It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My look at US healthcare

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I've mentioned bits and pieces of what I think in many threads. I thought I would collect my thoughts and put them in a single place. As an opinion piece, everyone is welcome to disagree or agree, but like so many polarizing issues, I doubt that any minds would get changed, so keep that in mind if I don't engage in the usual back and forth.


Seven years ago, the Obama administration introduced the Affordable Care Act to the nation. Through very successful campaigns, people began to feel as if it is government's responsibility to provide healthcare.
Socialized medicine. Single payer.

As someone pointed out to me recently, like Medicaid, Medicare.

We now fast forward to today and see the dilemma that the House republicans are in.

They cannot simply repeal Obamacare and be done with it.

That Rubicon has passed.

Now House republicans have to develop a system that does the same thing as Obamacare, only cheaper.

So they are tasked with creating a socialized healthcare program that will cost less, abide by the Constitution, and appease everyone.

Lindsey Graham, Senate douche-wad is on record that the Senate will never pass any laws that would allow insurance companies to go across state borders, so we can't look at the most logical and reasonable solutions towards reducing healthcare costs.

Tort reform is also as likely as congressmen voting in term limits and a reduction in benefits.

It just won't happen.

So where does that leave us?

It leaves us with socialized medicine, to be blunt. Obama was successful in changing the way we think about healthcare and government involvement.

I hate the idea of it because it empowers a corrupt government and puts it in more control over our lives.

But I don't see anyone brave enough to simply repeal Obamacare. We've already traveled too far down that road.

I will concede (for the moment) that we will see single-payer, socialized healthcare.

I hate it, I can't stand the idea of it. It's not because I am greedy either, to all the socialists that applaud government control.

It's going to make things generally worse for everyone. The system will be abused, the system will become corrupt, but it is the system that we now have to live with.

I'm old and won't be around for too many more years. But my children will have to deal with it. And that upsets me.

Well, I have everything I wanted to say down in one place. We will get socialized medicine.








posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   


Well, I have everything I wanted to say down in one place. We will get socialized medicine.



I don't think so. The insurance cabal is just to powerful to allow it. Some how they will oversee
the new Health care system and keep their profits and give us poor health care just like now.

Obamacare was written by the insurance companies. Crony Capitalism

btw....is your anger making you sick? It can do that you know!!!




edit on 25-3-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy



Lindsey Graham, Senate douche-wad is on record that the Senate will never pass any laws that would allow insurance companies to go across state borders, so we can't look at the most logical and reasonable solutions towards reducing healthcare costs.


It is the states that have the choice to allow insurance companies to cross state-lines. Insurance companies can cross state lines in a handful of states already.

Not one insurance company has chosen to do so. Do you know why?

It's very expensive to branch out in to new markets and adjusting to different state regulations.

It is a myth that allowing insurance companies to cross state lines would make insurance cheaper.
edit on 25-3-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

How old is old? Look at things backwards, I am sixty one, so I am sixteen. Next year I turn 26.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Fair take by DC Cowboy.

But here's the thing Republicans need to do to take the next step. The simple solution is to take on big pharma for the cost of prescription drugs. If Republicans win that battle with these companies, it would be a HUGE win for Trump and the GOP congress.

That's in the ideal world. But reality is that they won't hold any of these pharma companies accountable....many of the left won't do the same either to be fair because they are all bought by big pharma.

So republicans will continue to posture and that won't be enough for those on the left to join their battle. Which is why the GOP will never come up with anything that can either adequately replace Obamacare or take care of the costs aspects for prescription drugs.

Obama did what he could to deal with the health insurance companies. The only thing that will top that is to actually regulate their profit margins as well as big pharma.


originally posted by: DBCowboy
I've mentioned bits and pieces of what I think in many threads. I thought I would collect my thoughts and put them in a single place. As an opinion piece, everyone is welcome to disagree or agree, but like so many polarizing issues, I doubt that any minds would get changed, so keep that in mind if I don't engage in the usual back and forth.


Seven years ago, the Obama administration introduced the Affordable Care Act to the nation. Through very successful campaigns, people began to feel as if it is government's responsibility to provide healthcare.
Socialized medicine. Single payer.

As someone pointed out to me recently, like Medicaid, Medicare.

We now fast forward to today and see the dilemma that the House republicans are in.

They cannot simply repeal Obamacare and be done with it.

That Rubicon has passed.

Now House republicans have to develop a system that does the same thing as Obamacare, only cheaper.

So they are tasked with creating a socialized healthcare program that will cost less, abide by the Constitution, and appease everyone.

Lindsey Graham, Senate douche-wad is on record that the Senate will never pass any laws that would allow insurance companies to go across state borders, so we can't look at the most logical and reasonable solutions towards reducing healthcare costs.

