When you lose your health care, remember who took it away

[FriendlyFire]

Thanks Obama !
At least one Republican is prepared to explain the new Trumpcare to the voters, though he might as well not have. The Usual GOP talking points about no cuts to medicare and repealing obama care with something amazing and how no one will lose healthcare.

I doubt Kansas will stop voting for Republicans though, maybe they will vote more moderate republicans instead.

A town hall in Kansas shows Republican struggles with health-care bill

Moran, the only Republican senator holding unscreened town halls on health care this week, revealed just how much his party is struggling to pass a bill — and even how to talk about it. The people who crowded in and around Palco’s community center aimed to prove that there was no demand for a repeal of the ACA, even in the reddest parts of a deep red state.

For all 90 minutes, a woman named Yaneth Poarch, 46, stood behind the senator holding a sign with caricatures of Republican leaders, and the warning “When you lose your health care, remember who took it away.”

Neither security guards nor staff did anything to move her.

The setting made the dissent, and Moran’s careful positioning, verge on surreal. Palco was in Kansas’s rural Republican heartland, miles from Moran’s home town of Plainville. The visitors from eastern Kansas, and the local Democrats from nearby Hays, found themselves next to Moran’s old roommate, some high school friends, and a physician. All of it took place in Rooks County, which gave the president a 73-point landslide over Hillary Clinton last year; Moran beat a token Democratic opponent by 79 points.

Until this year, the voters who cast those ballots had confidently favored repealing the ACA. Like Trump, Moran ran on “full repeal,” claiming to be the first Republican member of Congress to do so.

“Obamacare was rammed through Congress on a purely partisan basis in the face of significant public opposition,” Moran said in 2015 after the new Republican majority in the Senate passed a test vote on repeal. Moran had chaired the party’s 2014 Senate campaign effort, making that majority possible.

On Thursday, Moran took another tone. He did not describe the task facing Republicans as repeal; it was “repair, replace, whatever language people are using.”

But despite the thanks from people who wanted him to kill the Senate bill, Moran never ruled out a yes vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe..._story.html?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.2a59424e6338

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But despite the thanks from people who wanted him to kill the Senate bill, Moran never ruled out a yes vote.

Once he leaves this BS 'town hall' behind and gets back to his sole constituent, Mitch McConnell, is there really any question as to how he will vote?

 

[Zelig]

I'm going to be pretty upset if the Republicans somehow take my healthcare away.

 

[onejayhawk]

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Barack Obama, 2009

As bad as the Republican's plan is, and it sucks, it will not make things worse.

J

 

[Ajidica]

As bad as the Republican's plan is, and it sucks, it will not make things worse.

Except for the people who benefited from the Medicaid expansion; they'll loose that.
And the people who benefited from insurance companies no longer having lifetime caps or refusal to cover pre-existing conditions; what with the ability for states to get waivers to ignore that.

 

[onejayhawk]

Except for the people who benefited from the Medicaid expansion; they'll loose that.
And the people who benefited from insurance companies no longer having lifetime caps or refusal to cover pre-existing conditions; what with the ability for states to get waivers to ignore that.

Not except for--allowing for that. There will be individual exceptions, but that's always true. Allowing for all that, on the whole, the bill will not make things worse.

J

 

[Traitorfish]

Not except for--allowing for that. There will be individual exceptions, but that's always true. Allowing for all that, on the whole, the bill will not make things worse.

J

What benefits does the legislation offer that will outweigh millions of people losing coverage?

 

[Lexicus]

What benefits does the legislation offer that will outweigh millions of people losing coverage?

Massive tax cuts for the rich?

 

[Gori the Grey]

And all the trickle-down that we can expect from those.

 

[onejayhawk]

Massive tax cuts for the rich?

Still trying to float that lead balloon?

And all the trickle-down that we can expect from those.

And still falling for it.

What benefits does the legislation offer that will outweigh millions of people losing coverage?

Lower costs. Millions would prefer nothing to what they are forced to buy. The rich don't get a tax cut, young people get less expensive coverage and the right to buy none if they choose.

