Republicans do not want the country to know what is in their health care bill.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-21-2017, 08:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: If forced to choose I would take the first two.

I believe that we have none of them now so let's shoot for the moon.

My question: What about this new bill improves any of those three areas?

We have quality and affordability now.

Most socialist medicine countries fall into the max coverage and affordability.

I believe it's Norway (maybe Sweden can't recall atm) they force you to spend a % of your total income on medical costs/insurance.

I am not a fan of this plan or Obamacare. It's a partial fix but for me it doesn't go far enough.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-21-2017, 09:37 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: For 80% of the country, insurance is broken in to two areas: what your employer offers or what the government provides.

The medical care you need when you need it? Do you know who goes without medical care the most? The ones on your beloved open market.

So let's take away the regulations on insurance and allow people to buy what they need to get covered.

I agree we need to fix the issues but maybe the solution isn't move regulations on top of the current regulations. Let's pull some back so we can buy what we need.

I don't like how it's employer based. It should be like car insurance where we can shop around.

[GMDino]

(09-21-2017, 10:37 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We have quality and affordability now.  

http://www.ajmc.com/contributor/julie-potyraj/2016/02/the-quality-of-us-healthcare-compared-with-the-world/

Quote:Although the United States is often viewed as having some of the best healthcare in the world, the validity of this assertion has been called into question for a number of years. A 2009 analysis from the Urban Institute found that the quality of healthcare in America at that time was a bit of a “mixed bag”—faring relatively well in areas such as cancer care, but lagging in mortality rates from treatable and preventable diseases.

A 2014 report from the Commonwealth Fund revealed continued trends that were along the same lines—despite the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the interim. In the report, the US “ranked last overall among 11 industrialized countries on measures of health system quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and healthy lives.” Significantly, the US was noted to have the highest costs while also displaying the lowest performance.

https://mha.gwu.edu/blog/us-health-care-vs-the-world-2016/



There is no need to continue this discussion if you want to just make stuff up.

[Belsnickel]

(09-21-2017, 10:37 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We have quality and affordability now.

Yeah, no. We are very expensive and extremely inefficient with our health care.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2017, 10:37 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We have quality and affordability now.

Most socialist medicine countries fall into the max coverage and affordability.

I believe it's Norway (maybe Sweden can't recall atm) they force you to spend a % of your total income on medical costs/insurance.

I am not a fan of this plan or Obamacare. It's a partial fix but for me it doesn't go far enough.

If it is so affordable why are so many complaining about the cost and why do so many go without care?

In another thread you claimed we need to get rid of Medicaid because they get opioids for free. When I pointed out Medicaid won't pay for the opioid prescriptions I write, you complained we should get rid of Medicaid because they don't get opioids for free.

TLDR version:

YOU: get rid of Medicaid because they get shit for free
ME: no, they don't
YOU: get rid of Medicaid because they DON'T get shit for free

That's all of your arguments about everything in a nutshell. Contradictory because they are devoid of any informed opinions.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2017, 10:40 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So let's take away the regulations on insurance and allow people to buy what they need to get covered.

I agree we need to fix the issues but maybe the solution isn't move regulations on top of the current regulations. Let's pull some back so we can buy what we need.

I don't like how it's employer based. It should be like car insurance where we can shop around.

Where have I EVER claimed we need more regulation?

For once, try to have an honest conversation.

Let's take away all the regulations on child labor and let the free market sort it out? That's why we need regulation. Note, I didn't claim more. I also didn't claim none.

In 2015, Americans spent $21 billion on OTC supplements that are nothing more than placebo. Studies show only 10% of these products actually contain what the manufacturers claims is in the product in the amounts listed, 80% lie about the amounts contained, while 10% don't contain ANY of the listed ingredients. Why? Corporate greed.

