|
Yea it’s real dumb and with the mandate going away the junk plans aren’t getting any better. Plus states like KY are fighting tooth and nail to put in work requirements on Medicaid expansion adults.
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Why "defending & protecting the ACA" with "a few tweaks" isn't nearly enough:quote:Nicole Holt-Smith arrived at pharmaceutical giant Sanofi’s research facility in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on Friday carrying a powerful testament to the consequences of price gouging essential medicines under a for-profit health system: the ashes of her son, Alec. gently caress every politician who has willingly allowed pharma to kill people with its unregulated pricing, and gently caress every politician who has willingly allowed insurers to set their premium + deductibles so high that people face bankruptcy whether they're uninsured or have nominal "coverage." Most of all, gently caress every privileged liberal rear end in a top hat who thinks the ACA has led to meaningful "insurance reform" and contends that it'll take decades before we join the rest of the world in having a sane healthcare system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Please don't cite truthout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Basically, the only jobs I can take are PT ones with no benefits that pay almost nothing or wait until I find a job that actually pays a living wage and has decent benefits. I refuse to have anything to do with the exchange, which is an insult to human decency. You have a solution, but you are loving yourself here. Have you actually looked at the exchange? At the income level you cited, you would be eligible for a plan with a monthly premium of between $17.45 and $26.21 per month depending on what plan you got. The deductible is $100 per year for that plan as well. Paying $16 more per month for health insurance to get a $12,000 per year higher salary is obviously a much better situation. Take care of yourself, look into it, and stop turning down jobs until you know what your situation is. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Please don't cite truthout. What did you find in the story to be untrue?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
The US healthcare situation is so dire I've been buying albuterol inhalers from India. It's risible that I can buy two ventolin inhalers from India plus shipping for less than the $30 after insurance it costs in the US. The widespread unaffordability of insulin is in large part why even China ranks ahead of the US now globally when it comes to patient outcomes in diabetes. None of those human insulin analogues are bankruptcy inducing in China.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
please don't cite CAPS LOCK BROKEN
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
Please don't cite the source of any news that makes my tummy hurt bc I can't afford to seek medical care even though I have "insurance."
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
hello i make 6 figures and still import drugs from india since it's insanely overpriced. literally the same drug by the same manufacturer is 1/10th the price i miss the universal healthcare in the UK, my prescriptions capped out at ~£130
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:hello i make 6 figures and still import drugs from india since it's insanely overpriced. literally the same drug by the same manufacturer is 1/10th the price Apart from some of the food, the NHS is the only thing that I miss from the UK. I find this slightly ironic given that the NHS is a second-rate system compared to any of the major continental countries, but it's miles better than anything in the US except for platinum-level care for upper-middle to rich people. I also get a dark... well, humour isn't the right word... a dark appreciation for the fact that conservatives (which, in the US, is everyone) is all about JOBS JOBS JOBS and then they create terrible social systems that somehow manage to give people incentive not to work. I recently turned down a lovely part-time job because the combination of inconsistent hours and laughable pay was less reliable per-week income than drawing unemployment. I realise that this is the norm everywhere, but if I could have drawn my tiny bit of dole money and worked part-time I would have done it, but it's one or the other and I went with the more reliable option. When it's a matter of such trivial sums of money, one can't afford to take any risks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Pablo Nergigante posted:Anything less than single-player universal care is quite frankly immoral What is the difference between this and a theoretical NHS system, if any? I've seen that distinction made before but I'm not sure what the difference is. (I agree with this statement on moral grounds)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:What is the difference between this and a theoretical NHS system, if any? I've seen that distinction made before but I'm not sure what the difference is. That's what an NHS-style system is, but also I just realized I said single-player because my brain is broken from 30+ years of playing video games
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:What is the difference between this and a theoretical NHS system, if any? I've seen that distinction made before but I'm not sure what the difference is. Single-Payer includes the (usually effective, but not de jure) abolishment of private insurance for most medical issues. Private insurance for cosmetic procedures, lowering wait times, or much more expensive/experimental treatment still exists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:What is the difference between this and a theoretical NHS system, if any? I've seen that distinction made before but I'm not sure what the difference is. Single-payer : Health Insurance :: NHS : Health industry If we converted to single-payer, the state will become everyone's insurance provider. If we converted to an NHS-style system (with no exceptions), the state additionally will become every hospital's owner, every nurse's employer and so on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Single-payer : Health Insurance :: NHS : Health industry I see, that makes sense. I have often wondered about that, re: Medicare for All, in terms of "what will happen to the hospitals, doctors, etc." That makes sense. Thank you everyone for your replies. Pablo Nergigante posted:That's what an NHS-style system is, but also I just realized I said single-player because my brain is broken from 30+ years of playing video games I wouldn't have noticed if you didn't say anything, maybe my brain is also broke from video games. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Not saying they are necessarily better approaches, but (just off the top of my head) France, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, and Switzerland all have multi-payer systems that range from a mix of public and private insurers to 100% private, albeit heavily regulated. Purely single-payer systems with no real private insurance are not as common in developed countries as some of the UHC rhetoric might make you think. Of course, what they all have in common is no giant gaps of uninsured like the US has. eta: Switzerland is the really weird one, it's like if the Obamacare exchanges were 100% of the US healthcare system with no public programs like Medicare or Medicaid to supplement it SousaphoneColossus fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
I've said it before and will say it again, open enrollment into public programs would solve alot of problems. I make x money tell me how much I have to pay to get onto the public system where I'm going to at least have a shield against the profit motive. I have great insurance and I would do it on principle so my employer cant keep holding that over my head. In doing so I'd save enough company money I could give every one of my part time workers the same. I would do it in a heartbeat. gently caress this country's healthcare system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:Not saying they are necessarily better approaches, but (just off the top of my head) France, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, and Switzerland all have multi-payer systems that range from a mix of public and private insurers to 100% private, albeit heavily regulated. No American politician who brings up any of those systems as anti-single-payer arguments has any interest in actually establishing any of them because none of those systems are friendly enough to corporate profit and friendliness to corporate profit is the only reason anyone opposes single-payer
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No American politician who brings up any of those systems as anti-single-payer arguments has any interest in actually establishing any of them because none of those systems are friendly enough to corporate profit and friendliness to corporate profit is the only reason anyone opposes single-payer I pretty much agree with you on that, but I'm more interested in the question of how people who are sincerely pro-single payer would, once the system was passed/in place/etc., view a multi-payer system with a much more robust public insurance setup like Germany or Australia -- i.e. one that maintains a sizable private health insurance market. I've been reading arguments and advocacy for single payer/M4A for drat near 20 years at this point, and I hear misleading things like "every developed country but the US has single-payer" constantly, as well as moral arguments against the existence of private health insurance. I understand that there's a rhetorical reason for oversimplifying, not to mention that a lot of people don't really know how other countries' systems work, but if we do manage to get something like M4A passed within our lifetimes, I'm willing to bet that it's going to look like the Netherlands or Germany much more than the UK or even Canada, even though I would probably prefer something like the NHS. eta: the Netherlands' system is surprisingly less socialized than the US. They got rid of their Medicaid equivalent of public insurance for low income people over a decade ago and now everyone who isn't old, dying, or severely disabled is on private insurance: quote:The Netherlands has a dual-level system. All primary and curative care (i.e. the family doctor service and hospitals and clinics) is financed from private mandatory insurance. Long term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from earmarked taxation under the provisions of the Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziektekosten, which came into effect in 1968. SousaphoneColossus fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
I'm sure people would take a German system if offered in good faith but it obviously won't be and starting with multipayer only to bargain down from there like would actually happen would be disastrous. Like this whole deal of trying to pre-bargain down healthcare activists before anything is even considered in congress is a transparent attempt to lower expectations and give political cover to the corporate tools who will compromise even that away. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
I'm not one who is automatically in favour of single-payer, and I agree that it has become something of a buzz-word. I don't have a terribly high opinion of Medicare either. It's much better than what many have, of course, but a country as wealthy as the US can do better. That being said, I realise that it's the closest thing to a realistic alternative in this miserable country given that the private insurance racket would rather spend mountains of cash preventing the end of their racket than actually spend the money on caring for people. I'm not the best person to ask, however, as I look at everything from a very utilitarian standpoint and have a violent disdain for capitalism and the profit motive in general. One thing you have to constantly keep in mind is that a lot of Americans, very specifically Americans, are phenomenal idiots who will gleefully go against their own self-interest due to their fear of SOCIALISM. There are tons of people who have been completely brainwashed by corporate propaganda to fear anything that the government does, even if it would help them. Keep in mind that libertarianism as it's known these days was a movement created by corporate interest after WW2 as a response to FDR's New