Report: 15 Million People Will Lose Health Coverage Under GOP Repeal Bill

www.pnhp.org...

Nothing is perfect but a barometer of saving as many lives as possible is a humane and great goal that this system we have now is vastly deficient in.

Single payer has proven in other countries to be a good system

Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts

The health care delivery system remains private. As opposed to a national health service, where the government employs doctors, in a national health insurance system, the government is billed, but doctors remain in private
practice.

A national health insurance program could save approximately $150 billion on paperwork alone. Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing,
utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

Most businesses would save money. Because a single-payer system is more efficient than our current system, health care costs are less, and therefore, businesses save money. In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canada’s single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint. In the United States, Ford pays more for its workers health insurance than it does for the steel to make its cars.

Under NHI, your insurance doesn’t depend on your job. Whether you’re a student, professor, or working part-time raising children, you’re provided with care. Not only does this lead to a healthier population, but it’s also beneficial from an economic standpoint: workers are less-tied to their
employers, and those that dislike their current positions can find new work
(where they would be happier and most likely more productive and efficient).

Myths about National Health Insurance (NHI)

The government would dictate how physicians practice medicine.
In countries with a national health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about their medical practices (and usually only in cases of expected fraud). Compare it to today’s system, where doctors routinely have to ask an insurance company permission to perform procedures, prescribe certain medications, or run certain tests to help their patients.

Waits for services would be extremely long.
Again, in countries with NHI, urgent care is always provided immediately. Other countries do experience some waits for elective procedures (like cataract removal), but maintaining the US’s same level of health expenditures (twice as much as the next-highest country), waits would be much shorter or even non-existent.

People will overutilize the system.
Most estimates do indicate that there would be some increased utilization of the system (mostly from the 42 million people that are currently uninsured and therefore not receiving adequate health care), however the staggering savings from a single-payer system would easily compensate for this. (And remember, doctors still control most health care utilization. Patients don’t receive prescriptions or tests because they want them; they receive them because their doctors have deemed them appropriate.)

Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

originally posted by: redhorse

originally posted by: mikell
Another report says about 25 million more jobs on the way so they can get it at work and not be taxed for it. Of course that would require them to WORK.

Most jobs the working poor get will simply keep them at less than 40 hours so they don't have to provide insurance. I know plenty of people who work 2 or even three jobs with no insurance. They can (and often do) work 40+ hours a week and pray they don't get sick or injured.

Most of those jobs are that way thanks to Obamacare.

Repeal that stinker and this might change. We can at least hope that the labor market has not been permanently distorted.

a reply to: Willtell

Single payer is all fun and games until you are the one left out of the loop because you get a condition that the deficiencies of single payer do not adequately address.

I'm sure you'd be all sanguine about accepting your impending doom or new lifetime of needless suffering because you're an outlier the system will not adequately address because it isn't efficient for it to do so, eh?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: ColdWisdom

If you have income and/or assets, it would be smart of you to get at least catastrophic health insurance. At age 28, you're not likely to contract a serious disease, injuries happen without warning. (Sports, Drunk Drivers, etc.)

Catastrophic with an HSA was a smart policy for otherwise healthy individuals, even families, prior to Obamacare.

Once the Republicans get their act together and explain how an HSA plan/account will enable immediate lowering of a family's tax liability, along with boosting future retirement income, Americans will eat it up!

You're right.. in that they appreciated the HSA advantages before ObamaCare, but griped about the YUGE $5,000 deductible. The "Obamacare nightmare" makes $5,000 a bargain.

a reply to: ketsuko

I doubt that happens, that's a myth

Though in this system thousands die a year

Depending upon the study, we can derive that between 20,000 and 45,000 Americans die each year due to a lack of health insurance.

obamacarefacts.com...

You get Hep c and don't have insurance you cant pay for a thousand dollar a day medicine...you die

And many other diseases in the American system cost non insured peoples lives

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Willtell

Single payer is all fun and games until you are the one left out of the loop because you get a condition that the deficiencies of single payer do not adequately address.

I'm sure you'd be all sanguine about accepting your impending doom or new lifetime of needless suffering because you're an outlier the system will not adequately address because it isn't efficient for it to do so, eh?

He likely is as he'll be going from no insurance to crap insurance, while the rest of us go from alright insurance to crap insurance.

It's same fundamentals of globalization, and why the weak and downtrodden (and their sympathizers) are for and the strong and powerful against.

I am so tired of these losers telling me anything. It's like a major leaguer taking hitting lesson from a little leaguer. They need to know their role and realize they likely can't afford their own healthcare in the first place for a dang good reason, and it's not because they are smarter and better decision makers than the rest of us.

#NotMyProblem

a reply to: carewemust

A $5,000 deductible for a catastrophic is not that big a deal compared to the types of bills you are likely to rack up using that policy.