You remove all insurance regulation and you'll be buying an insurance policy full of placebo. Don't give me that free market will sort it out crap because companies like Airborne are still in business making millions.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2017, 10:56 AM)GMDino Wrote:

http://www.ajmc.com/contributor/julie-potyraj/2016/02/the-quality-of-us-healthcare-compared-with-the-world/


https://mha.gwu.edu/blog/us-health-care-vs-the-world-2016/



There is no need to continue this discussion if you want to just make stuff up.

Make stuff up is all he ever does.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-21-2017, 12:06 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Where have I EVER claimed we need more regulation?

For once, try to have an honest conversation.

Let's take away all the regulations on child labor and let the free market sort it out? That's why we need regulation. Note, I didn't claim more. I also didn't claim none.

In 2015, Americans spent $21 billion on OTC supplements that are nothing more than placebo. Studies show only 10% of these products actually contain what the manufacturers claims is in the product in the amounts listed, 80% lie about the amounts contained, while 10% don't contain ANY of the listed ingredients. Why? Corporate greed.

You remove all insurance regulation and you'll be buying an insurance policy full of placebo. Don't give me that free market will sort it out crap because companies like Airborne are still in business making millions.

Going to single payer. Or "fixing" Obamacare is not deregulating anything. It's just adding more.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-21-2017, 10:56 AM)GMDino Wrote:

http://www.ajmc.com/contributor/julie-potyraj/2016/02/the-quality-of-us-healthcare-compared-with-the-world/


https://mha.gwu.edu/blog/us-health-care-vs-the-world-2016/



There is no need to continue this discussion if you want to just make stuff up.

So you are claiming that America isn't the leader in specialized care?

Let's be honest medical cost is all about specialized care.

I saw the one part of your gif or whatever you posted about shots for children. You do realize that parents can choose to not give shots here....

For instance in Belarus every child gets shots because the government pays women a salary for three years so they can raise their child. If they miss any medical appointment they lose their Salary. So people don't miss.

If this debate was just over basic care then so be it.... open up government clinics and let people walk in and out. For basic care and checkups. Then they pay for specialists. But we have jimmy kimmel going on and on about specialized heart issues that no insurance covers for all in the world. Everywhere else they would be subjected to rationing.

[Yojimbo]

Okay, I’m going to need this explained to me. Repeal Obomacare because healthcare should be a state rights issue or “I don’t think states should have the authority to take money from the taxpayer.”?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/so-much-for-states-rights-gop-senator-wants-to-ban-state-single-payer-in-new-health-care-bill.html


John Kennedy plans to use the most recent effort to repeal and replace portions of the Affordable Care Act to push an amendment that would bar states from enacting their own single-payer systems, he told reporters on Monday.

When asked by The Intercept on Tuesday about the status of his legislation, Kennedy said that the bill’s co-sponsors, Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Bill Cassidy, R-La., told him that the measure already bans single payer, but that he was welcome to offer his amendment either way.


“I don’t think states should have the authority to take money from the American taxpayer and set up a single-payer system,” Kennedy said. “Now some people think that that’s inconsistent with the idea of flexibility. But that’s what the United States Congress is for. I very much believe in flexibility, and I know the governors want flexibility. But it’s our job to make sure that that money is properly spent.”

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2017, 10:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Going to single payer. Or "fixing" Obamacare is not deregulating anything. It's just adding more.

You're so misinformed it's comical. I have to deal with dozens of insurance plans. They all have different rules and regulations. Different states have different rules and regulations. Different companies have different rules and regulations. The same company has different policies with different rules and regulations. The same policy within the same company can have different prescription plans with different rules and regulations. And they change the rules and regulations every year. Hell, earlier this week I had to read through two prescription plans for one company for one state, 147 pages and 186 pages of rules and regulations just for prescriptions for one insurance plan for one company in one state just to find the answer for one prescription.

Single payer means one set of rules and regulations. Not dozens upon dozens x 50.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2017, 10:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So you are claiming that America isn't the leader in specialized care?

Let's be honest medical cost is all about specialized care.

I saw the one part of your gif or whatever you posted about shots for children. You do realize that parents can choose to not give shots here....