Tort reform is also as likely as congressmen voting in term limits and a reduction in benefits.

It just won't happen.

So where does that leave us?

It leaves us with socialized medicine, to be blunt. Obama was successful in changing the way we think about healthcare and government involvement.

I hate the idea of it because it empowers a corrupt government and puts it in more control over our lives.

But I don't see anyone brave enough to simply repeal Obamacare. We've already traveled too far down that road.

I will concede (for the moment) that we will see single-payer, socialized healthcare.

I hate it, I can't stand the idea of it. It's not because I am greedy either, to all the socialists that applaud government control.

It's going to make things generally worse for everyone. The system will be abused, the system will become corrupt, but it is the system that we now have to live with.

I'm old and won't be around for too many more years. But my children will have to deal with it. And that upsets me.

Well, I have everything I wanted to say down in one place. We will get socialized medicine.







posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

How does allowing insurance across boarders save $$$?

And please be more specific that more competition, there are few large insurance co.'s to begin with. THey are looking to consolidate.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I have the cure for our messed up health care. First, crossing state lines is a must, but the real cure is this: All providers must list 4-5000 procedures that they offer and the prices (inclusive). Then the insurance companies must list their payouts for all of these. Then the insured customer / patient gets to keep the difference. No in the network BS or out of the network BS. Fixed. The way it is now, nobody know what they are getting charged for (or why most times) and it is third party pay. The insurance are taking a cut of the costs, and they don't really give one damn what the costs are. The higher the costs, the more they make. 20% of a billion is a lot more that 20% of a million. And this is exactly what is being reflected in health care costs. They just go up and up. This tort reform is a smoke screen. As it is now, the loser of a lawsuit must pay costs of the winning party. This is and has been the rules of court. Now all they need to do is extend that cost liability to the lawyers pockets. You take a losing case as a lawyer, you can pay the winner's bill too. Lawyers don't tell winning clients about this rule of court either, because it ruins the lawyers risky big pay offs.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
In China the government cost of health care is about a third the cost of US health care per capita when adjusted for low wages. There is a 95 percent plan participation rate in China and the government picks up between 30% and 80% of the cost. The mortality rate is much lower in China per capita and the general health of the population is better than the US.

There might be room for a national psyops campaign to narrow the more than 12 to 1 health care plan cost ratio...

I'm sure our leaders are thinking of ways we could make income from providing national health care trickle down a little better than it has historically. Socialized medicine in the form of lifestyle improvements for example don't require the costly scrutiny and protection that is associated with big pharma.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't know if you are old enough to remember what healthcare was like before 1965 and government programs. The county hospitals and doctors would adjust their fees according to patient affordability. They will never go back to that system. The elderly and poor did not do well under that system either.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I'm just offering my opinion.

Are there ways to reduce healthcare costs that I am unaware of?

Sure.

Am I off on the things I listed?

Maybe. But I'm not going to argue minutia.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I think... I wonder if....
going to a socialized one payer system, would cause a number of problems of it's own..
even it a gov't run one payer system was offered as an option to the current system, if it was offering affordable coverage, it would hurt the insurance companies.. leading to much higher unemployment numbers, and problems in the wall street markets, pension programs, ect.
they might as well just let things be till the system collaspes on it's own and rebuild in from scratch.

as far as allowing these insurance companies from moving into other states, that would require the companies developing markets and such in those states, which takes a great deal of time and money by what I have read...

edit on 25-3-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: DBCowboy

How does allowing insurance across boarders save $$$?

And please be more specific that more competition, there are few large insurance co.'s to begin with. THey are looking to consolidate.


Right now, each state is its own microcosm market. Sure big companies can sell in all states, but they are marketing policies based on the markets in those states. In somes states, the markets are so heavily regulated that a company may actually be the only provider in that state granting them a monopoly there meaning every consumer in that state is at their mercy. They can set whatever price they want.

Obamacare made it worse. The government so heavily regulated all the markets in all the states that there are many places with only two or three providers at most. Many places now only have one insurer to choose from.

It adds up to monopoly.

The very same people who scream bloody murder about how evil monopolies are have basically regulated a lot of us into one when it comes to our insurance. And socialized health care will simply be another one.

By tearing down the practice of making all the states their own markets and allowing people to by policies sold in Georgia even if they live in Tennessee, it opens that up again. It might force the companies to to either scrap or deal with the fact that the policies they have in Georgie are not viable. It might also help weed out which state regulatory bodies are too draconian.

Look at the essential benefits clause -- it forces all of us to buy lots of things we don't need in order to create large pools, but it also bloats the cost of our policies unnecessarily. Do I, as a lady, need to pay for prostate exams? Maybe instead of having a state pool, you should form a national pool within a company and have only people who will need those exams paying for them. Same with things like mammary x-rays and maternity care. You can't do that if you don't allow people to buy outside their state.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

For such a critic of Obamacare and Single Payer, you don't seem to know too much about either. Do you ever wonder why insurance costs so much in some states and so little in others? Why would you not associate that difference on the level of state implementation?

The insurance industry is never going to allow single payer because they can't survive it, no one in their right mind would pay their ridiculous costs if they can get a better, cheaper plan from the government. We forget though that the allowance of the insurance industry to be born, stole the ability of doctors, hospitals, chemists to set their own prices for services and products which then gave birth to big pharma and medical supplies and technology developers cart blanche to escape the free market and the consequences of supply and demand?

The Mob were job creators too and probably responsible for less lives lost, but they weren't allowed to continue.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I'm just offering my opinion.

Are there ways to reduce healthcare costs that I am unaware of?


Yes.

Completely socialize healthcare, shut down the insurance racket and we save all of the money that would otherwise be nothing but profit.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DBCowboy

For such a critic of Obamacare and Single Payer, you don't seem to know too much about either. Do you ever wonder why insurance costs so much in some states and so little in others? Why would you not associate that difference on the level of state implementation?

The insurance industry is never going to allow single payer because they can't survive it, no one in their right mind would pay their ridiculous costs if they can get a better, cheaper plan from the government. We forget though that the allowance of the insurance industry to be born, stole the ability of doctors, hospitals, chemists to set their own prices for services and products which then gave birth to big pharma and medical supplies and technology developers cart blanche to escape the free market and the consequences of supply and demand?

The Mob were job creators too and probably responsible for less lives lost, but they weren't allowed to continue.


You don't seem to have a very firm grasp on the situation yourself.

Should you increase the odds of the casino taking your money?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I would gladly pay 1% more in tax to provide a singe payer system that ALL Americans can be covered with. It means no more insurance agencies, no more increasing premiums, no more FOR-PROFIT companies running the show. It would not be the end of healthcare as we know it, because the very doctors and nurses who provide the care are still going to have that knowledge. The government would still be responsible to pay their wages and keep the advancements moving.

Let's talk about how much money we spend in Military and Defense budgets, pull some back from those coffers and put it into the hands that make this country America. We don't need "affordable" healthcare. We need equal healthcare for all.

Enough spending trillions of dollars on unending wars.
Stop protecting the opium farms in Afganistan that BigPharma needs to keep the population doped up.

We all know that is exactly why they are there right?

Start spending money in our own damn Country.
Right here.
Medicare for all.
Less on Military, more on Healthcare.





posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
I have the cure for our messed up health care. First, crossing state lines is a must, but the real cure is this: All providers must list 4-5000 procedures that they offer and the prices (inclusive). Then the insurance companies must list their payouts for all of these. Then the insured customer / patient gets to keep the difference. No in the network BS or out of the network BS. Fixed. The way it is now, nobody know what they are getting charged for (or why most times) and it is third party pay. The insurance are taking a cut of the costs, and they don't really give one damn what the costs are. The higher the costs, the more they make. 20% of a billion is a lot more that 20% of a million. And this is exactly what is being reflected in health care costs. They just go up and up. This tort reform is a smoke screen. As it is now, the loser of a lawsuit must pay costs of the winning party. This is and has been the rules of court. Now all they need to do is extend that cost liability to the lawyers pockets. You take a losing case as a lawyer, you can pay the winner's bill too. Lawyers don't tell winning clients about this rule of court either, because it ruins the lawyers risky big pay offs.


If they accept medicare or medicaid they are not allowed to post prices... stupid fricking law.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Half the country will pay for the other half regardless. Workers and producers will be taxed to pay for the non-workers and non-producers. It will be an expensive tax because there are a helluva lot of the latter.

Already about 50% of babies born here are financed by Medicaid.

There will be fraud, waste, and abuse because....well, it will be government run.

It's a conundrum. It is something we have to grapple with ideologically, morally, and economically.
edit on 25-3-2017 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't know if you are old enough to remember what healthcare was like before 1965 and government programs. The county hospitals and doctors would adjust their fees according to patient affordability. They will never go back to that system. The elderly and poor did not do well under that system either.


I know my dad wrote a hot check to get me and my mom out of the hospital in 1960. Our Dr. made housecalls.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Half the country will pay for the other half regardless. Workers and producers will be taxed to pay for the non-workers and non-producers. It will be an expensive tax because there are a helluva lot of the latter.

Already about 50% of babies born here are financed by Medicaid.

There will be fraud, waste, and abuse because....well, it will be government run.

It's a conundrum. It is something we have to grapple with ideologically, morally, and economically.


Lets crack down on the fraud, have witnessed this first hand, and resulted in a multi million settlement, unfortunately the defendant died and they were never able to collect.




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join