|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Hmmm... the WaPo and Vox seem to disagree So basically if you look at the bill, it says that the Essential Health Benefits will sunset after Dec 31 2019. So yeah, the New York Times is right this wont be changed...until 4 years from now!  This bill could be a non-starter in red states if it's framed as "The bill removes requirements to cover addiction and mental health services".
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
Electric Phantasm posted:Is it a possible for ACA to get repealed and not have replacement? The ACA turned a full on poo poo storm into a shart. Repealing the ACA without a replacement would unleash a shitpocalypse. So yes, it's possible. I also didn't think Brexit was possible but here we are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
You'll also have to sell your house and use up all that money first.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Freedom Caucus wants: Any of these three happening would result in people dying and many hospitals across the country closing. It would also primarily hurt rural areas and areas with bad heroin epidemics bigly..
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This doesn't make that much sense to me--why are residents a net drain on hospitals? It seems to me that there could be a lot of useful work that they could be doing at hospitals and so they'd be a net benefit to them and not a hindrance. You have to pay the resident as well as the supervising doctor. Also doctor salaries have not been growing at the same rate as total medical costs. The piece of the pie that goes to labor costs is shrinking compared to devices, drugs, and hospital costs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
This is measuring cost of medical insurance? So basically a 64 year old is going to have an increase of $12,000 if they make about minimum wage?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
HHS is also getting cut by about 20% with no indication of what's getting cut. I imagine the funding for addiction treatment from the Addiction bill last year is going to get cut before it even had a chance to get off the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't expect that to happen. The opiod crisis is a red-state issue more than a blue-state issue. Senators aren't going to go along with that. I'm just speculating on Trump's budget. Depends on what the Senate and the House allow to get through.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Aren't these the same people who think you shouldn't be allowed to have a job if you use drugs? How is that supposed to work? That's a perk of the program.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:One thing that has always struck me as weird is that the left in the US is so narrowly focused on single payer to the exclusion of other models. Lots of countries are not strictly speaking single payer UHC but their systems work well, and some would probably argue better than Canada or the UK. Perfect is the enemy of good just like gently caress you is the enemy of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:I think the thread subtitle should be renamed 'AHCA is DOA'. Trump's DNR for AHCA
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Hastings posted:I do not know how the GOP could even market this. The American people would crush under this, costs this high would crush our economy. Healthcare is the largest economic and hiring sector we have, and this would make it so no one would even enter a hospital..not just showing up to an ER instead, I mean actually never go to a hospital again and just stay at home and risk dying. Hours would get cut, people laid off, etc. People are overly optimistic about their health and won't realize it until the bill comes. I don't have heart disease. The doctor did tell me I had a heart attack that one time though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Lol at people with substance use problems spending $20,000 per year on healthcare. This plan will preserve Medicare solvency the hard way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:I think the House right now desperately wants to pass the buck to the Senate, so that it's their fault. If they can pass this now and have it die in the Senate no one will remember the details by 2018 and they can say "we tried to repeal Obamacare but the Senate stopped us!" Of course the current plan is so unpopular that this could backfire, which is why they can't even get the votes to pass the house. Except Trump is leaning on the Senate to get rid of the legislative filibuster. Then all bets are off.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/walshfreedom/status/859462346275782656 What if Jimmy Kimmel's family had wanted an abortion? Depending on the type of heart condition, the parents have the option of choosing not to intervene.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:So what's the easiest way to get a job that pays over $75,000 a year? Nursing. 2 year associates degree then work or 4 year BSN. Then go back and do a nurse practitioners degree. Or do ICU care and rack up a ton of OT. 100k+.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
