Health Care Options

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

You've got an original, official source and, as fox would say, do some remedial reading on your own. Yes, I note that the Clinton media passed this one by.

Doesn't matter. She lost.

[KeithE]

Now back to the health care topic.

Just heard Spicer's claim that Trump's promise (both pre-election and post-election) of covering all Americans is still Trump’s goal; and the the AHCA (along the other two prongs) will bring that about (CBO estimates are “dead wrong"). He argues that market forces will increase competition and result in 0% uninsured. That is purely a wild conjecture. On what basis do they believe more insurance options (of substantial differences) will come about? Or if it did bring more options, there would not be anyone who would opt out of all of them*. If the RyanCare proponents really want more options (not just some anti-gov ideology), they would support a public option.

* And what about the person (invincible young or the poor 50-64 year old who cannot afford any insurance) who opts out and ends up in the ER room. We will all pay for that in form of increased insurance premiums, and hospitalization costs.

ObamaCare has cut the uninsured quite a bit. The uninsured is down to 11.4% of Americans by Q2FY15 from a peak of 18% just prior Oct 1, 2013 which is when the ObamaCare markets became available (awkwardly so, but it was still effective).


Note that under the AHCA the number of uninsured is estimated at 52M in 2026 (~ 15% of the expected US population of 350M by 2026) - i.e back to the pre-Obamacare days. With the same estimating techniques, the number of uninsured under the continuation of the ACA is predicted to be 28M (~8% of the expected population). So the CBO estimate says under the ACA that measure (% of uninsured) will continue to improve as it has.

Now even 8% uninsured is unacceptable in my view, especially in light that every other major country in the free world has universal coverage (0% uninsured) at a much lower cost. That is the direction this national discussion should take.

----------------------

There are other measures of the effectiveness of a health care approach, like the quality of care and fairness of care. The AHCA (RyanCare) is dropping requirements of the health care insurance and thus the quality of care will decline. This is especially shone under the Medicaid expansion which is taking a $880B cut over the period of 2018-2026 passing along the costs to the states if care of the poor is not to be compromised. Ryan himself was pleased that RyanCare would save money ($337B) to the federal balance sheet; but the truth is he added more than double that ($880B) to the states if the same level of care is to be maintained.

Obviously the fairness of care over the poor-rich spectrum will be further slanted towards the rich since:
1) the RyanCare tax credits are not income based as the ObamaCare subsidies are
2) Medicaid (care for the poor adults, poor children, and the elderly unable to pay for long term care) is cut drastically especially after 2020.

----------------------

On the political front, the Trump / Ryan political pundits are on the air saying among other things that ObamaCare is unpopular. Truth is ObamaCare’s , despite a PR stampede against it.

I don’t make it a practice to make Sandian pronouncements about future elections, but this does not bode well for any in congress who would vote for the GOP plan (assuming it gets to a up/down vote). I suspect those that vote against the GOP plan would also be helped somewhat. If the W Va town hall meeting with Chris Hayes/ Bernie Sanders is any indication, anyone who would vote for HR 867 (Medicare-for-All) would be helped greatly.

I hate to say it, but Trump could come along and make a better plan (I don't underestimate his political acumen).

[KeithE]

You should know that I do not always believe all of you will read my stuff. But it helps me clarify my views.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

[Sandy]

The discussion is on health care. I see that William has nothing constructive to contribute to that discussion. So I guess he's OK with the cuts that the current administration plans to make to his medicare and the increases in cost for his supplemental. He's a semi-retired SBC pastor, so he's up there with the upper 5% of the population in accumulated wealth.

[William Thornton]

I'll contribute that it's a mess, Obamacare is a mess, the house bill is a mess...and no one knows where this is going.

[Sandy]

Granted, the house bill is a mess.

I hear the rhetoric about Obamacare being a mess, too, but when you look at the facts, which Keith does a pretty good job of laying out here, it's really not anywhere close to the rhetoric. It brought the numbers of insured to record levels, it provides benefits that seem to meet the needs of those who have taken advantage of it, at least, from their perspective. It seems like the only ones who aren't happy with it are the profiteers who thought they were going to make off with billions in revenue, skimmed off what people are willing to pay to relieve their pain and suffering. It's not that they aren't making money, they are still raking in profits which are well beyond reasonable (or moral, since you are talking about the sanctity of life, health, and matters of life or death here) given the service provided. Insurance is a risk, and if you want to corner the market by using access to health care as a wedge to turn a buck, then you accept the risk that some of those who buy the benefits will get sick, and need more money than they paid into the system to get care. The cost of care is inflated, too, because some companies who control the gateway to access health care also own the means of delivery.

It's certainly not a perfect system, but it seems like the only "mess" centers on the profiteers not being able to gouge consumers, or pocket gigantic wads of cash for delivering almost nothing, but simply for opening the door to what has become a privilege for prominents. What the Republicans and the buffoon seem to want to fix is the cash flow to their pockets.

[Dave Roberts]

If we could take the profit motive out of healthcare, it would help the whole situation. I'm not talking about expecting doctors to work for the same salaries as most ministers, but the for-profit hospital chains do not help the situation. We talk about the overuse of ER's. I have learned that part of the agreement here with the local hospital (owned by a chain) is that doctors cannot open their offices or see patients between noon on Saturday and Monday morning. That way, the hospital gets the profits from weekend illnesses, so the flu can cost you $1,000 to see a doctor. There are no "doc in a box" clinics closer than 20 miles, and that is across the state line so Medicaid patients cannot use VA Medicaid in NC.

[Haruo]

.

[Sandy]

On the Road with the Health Wagon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=breTKX1wxDA

And our current House leadership thinks things are in a "mess" because they can't settle on how many billions in profit health insurers should be guaranteed.

[KeithE]

Here is what the Doctors recommend.



Demand that it be “scored” by the CBO in town halls and wherever you can.

[Tim Bonney]

[Jon Estes]

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

yet no mention of this option on any media I've heard. The winners would be all Americans while the losers would be the Heath Insurance and Pharmaceutics industries. This is indicative of the hold these industries have on the media. - they get much advertisement money from these industries (think of all the drugs we see advertised).

Are we a nation of/by/for the people or of/by/for the corporations?

[KeithE]

Update - 5 more co-signers, making a total of 77.


Where is the media on all this?? They give 15 Freedom Caucus members much coverage when they did not vote for the GOP Plan but little/no mention of one of the most co-sponsored bills ever.

My Representative (Mo Brooks) is promoting the idea of a simple repeal of ObamaCare. That is getting

[Sandy]