Deal policies, and they've done a terrifying job of getting a lot of Americans to act against their own interests for the sake of corporate profits. Meanwhile, my former countrymen in the UK have basically sold their children's future out for the sake of what is essentially racism by leaving the UK, but they are fighting madly to try and preserve the NHS because, for all its flaws, they know what it's like in the US and they are terrified of that. The only people over there who are in favour of privatising health care are the rich, who don't care about anyone but themselves or they wouldn't be rich, and the free-market fetishists who are essentially religious zealots except God is replaced with capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Trying to assuage fears about socialism was what they did with ACA, it didn't work, Republicans just called it socialism anyway and all the bad things about it were the fault of private industry but were blamed on socialism. The time to make the case to the people that Germany's system is an acceptable compromise is after it's already emerged from committee, survived the amendment process, and being voted on as the compromise between ACA and single-payer. Not two years before passing healthcare legislation is even theoretically possible in order to lower expectations and give political cover to industry tools who are hoping to go in with a multipayer proposal and haggle it down to ACA with no price controls but more subsidies and a toothless public option that's not allowed to be better than the private system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
The Republicans screamed SOCIALISM about the ACA despite it being largely cribbed from a Republican proposal from like 1993. Literally no reason not to start trying some actual leftism. Compromise with my whole rear end, Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Couple things: Point as to # of people on exchanges- the Cadillac tax was supposed to shift everyone off employer plans but it's so poisonous that it keeps getting pushed back. I think it's currently set to happen in 2020 but is unlikely to ever happen As to illinois/medicaid Early on, Medicaid reimbursement rates were set equal to Medicare to encourage Medicaid acceptance by doctors. That's definitely gone now, right? And for using aca subsidies for Medicaid, I think Pritzker said that he doesn't need fed approval to do that. If he does then it's a meaningless promise. I still haven't looked into plans for next year, I'm too scared of subsidies changing a ton compared to what I'm paying now. Hoo boy
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:Not saying they are necessarily better approaches, but (just off the top of my head) France, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, and Switzerland all have multi-payer systems that range from a mix of public and private insurers to 100% private, albeit heavily regulated. Once again for this oft-trotted-out trope: Those systems ALL have government-regulated insurance, pharma and provider pricing, and private insurers serve as administrators for the government-regulated insurance plans. In other words, they're almost exactly parallel to Medicare in the U.S. (except that Medicare doesn't regulate drug pricing, thanks to lobbyists' capture of both parties). Whether private insurers set costs for premiums and provider pricing (Obamacare) or the government sets the pricing (Medicare) is at the crux of the issue; "purely single payer" matters less than that these governments control the pricing for those things, as opposed to the U.S. The one exception seems to be Switzerland, which is indeed akin to many aspects of Obamacare--yet even in that instance there's movement to change to a model that mirrors most other EU countries: quote:Nearly two thirds of the Swiss population support the creation of a single organization per canton to regulate health insurance and fix premiums at a set rate, according to a new survey. https://www.thelocal.ch/20171018/survey-swiss-back-cantonal-regulation-of-health-insurance-premiums And the ways in which Switzerland is like Obamacare means that the same problems arise: quote:Swiss healthcare facts https://www.expatica.com/ch/healthcare/Getting-healthcare-in-Switzerland_103130.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, Willa. Is it possible to discuss the merits/drawbacks of these systems without assuming anyone who even brings them up is advocating for them in bad faith?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
I'm sorry if I sounded snippy; I'm just a tad weary of those who bring up the "look at other countries that have private insurers administer public-set healthcare pricing... which is totally different from Medicare in the U.S." when it's the exact same thing aside from Medicare not regulating drug-pricing and it's almost identical to Medicaid, and how private insurers are paid set fees by the government to administer those plans. We don't need anything as radical as an NHS-style takeover of healthcare when regulating insurance, provider and drug pricing (as, say, Medicaid in U.S. does for all those things) would take care of slashing medical costs for consumers and the governments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I'm sorry if I sounded snippy; I'm just a tad weary of those who bring up the "look at other countries that have private insurers administer public-set healthcare pricing... which is totally different from Medicare in the U.S." when it's the exact same thing aside from Medicare not regulating drug-pricing and it's almost identical to Medicaid, and how private insurers are paid set fees by the government to administer those plans. Np, I appreciate it. That is kind of interesting that you’re cool with heavily regulated private providers and govt rate-setting. I feel like a lot of rhetoric I encountered while following this issue in lefty circles for a long time is 100% opposed to even a nominal/crippled role of private insurers, hospitals, etc. and argued the immorality of any sort of profit motive in healthcare, which, hey, I don’t really disagree with. I took a lot of those arguments at face value at the time, but now I kinda wonder how much of it was posturing/Overton window-shifting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