For instance in Belarus every child gets shots because the government pays women a salary for three years so they can raise their child. If they miss any medical appointment they lose their Salary. So people don't miss.

If this debate was just over basic care then so be it.... open up government clinics and let people walk in and out. For basic care and checkups. Then they pay for specialists. But we have jimmy kimmel going on and on about specialized heart issues that no insurance covers for all in the world. Everywhere else they would be subjected to rationing.

"Let's be honest"

Hilarious.

Earlier today in the memes thread, I showed the cost of medical treatment for a broken forearm is 630% more expensive in the US compared to Australia and that wouldn't involve ANY specialized care.

I'm amazed at how little you know doesn't stop you from making up so much shit, Mr. Jerome Let'sBeHonest.

[BmorePat87]

(09-21-2017, 10:58 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Okay, I’m going to need this explained to me. Repeal Obomacare because healthcare should be a state rights issue or “I don’t think states should have the authority to take money from the taxpayer.”?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/so-much-for-states-rights-gop-senator-wants-to-ban-state-single-payer-in-new-health-care-bill.html


John Kennedy plans to use the most recent effort to repeal and replace portions of the Affordable Care Act to push an amendment that would bar states from enacting their own single-payer systems, he told reporters on Monday.

When asked by The Intercept on Tuesday about the status of his legislation, Kennedy said that the bill’s co-sponsors, Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Bill Cassidy, R-La., told him that the measure already bans single payer, but that he was welcome to offer his amendment either way.


“I don’t think states should have the authority to take money from the American taxpayer and set up a single-payer system,” Kennedy said. “Now some people think that that’s inconsistent with the idea of flexibility. But that’s what the United States Congress is for. I very much believe in flexibility, and I know the governors want flexibility. But it’s our job to make sure that that money is properly spent.”

I think some truly disagree with the mandate on a philosophical level. 

[ballsofsteel]

Those gutless misguided so called conservative Republicans in congress are so desperate for a "win" that they are trying to get any kind of health bill passed no matter how bad it is or how much it hurts people. They don't want to fix what is in place because it was a Democrat plan. They have tried this 50- 60 times. In any other business these bums would be terminated for their incompetence. This should outrage every American citizen.

[GMDino]

(09-21-2017, 10:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So you are claiming that America isn't the leader in specialized care?  

Let's be honest medical cost is all about specialized care.  

I saw the one part of your gif or whatever you posted about shots for children.    You do realize that parents can choose to not give shots here....  

For instance in Belarus every child  gets shots because the government pays women a salary for three years so they can raise their child.  If they miss any medical appointment they lose their Salary.   So people don't miss.    

If this debate was just over basic care then so be it.... open up government clinics and let people walk in and out.    For basic care and checkups.   Then they pay for specialists.     But we have jimmy kimmel going on and on about specialized heart issues that no insurance covers for all in the world.    Everywhere else they would be subjected to rationing.

I am claiming that overall the US does not have "quality and affordability" as you claimed.

The rest about "specialized care" is just moving the goal posts to CYA.  

Other countries provide more coverage for less money and have equal or better quality.

Now let the spinning begin again...

[GMDino]

(09-22-2017, 06:48 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Those gutless misguided so called conservative Republicans in congress are so desperate for a "win" that they are trying to get any kind of health bill passed no matter how bad it is or how much it hurts people. They don't want to fix what is in place because it was a Democrat plan. They have tried this 50- 60 times. In any other business these bums would be terminated for their incompetence. This should outrage every American citizen.

From what I have read the ACA is basically a Republican plan presented decades ago, but not all republicans liked it then either.

Mind you not "exactly" the same plan, but the bones of it.

[GMDino]

Quote:As if the urge to pass something that the public and the experts have universally rejected wasn’t bad enough, an explosive report published by Politico serves to amplify the ridiculousness of the Graham-Cassidy situation. At every step along the way, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has also rejected most attempts at repeal-and-replace legislation. You might recall that Murkowski’s vote in late July was one of three votes that killed the GOP’s skinny repeal bill, and it looks like Murkowski will be a “no” again when Graham-Cassidy comes up for a vote next week.


