Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I think we should focus on all the kids this will kill.

I'm not being hyperbolic. A lot of kids are on Medicaid. Tens of millions.

If Medicaid is just a block grant, no longer need-based, then the states can cut those Medicaid services at will.

We are talking millions and millions of children who are at risk of losing their medical coverage, many of them desperately ill. You think states are going to cover things like heart transplants for poor kids if they aren't being forced to by the federal government? Spoiler: they won't.

This reform is legislative child murder. Mass murder. Class genocide.

And if it is block granted, it just means that Republican governors will use it to plug budget gaps under the guise of using it for meidcal programs, so it will kill kids by making sure rich people get tax breaks.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

mllaneza posted:

Yes it is. It is also a very poor state. The economics leave a lot of families with no or limited access to health care. This contributes to the infant mortality rate.

By excluding the poorest states you can make an estimate of what the overall infant mortality rate in America would look like, if we improved access to health care. It's not that people are excluding those states because of disdain, it's to make a statistical argument in favor of UHC. Which would save lives; babies, children, adults, and the elderly; in those very same states.

To be fair to that guy, the only point he can kinda make is that a lot of states refused or refuse to expand medicaid access despite the fact the federal government will cover most of the costs. The American system allows states to essentially decide how they want to distribute healthcare and a bunch of lovely states have said gently caress you to the poor.

This is the other part of the ACA that sucks that no one remembers. All 50 states would of received Medicaid expansion but the Supreme Court said states could not be forced to do so.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

EugeneJ posted:

They have no other strategy

Watching the Republicans ineptly waste their chance seems to be working for them.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Azhais posted:

*Dems look on smugly as they lose control of all three branches of government*

Why do you think full court on universal health care would of fixed that in 2016?

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

empty whippet box posted:

Supporting any healthcare plan at all seems likely to hurt anyone who does so politically, may as well support the right one.

If you are, go for an opt-in Medicare For All plan and advocating for the government to negotiate drug prices for their healthcare plans.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

The Phlegmatist posted:

The plan, AFAIK, is to grant waivers releasing people from the tax penalties associated with not having insurance, i.e. removing the individual mandate. Assuming the White House actually publicizes this and insurers take it into account while pricing plans, this should cause an immediate spike in premiums and deductibles. The side effect of this is that PPACA will now become much more expensive for the government due to subsidies going up; remember that subsidies take into account both your income level and how expensive the second cheapest silver plan in your state is. Fiscal responsibility strikes again!

Did Congress specifically say that the Executive can grant waivers for the individual tax penalty? Wouldn't that be a huge overstep of executive powers?

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

How significant is information asymmetry in health care? My health policy knowledge is a bit lacking but part of the problem of consumers is we don't know how prices are calculated and certain procedures and tests differ insurance to insurance. However, how would that be helpful to the consumer since you don't really have a choice in health care plans. I guess it would be useful for regulators?

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Summit posted:

People have been thinking Trump might do an actual sensible thing since forever and he's proven them wrong time and time again. It's pretty clear by now he takes his orders from the GOP leadership who have gotten pretty good at saying the right things to make him back whatever they might want, assuming he doesn't want the same things anyway.

I think, more accurately, he doesn't actually care about legislation (and barely cares about running the nation) and just wants to be known as the President that did things. You know, like the Pakelds from Star Trek.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Dmitri-9 posted:

Has anyone posted this?

https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/fewer-cardiac-arrests-after-affordable-care-act-expanded-coverage


The ACA helped reduce heart attacks by 17% for a certain demographic. The leading cause of death in the US for christ sake. And I just heard that DC reduced the number of drug related HIV cases to seven with needle exchanges and preventative care.

Which in turn reduces costs on the overall health care system but whatever.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

The Phlegmatist posted:

I have no idea how it happened, but it seems like the VA is staffed with a lot of malicious actors. I've heard stories from veterans about how they'll shred your paperwork and pretend they never received it, so you always need to send them photocopies rather than the originals. And they'll constantly try to make you sign waivers saying that you never worked with asbestos just in case you get mesothelioma.

Yeah our healthcare system in the US is a mess but the VA is a special kind of awful.

Here is another thing to think about and was posed in my public policy class once. The culture of the VA is a set by the veterans themselves and one thing they insist about the VA is that veterans run it and make most of the decisions. Which means unless the ideas come for a veteran, the VA is unlikely to change.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

JailTrump posted:

Why do all these Northern States have issues with their markets when all the southern states seem to be doing just fine?

This just doesn't add up to me.

NH is a population of only 1 million, their population is aging, and its hard to create rural markets in Healthcare for such a small populace. Add to the fact that Southern NH is anchored by the Massachusetts economy...

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

UHC activists should be pushing for the next step which would be either Medicare expansion or opt in Medicaid on the state level. Let businesses decide if the want to pay for their own healthcare or for a small pay roll tax have their employees take a state plan.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Not to be entirely wonkish but doesn't this only solve one half of the health care equation? Will the bill address cost in any way?

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Office Pig posted:

I... really don't know how to feel about this. And I mean that in all sincerity, because I am exhausting myself on this debacle all by itself.

I mean, Medicaid is essentially state waivers, so we have to see what the Dems will get in return.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Ze Pollack posted:


insurance companies are not -colluding- with providers to raise costs. they are merely trying to maximize their own profit by denying expensive claims.


How would UHC change that? I am for UHC but I you need to be honest with yourself on this one.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Invalid Validation posted:

No Equifax still provides the workforce stuff, it’s state dependent but unless you don’t file taxes or started self employment recently they use tax return to verify income. Some states want to verify if you have money stashed away in an account but a state like Kentucky does not care.

If this is their first time, it shouldn't matter (in theory) because the state can just tax them to make up for income verification, at least that's what I was told when this started.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Lote posted:

Will building new homes and home ownership destroy the rental market?

Ironically, it would destroy affordability if done incorrectly. But housing to insurance is not a great analogy.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Endymion FRS MK1 posted:

Called the radiologist yesterday, my dead father apparently owes $38. The billing office told me it was for an x-ray done on the day he died. Medicare rejected covering it because the procedure was done after his death. Except, you know, it wasn't. The billing office confirmed that it was done at 630am, I confirmed from his death certificate he died at noon. So he advised me to call Medicare. I do that, Medicare says I need to request a packet, wait for that, fill it out, notate what the issue is, send it back in, and hope the appeal reverses the denial.

Jesus, I'll just pay the $38 out of pocket. Thanks, America.

honestly if it is a Medicare issue, call your Rep. or Senator.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Rhesus Pieces posted:

Here’s a great example of the immorality of the profit motive in medicine:

https://twitter.com/ann_arcana/status/1064074140599140352?s=21

I with the government could by some of these patents.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply