House passes GOP Health Bill.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

How is a 'giant' step backwards ?

The state is already the single largest provider of health insurance in the country.

If anything It's a step in the right direction freeing the state manipulation of CORPORATISM.

It is still Corporatism if they are using the government to enforce policy nationwide
Policy should be left up to individual companies. Trumpcare is still corporate controlled.

Instead the big insurance lobbyists colluded together using government to rape us with Trumpcare

originally posted by: burdman30ott6


Well, for starters the penalties for having more than 50 workers and for employing workers for full time status rather than limiting them to 30 hours per week are gone, so employment will benefit. The medical device tax is gone, which is wonderful when you consider all it did was stymie medical R&D and crush innovation. No more tanning salon tax, no more investment disincentivising medicaid capital gains tax. Personal freedom is a thing again, as is some measure of personal responsibility and exposure to natural consequences of choices made (albeit not as much as I'd support... which would be a system by which you were allowed to soar or fail entirely on your own volition.) Premiums for the average American will absolutely go down. Tax dollars will be freed for use where they are not only needed but actually used for programs that the government is Constitutionally authorized to fund (like defense and trade).

In a Free Market, there would be no Trumpcare.
Individual Insurance Corporations would be on their own and some would provide what you are against while others would not in order to attract consumers.

What has been done is Corporations have banded together to make the rules all across the board in favor of themselves using the Big Government Stick.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
This only proves that insurance companies are an enemy of the people and should be shut down. Single Payer is the only way forward--- this system of greed controlled by insurance companies is f###ing evil.

www.opensecrets.org...

Top Lobbying Industries

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $3,146,090,212
Insurance $2,190,651,832

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
So please explain why this will be a good thing for Americans.

I'll take an easy swing at this one: because it represents the GOP representative in Congress actually (and finally) doing something they all campaigned on, and were elected on; repealing the ACA. We all knew what we were voting for when we voted for them, and it's nice to see that bear some fruit.

That's a non-answer. Try again. How is this a good thing for Americans?

Free market/competition will be some what restored.

How will that allow more Americans access to affordable health care?

Free markets promote competition....The way the ACA is now only allows a very limited number of companies to participate. That in turn raises the rates...that on top of people choosing to pay the fine instead of get costly insurance that doesn't offer coverage has made It where not many healthy people have joined. Therefore also raising rates as there are more sick people than healthy in the system..

Free markets wipe all that out. Competition lowers cost and therefore encourages more people to participate healthy or not. And we're only talking about pay markets....there are tons of ways for the poor or disenfranchised to get medical treatment already in the US.

How come we need Trumpcare in a Free Market?
That sounds like an oxymoron

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: dragonlover12
That was a rational plan .

There's part of the problem right there, there's no room for "rationality" in the entirely emotional argument in favor of socialized medicine. "You earn more than I do, so you should pay for my healthcare" isn't rational, it's ridiculous and counter to biology. When we are born, we are helpless and dependent upon others for our every need. As we grow through childhood, we learn to do more and more for ourselves and learn how to internally deal with our needs and problems. The goal has always been to be a self sufficient, individual, albeit one who find their niche in society if they so choose. Socialism, in all forms, essentially retards the growth of the individual, artificially blockading self growth. Socialism, including socialized medicine, is essentially turning to those who have already accepted a life of responsibility and self awareness and telling them "you are also going to be responsible for those folks over there who are hard work averse and/or reject the idea of self responsbility (except, of course where you are concerned).

It's a ridiculous sham of an ideology intended to perpetuate helplessness while penalizing maturity and self responsibility.

That all sounds great in principle but it is really not the truth
Big Business would not get in bed with Communist China wherein they are monetarily supporting them if it was all about PRINCIPLES

It is about self interest and profit which is what your post dwindles down to.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: burdman30ott6

There's part of the problem right there, there's no room for "rationality" in the entirely emotional argument in favor of socialized medicine.

There sure isn't,

They see a corporate product as a collective right, and they don't give one crap about the individuals right or the civil liberty and their RIGHT to choose.

That can be laid at the feet of Corporatists as well where they lobby politicians to not label products GMO so the consumer has no right to choose.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"Shopping" for insurance is a joke. The flaw in the system all together. None of the features of any insurance ever remain exclusive. And that only makes shopping options more narrow when it does, and chokes the consumers in the end.

If they were forced to conglomerate, no issue, as you instantly have the cheapest option and they can't veil their product that is very simple(You hold this money in case my thing breaks) with complicated details of consumerism.