If doctors salary were really that big of an issue, you would see doctor salary growing at the same rate or faster than healthcare costs. Is that happening? Nope. I'm sure you can find some exceptions in the surgical specialties but the number of those across the country is limited.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Australia manages to pay their doctors comparable salaries to US doctors for primary care and some specialties. They have similar problems to the US in terms of geographic distribution. Including doctors salaries in with pharma and devices is a huge misdirection. Also, there are many other costs like imaging/labs, support staff, facility fees, etc. that you aren't even mentioning.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:How do medical school costs in America differ from around the world? A GP taking home a $93,000 salary would have a difficult time paying off $300,000 in student loans at 7% or whatever they are right now. GP requirements in Australia are different from primary care requirements in the US. A primary care doctor on that chart from the US will have completed 4 years undergrad, 4 years medical school, and an additional 3 years of medical residency, in practice. A GP in Australia can be practicing after as few as 6 years combined undergrad/med school and 1-3 years of medical residency. The US has the longest training for primary care in the world. Doctors don't even sniff close to that salary until age 29 at the earliest if they go straight through without any time off, research, etc. It's really an apples to oranges comparison.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Discussion Quorum posted:If you drop the lower-paying countries from the average it drops from 106% to 40-50% depending on your cutoff (42% if you limit it to countries that pay $100k+). That's still significant, of course, but the low end of the sample really isn't comparable in terms of cost of living, education, etc to make a fair comparison. Also, even if you were to magically subtract $50,000 from every doctor's salary in the USA, that would only result in a cost savings of $40 billion.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
The problem with pushing back Medicaid rollback is that it may cause it to add to the deficit. Each year they push back Medicaid rollback is like $70-100 billion to the deficit because the bill is relying on the savings. If it's too big of a hit, then it can't be passed through reconciliation. Two years back would get it really close to being deficit neutral, but then you get the uninsured increase for no meaningful change in the deficit. Also the plan is backloaded on savings for marketplace plans, so basically there are no groups of people that benefit from the AHCA, except people under 40. It's actually amazing how little the tax cut is getting play in the media. People making over $400,000 are getting a 4.6% income tax cut and people making over $200,000 are getting a 3.8% long term capital gains tax cut. Those are the only people that are benefiting here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:
All the doctors in the US just agreed with you and decided to cut their income to $100,000 from the average of $200,000. We just lowered the overall cost of health care in the US by 2.3%. High fives all around.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Reducing the cost of healthcare in the U.S. by 2.3% would save more money than the entire annual budget of the NHS in England, Scotland, Ireland, and France. No. Where are you getting these numbers? Healthcare spending in the USA is $3.4 Trillion per year. 2% is nowhere near the budget for the NHS of the U.K., let alone Ireland and France.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Bad example duders It has its problems but they're workable. They have a ton of protocols so people get their health screening tests done.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Depends on what you mean by actually. You have to report all lawsuits for malpractice to your malpractice insurance provider, state medical board, professional board, and employer. It follows you. You are also the captain of the ship and responsible for everything that everyone under you does, even if orders that you wrote are carried out wrong while you are on vacation. That said, tort reform is such a minuscule cost savings that it's only useful as a tool for the states to attract more doctors at the expense of other states because you have a better practice enviroment. Examples: Texas and Louisiana versus California and Pennsylvania. The collective cost of malpractice insurance nationwide is on the order of $10-20 billion per year.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:But that would be knowingly doing harm. You're applying statistics to people with a sample size of 1 and also giving examples where the answers are clear cut. Obviously, no surgeon would do that procedure using just your example. I can also make up a scenario where a surgeon would do a procedure most of the time: lets say someone with that tumor of 0.01% chance of death subsequently develops debilitating anxiety and agoraphobia because of that fear. They lose their job and stop eating. All other options have failed and the person begs the surgeon to remove it because they will be less anxious. I imagine most surgeons would do that procedure. Edit. God dammit I gave the same scenario as evilweasel without realizing it. My point still stands.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:Perhaps an SSRI with a benzodiazepine as needed or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy would be a bit more appropriate method of managing a patient's anxiety than random surgery? What do you think I meant by saying all options have failed?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
