self-employed and some higher earners into a pool with all of the sickest people. And it adds a number of “non-poor” into competition with the truly poor for care.

One could argue (and I think appropriately) that the true purpose of Obamacare was to set up a political constituency of the favored at the expense of the non-favored. You can’t change a system like that and truly “spread the cost around” equitably without angering the presently favored.

And that’s why it’s so hard for the Repubs to deal with, and why Dems will not even consider changing it.

Medically, it’s as dumb a system as can be imagined. But politically, it was very smart.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The net profit margin for health insurance companies is about 4.5% of revenue. Do you really think that government will provide insurance more cheaply given how inefficient government tends to be. Government bureaucrats have no incentive to keep costs low.

Healthcare is complicated as even the “almighty” Donald Trump eventually admitted. But one of the reasons I supported Bernie Sanders was because of his call for universal healthcare or as he has referred to it, “Medicare for all”. And short of that, all I know is I’d like, at the very least, a government option that people at least could try out and test drive. And see how it works for them.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Donald Trump may actually provide health insurance for some of his 20,000 employees.

He also employs another 10,000 people as contractors.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Healthcare is complicated as even the “almighty” Donald Trump eventually admitted. But one of the reasons I supported Bernie Sanders was because of his call for universal healthcare or as he has referred to it, “Medicare for all”. And short of that, all I know is I’d like, at the very least, a government option that people at least could try out and test drive. And see how it works for them.

Unsustainable