|
skull mask mcgee posted:Sabotaging the ACA seems like a good way to spark a recession. Same can be said of most of Trump's domestic agenda.
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:So I have a question about getting a "Medicare for All" bill passed. When Obama ran for president in '08 he had UHC as one of his top priorities but after he got elected realized that trying to expand Medicare for everyone would have been filibustered in the Senate and certain centrists Democrats would have opposed it. So he dropped that and they had to hash out ACA. I think the main argument is that 2020 will not be 2008. The second argument is the old Winston Churchill quote about how you can always count on Americans to do the right thing after they've tried everything else. Every one agrees health care is still broken; Obamacare was a bandage not a cure. A hypothetical anti Trump progressive wave election could possibly expand Medicare or Medicaid further. At this point it looks like health care benefits are a one way ratchet: each increase is politically nonrevokable, so we just have to keep ratcheting by expanding benefits.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Extremely difficult to implement, or extremely difficult to pass, because Dem lawmakers will refuse to do it? Yeah, this. It's totally doable. It might even be simpler and cheaper than the current system, in much the same way that a GMI is simpler than a need based program. That's the difference: Medicare for All would actually work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Let military families sign up for Tricare, like with USAA. Three generations later and the whole country is eligible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Boon posted:Because the realities of cost are this: Americans want expensive things and good health but are unwilling to pay for them or change their ways. We need huge tax increases on the very wealthy anyway just for economic fairness and to prevent wealth stratification.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Xae posted:
I'd posit unleaded gasoline, due to the crime reduction effects of reduced environmental lead levels. There are a few nutjobs out there who want a return to leaded gasoline, sure, but i'd guess it's an 80/20 if not a 95/5 . To address the substance though, it's mostly a matter of framing, and past that it's a matter of choosing the right policy goals and methods. Fund a Medicaid expansion by taxing the 1%, that's a much easier sell than funding it by cutting Medicare.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Boon posted:You refuse to do any critical thought on this eh? I guess it's my fault because I just assumed that these things are common knowledge. I'll do the work for you Popular *outrage* has clearly influenced policy over the past couple months. I think it takes wave-election style mass movements to start mattering, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:
It will if we raise them enough. We had a top tax rate of 90% under Eisenhower. The math arguing that taxing the rich wouldn't be enough usually adopts comically inadequate tax raises on said rich people. That said we probably also need price controls in healthcare. The healthcare market is in a state of market failure due to functionally infinite demand. Hospital charges are functionally legalized robbery these days. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Lets see that calculation. Yeah, exactly. Everything I've ever seen shows that universal health care would be much cheaper. America's health care costs are grotesquely exaggerrated relative to other countries with public systems. Medicare and Medicaid already cover the most expensive health care needs; adding in younger, healthier, and richer people is progressively less and less expensive, especially once you factor in cost savings from things like allowing Medicare to bulk negotiate drug prices, or even outright caps on care cost (perfectly legitimate given the scammy way hospitals price health care currently). To put some numbers to this, just from a quick google: estimates for cost of ALL health care in the US if we moved to a single payer system (which I'm not necessarily advocating): according to this: http://decisiondata.org/news/how-much-single-payer-uhc-would-cost-usa/ you'd need about 562 billion additional taxation (note that that article assumes we can't have hospital price caps or drug price controls). Conversely, raising the top tax rate on the 1% to 45% would give us an additional $276 billion, and taxing the 95th to 99th percentiles (hardly middle class) at 35% would give us an additional $176 billion, or $452 billion total. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/putting-numbers-to-a-tax-increase-for-the-rich.html So we increase taxes on the rich (95th percentile of income & up) to 50%, and institute price controls on drugs and hospital charges, and we're there, fairly easily. It's a problem that's politically difficult because we live in an oligarchy, not one that's practically difficult. It's just tempting to believe that we can't have nice things because We Just Can't Afford Them but the reality is we can't have nice things because the rich have chosen not to pay for them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Xae posted:The analysis is reductionist at best. Fine dude then provide something better. Cite please, etc. Like I said -- that was just what I found in 30 seconds on google. And yes, Medicare and Medicaid cap some costs but not all costs. For example, they can't negotiate on prescription drug pricing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Funding cuts to the program that was providing a ~12k/yr towards my mom's cancer drugs just got cut. After her insurance, she's on the hook for ~22k/yr now just for the one scrip. actual cuts or proposed? A lot of the proposed cuts in Trump's budget aren't facts yet, just proposals. Still time for public pressure on some things.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
call to action posted:Is there anywhere I can read about why we apparently need to raise taxes to fund UHC (per this thread) and yet we already spend more public-only dollars on healthcare per capita than any country in the world, tia A lot of those savings come in ways that we would have a politically difficult time realizing, like capping doctor's salaries or firing everyone who currently works in the health insurance industry.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:Well, that's one way to bring the Democrats to the negotiation table. The beautiful ish thing is that the Democrats really can just say no. They have no power except that which is given to them by Republican dysfunction, so they can very easily blame everything on Republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Medicare FFS denies just as many claims as other insurers, and I've never seen any evidence that shows insurers deny more claims when they have a profit motive (insured plans) versus when they don't have a profit motive (employer self-funded plans). Medicare and.medicaid have better and easier processes to contest care denials, though. Or at least they did in the past, they're kinda getting cut apart.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Yeah, I know all that. You see things like that in lots of individual insurance markets. It doesn't explain why a firm would refuse to handle it on a contingent fee contract. This is assuming people realize they can go to a lawyer, do in fact manage to contact said lawyer, and explain themselves well enough to said lawyer that he or she takes their case. None of those are given, and statistically the insurance industry profits at each hurdle, because each hurdle causes a certain percentage to stumble. Our legal system shuffles a lot of costs onto those least able to bear them, by design.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
I would not be surprised at all if the primary direct cause of most improper denials was simple confusion and staff improperly trained and applying incorrect standards. But there is no incentive to fix such issues if their existence is profitable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Right, that's what I'm getting at. Trying to wrap my head around how Paul Ryan can use repealing Obamacare (which gets you a tax cut on the wealthy) to fund another tax cut on the wealthy beyond that. As I understand it it's a shell game. Repeal Obamacare, but not obama care tax hikes, then shift the tax burden onto the middle class and lower class and off of the rich, and claim it's revenue neutral because you're generating the same total revenue as if obamacra had never been repealed, you're just using the revenu to discount rich people taxes instead of to pay for health care. I could be wrong.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
It's really hard to describe how evil this bill is in a way that doesn't sound like parody.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Sloober posted:I never thought the government would run as a real opposition to The Onion, but here we are Except it's literally illegal to laugh.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
duz posted:It's kind of like 2012 when pollsters were describing the Ryan budget and people were refusing to believe someone would actually suggest such things. Yeah, exactly. It's even most of the same proposals (block granting Medicaid, etc.). Brains can't accept it.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Teikanmi posted:Does this mean I'm not forced to buy health care anymore because I just straight up can't afford it now or probably for the foreseeable future the good news: at some point, all your problems will be over
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Alligator Horse posted:The real danger I see deriving from the House victory is that both chambers know the base was promised repeal/replace. What specific form that takes isn't as important as dealing a devastating blow to Obama's legacy. The Senate knows this. The HFC are saber rattling trying to dissuade the Senate from making sweeping changes to the bill, but at the end of the day Trump and Ryan are going to whip hard as can be once the Senate's version—should it pass—makes it back down to the House. This whole mess is because eight years of Republican hysterics (is that gendered slur?) Made repealing Obamacare a hot potato that the House couldn't keep holding. So they passed it to the Senate. If the Senate is smart they'll drop it, but more likely they'll try to keep passing it onears to someone else. If the potato makes it all the way around, Trump catches it because he's that stupid, and everyone dies.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
Bashez posted:My friends mother is in her 50's and is on disability/medicaid and apparently has a private plan as well to supplement medicaid. She's had some constant fairly serious medical problems but I don't know exactly what. What kind of outcome would be expected if the current bill passes in roughly the same form it's written. We're in Texas so any state options will probably be gently caress you. Realistically, it depends on how quickly and precipitously state legislatures move to cut Medicaid and exactly where those cuts fall. The biggest change with this bill is not the preexisting conditions changes, it's that this bill will allow states to cut medicaid services, in a way that current federal law prohibits. So, once and if it passes, states will have the power to start cutting essential medicaid services, like nursing home care, organ transplants, etc, and there would be nothing anyone could do to stop them. REalistically though 65% of nursing home care in this country is paid for by Medicaid so that's a huge pot of money that will eventually be cut once states have the power to cut it. My guess: presuming the bill passes, she'll be fine until she needs something unusually expensive, like a special wheelchair or complex surgery or long-term nursing home care. That will then be denied for pretextual reasons and she will begin a precipitous decline after that point. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:54 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Medicaid rates are frequently far too low. They're set by the individual states, so they're subject to political pressure, and due to various technical decisions it is extremely difficult to sue to get them increased (functionally no one has standing, basically).