But, if they get a less expensive plan, which does not meet the full ACA coverage, they are still counted as uninsured. Typical accounting tricks in this kind of situation. There were millions that could have signed up for Medicaid but never bothered. Those were all counted as newly insured, even though they received nothing from the law.

It is also important that coverage be available and better if multiple choices can be compared. ACA is driving insurers out of the business. How many million will lose coverage because no companies are writing coverage?

J

 

[Hygro]

He's using this town hall as a signal to other republicans to change the subject.

 

[Traitorfish]

Lower costs. Millions would prefer nothing to what they are forced to buy. The rich don't get a tax cut, young people get less expensive coverage and the right to buy none if they choose.

That seems, to me, morally equivalent to cannibalism.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not except for--allowing for that. There will be individual exceptions, but that's always true. Allowing for all that, on the whole, the bill will not make things worse.

J

In other words, you don't think it will make things worse for you, and as a Republican shill that's enough ground to build the castle on. It's interesting that the conversation is about health care, because you make me sick.

Moderator Action: Following users around and calling them "shills" is going to stop. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[civver_764]

The US health care industry is such a mess because of government intervention in the first place. More government to fix the problems created by government is surely insanity.

A truly free market of health care providers would drive down the cost of care immensely. So much so that the remaining people who couldn't afford it could easily be covered by charity.

A lot of the things that doctors do frankly do not require 12 years of medical school, but it is illegal for the customer to make that determination themselves. This makes simple things like getting a harmless prescription filled way more expensive than they need to be. Personally, I'm very good at researching drugs myself and I don't really want to pay some doctor hundreds of dollars to give me permission to put something in my own body. If you're not like me then you can pay for that service, but don't force me to.

Another example is the FDA. What we don't often hear about is the people that die waiting for the FDA to approve a drug that they need. I don't know about you, but if I'm about to die I sure as hell want to make own decisions about if I think a medicine is safe or not.

Another examples is hospitals. There is an enormous barrier to entry in setting up hospitals. You have to get explicit approval from the government in order to build one. There is absolutely no reason for this. If there is a demand for more hospitals, people should be able to build them.

Another example is medical malpractice. There is absolutely no reason to have all these laws about what you can and can't sue a doctor for. That's only good for the lawyers. Let me sign a contract with a doctor specifying these things. I'm perfectly capable of understanding the risks myself, and it will allow doctors who provide low-risk medical care to save lots of money on malpractice insurance and offer lower rates.

Nobody wants people to not have access to health care. But we need to be smart about this, if we let our emotions run the show and keep giving government more power over healthcare we're only drive up the costs further.

And I just want to state how utterly immoral the Obamacare mandate is. Pro tip: If people aren't buying your product that's because your product sucks. You need to improve your product, not force people to buy it. This is literally a corporate handout.

 

[onejayhawk]

That seems, to me, morally equivalent to cannibalism.

As opposed to choosing to have no insurance AND paying a fine for having no insurance. I always thought that was one area we could agree was broken, but evidently not.

J

 

[FriendlyFire]

Lower costs. Millions would prefer nothing to what they are forced to buy. The rich don't get a tax cut, young people get less expensive coverage and the right to buy none if they choose.
But, if they get a less expensive plan, which does not meet the full ACA coverage, they are still counted as uninsured. Typical accounting tricks in this kind of situation. There were millions that could have signed up for Medicaid but never bothered. Those

So less healthy people buying insurance is going to make insurance cost lower ?
At the same time they can buy insurance once they need it because people with pe-exisiting conditions cannot be declined
Can you explain How this works please ????

It is also important that coverage be available and better if multiple choices can be compared. ACA is driving insurers out of the business. How many million will lose coverage because no companies are writing coverage?

This is true for certain states
Obamacare certainly accelerate this spiral, especially given the loophole mentioned above. What do you think is going to happen when you have an aging, declining rual population ?
What is the solution to this death spiral ? a return to pre-ACA ?

 

[El_Machinae]

Freeing up the market in healthcare might easily really reduce costs. But Free Market Theory doesn't really work well with healthcare, overall. And then it's a question of whether an advocate for freeing up the healthcare market has a political agenda (reducing government intrusion) or wants to actually make things more efficient while increasing health outcomes. Either goal is acceptable, but it's also important to not perform a bait-and-switch. Where an anti-intrusion goal is couched (falsely) in terms of increased efficiency, and vis versa.