So, naturally, Graham and the Republicans are busily twisting Murkowski’s arm, desperately courting her vote. The common wisdom appears to be that if Murkowski votes for Graham-Cassidy, so will Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. But the desperation to pass something, irrespective of whether it’s a workable piece of legislation (and it’s not), has apparently forced Graham to make one of the most imbecilic deals in the history of Congress.


The offer made to Murkowski would basically allow Alaska to keep the ACA intact in her home state. (The offer also includes Hawaii, which has two Democratic senators, to maintain the appearance of bipartisanship.) If Murkowski takes the deal, Alaska would be allowed to keep all existing ACA subsidy payments from the federal government in place, along with funding for Medicaid -- exempting the state from Graham-Cassidy’s per-capita caps on the low-income health insurance program. Slate’s Jim Newell described it like so: “It would allow Alaska — and Hawaii, tossed in as a poor effort for political and legal cover -- to keep Obamacare in the Obamacare repeal bill. And then some.” 
In addition to the per-capita cap exemption, Politico reports, a new draft would allow Alaska and Hawaii to “continue to receive Obamacare’s premium tax credits while they are repealed for all other states.” Not only would they get to keep the Obamacare tax credits flowing, but they would also reportedly be able to receive the block grant money with which Graham-Cassidy would otherwise replace those subsidies. The last provision would increase Alaska and Hawaii’s federal Medicaid match rate.


The upshot is that Graham is trying to lure Murkowski by letting her keep the ACA in Alaska. To put this another way, if the budget provisions of the ACA are an incentive, it means that Graham and the Republicans are tacitly conceding that Obamacare is a good thing -- since they're offering it as an escape hatch from their repeal-and-replace bill. Their deal for Murkowski is a confession that their bill is a monstrosity. 


Furthermore, if Murkowski takes the deal, it’d be a slap in the face of the entire rest of the country; she'd be keeping the ACA essentially intact in her own state while voting to strip it away from citizens of the lower 48 states.


Remind me again what the point of this Graham-Cassidy bill is supposed to be? If every expert group and a large majority of the American people are rejecting it, and now the co-sponsors of the bill are confessing to the ACA’s superiority -- to the point of letting Alaska and Hawaii keep their Obamacare if Murkowski votes for repealing it -- what the hell are Trump and the congressional Republicans doing, other than kicking ACA customers in the face simply to score a few political points? What’s "conservative" about this shameless political stunt? If Graham-Cassidy ends up passing anyway, the Republican Party will have signaled once and for all that trolling and grievances have replaced ideology and core values. It’s Trump’s disruption party now.

[GMDino]

(09-20-2017, 08:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: Even the POTUS doesn't know what's in it.

I would not sign Graham-Cassidy if it did not include coverage of pre-existing conditions. It does! A great Bill. Repeal & Replace.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 20, 2017

Smoke and mirrors and his minions won't even realize how bad they are being screwed.  They'll blame "government" (Democrats). 

in his defense, the language about stripping away prexisting condition coverage isn't mentioned until page...

*checks bill*

...two https://t.co/rLHjKJKywx

— REFORMED KRANG (@KrangTNelson) September 21, 2017

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2017, 06:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: From what I have read the ACA is basically a Republican plan presented decades ago, but not all republicans liked it then either.

Mind you not "exactly" the same plan, but the bones of it.

Yeah, it was concocted by the Heritage Foundation. The was the most conservative way to increase health care coverage for the population. The GOP is just mad because it has Obama's name on it.

[BmorePat87]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/22/politics/john-mccain-health-care/index.html?sr=fbCNNp092217john-mccain-health-care0202PMStory&CNNPolitics=fb

McCain is a "no". Looks like the GOP is back to the drawing board.