I don't really understand why you've got such a strong reaction. People get purely cosmetic surgical procedures done all the time which aren't medically necessary that carry similar risks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:This is also wrong. I'm not going to argue this dumb hypothetical anymore. The original point is that medical decision making is much more complicated than risk of death with a surgery versus risk of death from the surgery. There are scenarios where risks versus benefits of medical treatment are unclear, ambiguous, and outcomes aren't well studied.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Reik posted:Turns out capping malpractice payments does reduce the doctors premiums but that doesn't get passed on to the patients: To expand on those articles, tort reform is never going to decrease consumer costs in any meaningful way. The US spends 3.2 Trillion per year on healthcare and malpractice costs compose 0.6% of that figure from that article. It is an issue that can make or break a doctor's decision to work in a state. It's an issue that needs to be addressed, but it's a drop in the bucket when we are talking about the Medicaid cuts. It's also an issue that is in the domain of the states and won't play into what Congress does.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
They might be trying to do a two step deal and passing the unpalatable stuff now when they only need 50 and saving the tax cuts for later where they'll have some room to negotiate with Democratic Senators. Or they save it until next year for reconciliation. The sad thing is that in terms of overall healthcare spending, we are talking about a cut of 3% overall US healthcare spending. Low single digits. With the consequence of kicking off tens of millions from insurance. All this so they can ramrod a 4.9% income tax cut for people making over $200,000.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Analysis is showing that the red states that accepted Medicaid expansion will get completely hosed. WV and KY will both have 3-4x increases in number of uninsured.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Don't both of those states have incredibly problems with opioid addictions? Yes. Luckily, addicts are the best at forward planning insurance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Also, Scalise is super sick and may not make it out of the hospital, depending on where he's got an infection. If it's in a major blood vessel that can have a 70+% chance of death.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
DeadFatDuckFat posted:Man, imagine if you're one of the secret service agents that gets stuck on Trump's detail after he gets removed from office. Gotta be the worst position in the whole agency. Or the top position. You could live at the brothel.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
An annual wealth tax of 1% on the wealthy is not going to be popular, and there are other ways to raise money that are more popular. The wealth tax on financial institutions of hundredths of a percent being one that would have more support as those companies exist to make money. They could also close offshore loopholes for companies for all that cash that gets bottled up offshore. Edit: Also, the Democrats should simultaneously be pushing a "Medicare or Medicaid buy in" plan instead of calling it the "government option". Insurance companies attacks on Medicare for All can be easily twisted into support for a Medicare Buy In option and vice versa. No competition -> Offer a government option for insurance -> government competition is unfair and too cheap -> Save money overall with Medicare for all Lote fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
I had an epiphany about this bill. This bill is so terrible that the larger blue states would be forced to go to single payer to get the cost savings. Basically, the blue states that are large enough are California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Washington, Ohio, and maybe Minnesota, and Massachusetts/CT for other reasons. If you allow states to cooperate to build risk pools, then the New England states become viable, Delaware. Blue states that are small and isolated like New Mexico are completely screwed. Red states that took the expansion are hosed. Red states that didn't remain hosed. This bill cuts so much in Medicaid funding that the states that took the Medicaid expanion are completely screwed. States, I believe, would be able to negotiate for medication costs. They would set prices for their single payer system. They can straight up tell the insurance companies to f off. This bill would force the issue of single payer because it would go back to an unsustainable system, AND it would demonstrate that a Federal government fix is not viable. Block grants to implement single payer would be the only solution that doesn't bankrupt hospitals and doctors and completely close off medical care to a large portion of the states population. That said, I'm in no way supporting this bill. I'm basically pointing out that if you dynamite the system, what do you have to lose by building another system?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Yeah, the Kennedy amendment is what would remove the ability for states to set up single-payer systems. I don't see how this stands up in court. Block grants mean that the states can use it however they want. Medicaid is by definition a single payer system for those below a certain income. They could just raise the Medicaid threshold to all incomes and tax people to pay into it. If the federal government sets income maximums that would be more federal control than what's going on currently.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:For those in other countries wondering why we still don't have single payer, this is the moral and intellectual caliber of the people working to prevent it: This belief is antithetical to risk pools, caps on insurance rates, and the very concept of insurance.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 22:15
|
|