But the kind of premium you had to pay for that kind of policy prior to Obamacare made the $5,000 deductible understandable and you were more likely to keep money in the bank to help you pay the bills. Under Obamacare, the premiums on such a policy were jacked sky high so that you were paying ridiculous premiums for what amounted to also paying all your health care out of pocket because the deductible was high enough you weren't touching your actual insurance bennies.

In a catastrophic + HSA plan, you put away close to the amount of the deductible if possible, ideally pay a low premium, and carry the high deductible catastrophic. Almost all of your regular health care will come from the HSA.

a reply to: ketsuko

Over the past 10 years, our firm has had several upper middle class Canadians obtain a "shell residence" here in Illinois, so they could get in the high-risk health insurance pool, and receive life-saving medical treatment needed, in a timely manner.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: ketsuko

I doubt that doesn't happen,

Well I'm glad we agree on something then.

And it does happen. In the British Health Service, for example, it is determined which medications are considered most effective for a condition and if they aren't the newest and best or the one that happens to work for you, you are SOL. You better hope you are the one size that is fit by all.

Understand that every human being is a unique individual with a unique personal system and there is always the chance that preferred drug A may not work for you or might be one you react to. And if the health service doesn't authorize alternative drug C, then you won't have access to it.

I can almost guarantee those 15 million covered people were getting the health coverage FREE
they were not persons that had funds to buy policies...
NO--- they were likely poor folks that were never permitted to buy health ins policies t reasonable rates SO ~~ health coverage was not part of their lifestyle

before the hyper praised but hyper expensive 'obamacare' they were persons that relied on Charities or ER treatment that was paid-by-the-State...

so the 'Headline' grabbing statement that 15 Million are soon going to be Kicked-Under-The-Bus is a Liberal BS Ploy to garner sympathy...

I ain't falling-for-it

sure there are persons that will fall through the cracks, but they won't be neglected or left on a street corner to fend for themselves

how about asking the Syrians that are collecting Social Security Retirement Monies as soon as the Jet Plane lands in the USA to contribute ---hell they never contributed a dime for a pension/FS/section8/welfare/sponsors/health care in Medicare coverage but the millions of new arrivals will keep a roof over the head of (perhaps) Jihadi' who need a place to hide...

Stop all the BHO crap, he's gone and his legacy stinks to high heaven, close-the-door ...er...Slam-the-door-shut Quickly

a reply to: ketsuko

What's interesting to me is that the comments based on ignorance in these healthcare threads, come from the same people who seem to be Democrats, based on their posting history. You kinda feel bad for them, cause they're missing out on so much in life.

Stats show 20 to 40 thousand Americans die each year for lack of health insurance.


You folks just want to deny reality to justify your lack of empathy and care for the poorer American


No one here is saying single payer is Nirvana.


All systems devised by humans will be imperfect


But the health care system in America now is as if it was devised by the devil

it says 15 million at the end of 10 years, well trump can`t be president for 10 years so the only way for this prediction to become real is if every administration and every congress for the next 10 years does nothing to change trumps plan.

originally posted by: Willtell
Stats show 20 to 40 thousand Americans die each year for lack of health insurance.


You folks just want to deny reality to justify your lack of empathy and care for the poorer American


No one here is saying single payer is Nirvana.


All systems devised by humans will be imperfect


But the health care system in America now is as if it was devised by the devil

Single payer isn't the answer. The same government who drew up the rules and the ACA would mandate the single payer program. Sorry, I don't trust the government an ounce.

At least the Death Panels will be equal opportunity minded.

a reply to: Willtell

In a country of roughly 350 million people, 20 to 40 thousand dying for lack of health insurance is a very small margin of error to base your claim that single payer would be more compassionate for all.

Can you guarantee that a single payer system instituted on the same population would not have 20 to 40,000 every year who would fall through the cracks and die waiting for care or because the system didn't authorize a treatment that could otherwise have saved them or because they couldn't afford to fly off to pay for medical tourism in a country that offered a treatment that would work sooner than they could expect it in the new system?

Very, very small number to assume your way would be better.

I'm beginning to think Republicans would have favored Obamacare more had it actually had death panels.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
I'm beginning to think Republicans would have favored Obamacare more had it actually had death panels.

There were any number of things that I would favor in health care reform, but none of them were going to be anywhere in a Democrat sponsored health care bill because they didn't give government more power over anyone's lives or money.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Quit relying on the government to survive.

Then never, ever ask any of these people to defend this country

originally posted by: AppreIron
The fact is by allowing both the haves and have nots access to the same quality of care, the haves quality of care decreases while the have nots may increase. This is proven affect of market forces in healthcare in both Canada and NHS; wait times increase and general quality of care decreases.

Indeed...it was such a disappointment to me to have been cured of prostate cancer for a whole $32 out of pocket. Price of parking at the leading edge oncology centre. Mind you, that was $32 Canadian.

I suggest you leave us out of your excuse module.