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
duz posted:Many of them, yes. Surveys show that politicians consistently believe their constituency is more conservative than it actually is. They were not necessarily wrong if you calculate based on voting likelihood. The difference is this has.made left wingers active in a way they haven't been historically.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:There's no way this doesn't wreck the GOP and go to Single Payer by 2022. The one way you lose voters is changing their standard of living, and enough people have been ruined by medical bills that it counts. I thought the same thing in 2007
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Genuine question: I've thought about this a lot and the best way is to allow opt-in to Medicare + Medicaid. Everyone keeps what they have but natural market churn would gradually transition us to single payer.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Goddammit, loving murderers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:How does this get anyone's vote? gently caress you, liberal pussy! (That's literally the answer)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
esquilax posted:There is no actual consistent definition of single payer other than "what I imagine the mostest leftist health care is". People consistently call US Medicare single payer even though it is a system with multiple payers I wish people would adopt "public option" as the rallying cry instead. It's much more achievable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Lote posted:The US already has a single payer system. It's called the VA and there are 6 million people getting care there. They also have a ton more services offered than regular insurance. Bad example duders
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Plus, a well-run public option can easily become a de facto single payer option, without forcing people to switch until they're convinced it's better. Shhhh you'll give it away Plus it's just luntzier language. An *option* sounds far better than *obscure term that must be explained*
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:If you let the states run public options then the deep south will create things like whites-only insurance pools. You need a federally regulated public option across state lines for it to really work. There are a number of different potential public options. Buy in Medicaid would work a lot differently from buy in Medicare for example. Regardless of program though explicit racial bias would be blocked by the 1964 civil rights act. Implicit bias of course is a real danger in any program and must be constantly fought.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Places are still fighting Brown v Board of Education. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/17/478389720/after-50-year-legal-struggle-mississippi-school-district-ordered-to-desegregate Ok, I'm not sure what sort of distinctions you're drawing. People are still fighting discrimination in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid too. Medicaid is state administered with federal oversight, while Medicare and to a greater extent SS are federally adminstered. State vs federal administration isn't binary, it's a spectrum. The fight against discrimination will never end, it's ongoing forever and must be. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Lemming posted:gently caress this attitude, man. This kind of politics is hosed and gives us Democrats like Hillary. We've gotta push hard for the biggest change possible, that's the only way people are going to be motivated, is if they think there's something that could be different enough to actually improve their lives. Push hard but push smart. Public option Medicaid / Medicare gets us to public health care for all a *lot* faster than trying to explain what single payer.means to a million million old people. You're functionally arguing semantics and the semantics of "public option" are better.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Or you push hard for single payer and then compromise with a public option when push comes to shove. Why give up the compromise position to begin with? You don. You push for both. But to get anywhere with either you have to sell, and selling a public option is the first step. You will never convince someone to support single payer who has not first been convinced that a public option would be preferable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Just looking how easy it is. "Hey, why can't we all just buy into Medicare?" Bam, you've convinced people to support a public option Now spend a half-hour explaining what single payer is
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Public option and single payer are Venn diagrams that mostly overlap anyway, given time, because health care is not really a free market good and public options are almost always.much.more efficient and cheaper anyway. Medicaid is the most efficient health care program in the country. Given time, public options will drive private ones out of the market. This is more a "how we get there" discussion than an end-goal argument.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
call to action posted:Isn't it strange that Americans, and only Americans apparently, "demand" treatment that just so happens to enrich their providers Americans demand treatment because if you've missed work (unpaid) to see a doctor and are paying a thousand dollars for the privilege, you drat well want a result Getting almost anything treated in America very quickly hits the sunk cost fallacy; you've put in time and money, you want something back
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:It should only get worse for McConnell as time goes on and this bill starts to rot in the sun and bloat up like a roadkill possum He's probably hoping opposition will die down, so call your representatives over the weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 19:50
|
|