Like I have said before, I will judge a healthcare economist's advice based on their charity habits. You can tell a lot of how much an economist understand healthcare theory by what they actually do with their own dollars.

When comparing healthcare legislation, we actually have a really excellent foil to look at - the supplements market. It's vastly less regulated. Much 'freer'. And so, you can test the various theories you have about increasing people's available choices but reducing the quality of information they have access to. You can then judge an economist's application of their own theory by looking in their supplement cabinet. I want to be explicit here, supplements have amazing levels of potential. Our bodies are biochemical machines, and supplements have the ability to tweak and augment in ways that our modern, busy diets just don't. But they're also ridiculously complicated and subtle. So, the question for the theorists is how that signal gets out of the noise. What does the person you're talking to about healthcare theory actually do with regards to supplements? How did they make their decisions? What resources did they use? How are they discerning snake oil from things with a statistical likelihood of helping? Are they applying their own theory to their own life? And are they making good decisions?

But we need to be smart about this, if we let our emotions run the show and keep giving government more power over healthcare we're only drive up the costs further.

I don't disagree that the American government can screw this up. But, if you're actually 'being smart', then at least some effort must be made looking into why nearly every other Western government can actually provide healthcare at a significant discount to what Americans are paying. They've all given the government much more power over healthcare, and have driven down costs. So, at the very least, your causal correlation doesn't stand up.

Additionally, you've declared a lot of competence with regards to knowing how to do things yourself. Researching drugs, you're very competent. Writing contracts, you're very competent. Even assuming this isn't totally misplaced confidence, you should know that normal people don't have this level of competence.

And the average person who actually is really competent in these two fields is actually making use of government standards and government-provided databases to make these decisions. Show me a person who has world-class skills in diagnosing a condition and prescribing the best medication, and I will show you someone who's carefully reading articles and reports that were only created by mandates put on developers. And they're barely skimming the data that the developers have provided as supplementary information. There's a reason why Big Pharma spends more on advertising than on research. And that's a result of market forces.

And their cabinet of supplements is going to be very different from the average health enthusiast's.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I don't disagree that the American government can screw this up. But, if you're actually 'being smart', then at least some effort must be made looking into why nearly every other Western government can actually provide healthcare at a significant discount to what Americans are paying.

And, the flip side of this, there are zero examples of a free-market system that works better than ours or better than those other Western nations.

 

[warpus]

So less healthy people buying insurance is going to make insurance cost lower ?
At the same time they can buy insurance once they need it because people with pe-exisiting conditions cannot be declined
Can you explain How this works please ????

It's not supposed to work, it's supposed to sound good when said to certain people

 

[onejayhawk]

And, the flip side of this, there are zero examples of a free-market system that works better than ours or better than those other Western nations.

It's not hard to find an argument with this. The system--or lack of one--prior to ACA was better than what we have now. Of that there is no real doubt.

To start, the much claimed increases in people covered was greatly exaggerated. One method was to force young, healthy people to buy overpriced coverage or pay a stiff fine. Numbers are disputed, but 8-12 million is plausible. 10 million people were eligible for Medicaid but never signed up. They claimed all of those.

Next there was the Big Lie, as chosen by CNN: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/12/and-the-top-lie-of-2013-goes-to/
This is staggering when you consider that President Obama was also saying that the average family would save $2500. Estimates in 2013 alone run from 7 Million to 14 Million people losing their coverage as a direct result of ACA.

So we get to the bottom line--money. ACA never intended to balance the books. It's ideal was to cover everyone for everything with no limits. As a result, the smart states refused to set up exchanges. The exchanges there were set up are in dire straights, if they have not already failed and can find any companies to offer coverage. Prices and deductables rise at double and sometimes triple digit rates, with no end in sight.

Even if you are correct, the current situation in USA is so bad, the proposed law would not make things worse. It should be noted that ACA is exactly as passed in 2010. No change has ever been permitted, unless you count the courts.

J