In American politics you have to come at it from a firm moral conviction about the immorality of private profit in healthcare, because the thing that got the public option neutered in the House and then scrapped altogether in the Senate was "but what about the corporations how can they make a profit if the public option can pay Medicaid rates / exists at all" Maybe if we had an entirely difference political system where both parties agreed on everything all the time and constantly went into coalition with each other like Germany then some kind of compromise that would have to be tweaked going forward would work, but we don't have that we have the Republicans who will literally sabotage healthcare and kill people in order to blame all that on the people who passed healthcare in the first place so giving any private company an avenue to screw people over is disastrous because Republicans will do everything they can to abet it and stonewall any attempt to fix it in order to blame Democrats for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Here’s a great example of the immorality of the profit motive in medicine: https://twitter.com/ann_arcana/status/1064074140599140352?s=21 quote:The decision to price Glybera at $1 million was based on a business calculation, according to van Deventer. quote:In April 2017, just two years after it first went on the market, Chiesi announced it was abandoning Glybera. The company allowed the European marketing licence to expire. quote:Van Deventer says the company never considered lowering the price.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Here’s a great example of the immorality of the profit motive in medicine: That reminds me of a GBS post several months ago when someone who did IT work for some medical outfit said s/he couldn't even put the cost of a new drug into the existing system because its cost was higher than the threshold set for the system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Here’s a great example of the immorality of the profit motive in medicine: I will fight anyone who believes there should be a profit motive in medicine. Your labor is worth it but capitism doesn't belong. I'm 6'8" and 220. Bring it. BlueBlazer fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Here’s a great example of the immorality of the profit motive in medicine: The other side of this is that a 100% public pharmaceutical industry would just not ever pursue the development of that medicine. No government would spend hundreds of millions of tax-payer dollars on research for long-shot drugs like that. People already flip out over "wasteful" spending and nobody is going to authorize hundreds of millions of dollars for research with a 5% chance of panning out. Especially, if you did it 500 times and spent trillions of dollars and only a handful panned out. Even when the NHS nationalized hospitals and employed all doctors, they left the pharmaceutical mostly untouched because of concerns about taxpayer black holes and hampering new research. Today, the pharmaceutical research and development sector is still the one area of medicine that the NHS has almost no direct participation in and instead partners with private companies to distribute pharmaceuticals, but doesn't direct research. It's a trade off and there isn't really an easy answer because you can't predict the exact chance of success or cost to completion for every potential research path in the future. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The other side of this is that a 100% public pharmaceutical industry would just not ever pursue the development of that medicine. quote:The FY 2017 Budget includes $33.1 billion, an increase of $825 million over FY 2016, for NIH to accelerate groundbreaking research on cancer, precision medicine, and the human brain, and to maintain the significant investments enacted in FY 2016. Why do we let this liar continue to post here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Why do we let this liar continue to post here? Your lack of medical knowledge here is showing. Research on the human brain, cancer, and precision medicine are not pharmaceutical research and development. Precision medicine can involve pharmaceuticals, but is usually about personalizing products and procedures for patients. New pharmaceuticals are almost entirely developed by private industry in the U.K. British universities do what is called "foundational and supplemental" research on treatments and applications, but doesn't develop or direct the actual pharmaceutical development. Can you name 5 prescriptions released in 2018 that were developed and released by the NHS? Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Here’s a great example of the immorality of the profit motive in medicine: I with the government could by some of these patents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The other side of this is that a 100% public pharmaceutical industry would just not ever pursue the development of that medicine. quote:A team of researchers at the University of British Columbia spent decades developing the treatment for people born with a genetic mutation that causes lipoprotein lipase disorder (LPLD).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Here’s a great example of the immorality of the profit motive in medicine: i feel like if I had that disease I would murder this dude deventer
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Google what country "British Columbia" is in. The NHS doesn't directly develop new pharmaceuticals in almost all circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:Why do we let this liar continue to post here? Seriously, he was banned from USPol for trolling why is he allowed in other US politics threads where he does the same thing. Debate and disagreement is one thing, but he constantly lies, makes poo poo up whole cloth, and doubles down on bad faith arguments just to get some entertainment out of other people wasting their time debunking bullshit he doesn't even believe. There's no learning or debate or give-and-take discussion when someone lies for the fun of making other people chase down the actual evidence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 00:48
|
|