The problem is Big Insurance Companies have banded together to force their will on us using Big Government.
You would see people cry foul if Workers banded together to force their will on employers using Big Government.
Those days are gone, so now we have these deep pocket Corporatists doing it and everything is out of balance as a result.


There is too much power in the hands of Corporatists

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you would rather we just sent uninsured to the hospital emergency rooms, default because they can't pay, forcing the hospital to shoulder the costs, then ultimately shutter their doors all to prevent cleaning this whole mess up with a simple single payer system?

It's not a problem I have ever had to deal with.

Since the age of 16 I had insurance.

Every single job I ever worked I had insurance.

It's never been a problem for me and WAIT FOR IT.

The majority of others.

Until it was a manufactured issue created by the left to create their dream world.

Their perfect little world. Dystopia.

Actually, Health care reform started with Insurance Lobbyists, not left or right.
Read up on the history of where it all started.
The costs continued to rise while peoples ability to pay declined thanks to Globalism.
Corporate Lobbyists wanted cheap labor abroad to make more profits and also wanted prices to continue to increase in this country until the math no longer works.

In a Free Market, these Corporatists would be taking paycuts like everyone else in a Globalist Market
They do not want to take a paycut so now they are trying to figure out how to make everyone else pay to prop them up

Obamacare and Trumpcare are akin to the Bank Bailouts we saw

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

How is a 'giant' step backwards ?

The state is already the single largest provider of health insurance in the country.

If anything It's a step in the right direction freeing the state manipulation of CORPORATISM.

We should be moving towards a universal system that takes the insurance companies out of the equation. Take 30%+ of the cost (insurance profit) off the table right off the bat.

No we should NOT.

You only want to cut out the middle man.

And just line Hospital,doctors,nurse,lawyers pockets.

I wonder who they vote for.

This SNIP is as transparent as it gets.

In a True Free Market, they would all be taking a paycut already.

originally posted by: marg6043
I didn't like the caca of Obama bill and I am hell bend sure that I will no like this parody of the Caca bill by the Republicans

Why? because as long as the insurance corruption agencies have full control of the health industry we the people will get nothing but crap as usual.

Corporate and Banking Lobbyists need to be thrown out of DC
About 90% of the problems in government policy can be traced back to them

originally posted by: unfor54k3n
- Ends individual mandate, imposes surcharge for coverage lapse
- Ends Obamacare premium subsidies, offers tax credits instead
- Rolls back Medicaid expansion across 30 states
- Allows states to impose Medicaid work requirement
- Expands health savings accounts
- Allows states to waive federal "essential health benefits" requirement and set own standard
- Allows insurers to charge older people up to 5 times as much as younger
- Repeals consumer taxes
- Imposes abortion restriction on tax credits
- Imposes Planned Parenthood restriction for Medicaid
- Requires insurers to allow young adults to stay on parents' plans until 26
- Allows states to permit insurers to charge more for pre-existing conditions
- Allocates $8 billion to help subsidize people with pre-existing conditions in state high-risk pools
- Prohibits insurers from imposing lifetime or annual limits on coverage
- Establishes "patient and state stability fund" to help states service low-income Americans

All Big Government Mandated as a Gift to the Lobbyists
Hardly "Free Market"
Lobbyists are a like a gang of thugs using the Gov to force their policies on us

originally posted by: matafuchs
Insurance companies helped write the ACA. They did not here. There was a time a decade ago companies paid for full coverage to entice employees now they are firing them because they cannot afford to cover them.

This is a step in the right direction...

It was a lot cheaper back then before Globalism went full throttle.

Costs started to explode right around the same time Corporate Lobbyists went heavy into politics.
See my thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: shooterbrody

You know I am old enough to remember when health care was for all, My mother had 4 children never pay for any hospital day, I remember going to what it was call medical centers for emergency care and not a penny pay for it, every city and town had them.

What happen? it was not insurance business, the government ran all the cost and everybody had care.

This back in the 50s and 60s

What changed? population growth, capitalism going wild I think is the latest.

Sad.

How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American Democracy
www.abovetopsecret.com...

ritholtz.com...
Health Care Costs as percent of GDP vs Year

Prior to the 1970's, there were less than 200 Corporate and Banking Lobby Offices in Washington DC.
Today, these offices number in the thousands.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: Mordekaiser

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: neo96
Except in countries like China and North Korea where health care costs a tenth of what it does in the US.

Or if we ran a basic health care system like North Korea operates the hair styling industry (women get a choice of 5 approved haircuts).

As soon as you start to underwrite detailed line items like the age men can have the government pay for their Viagra refills health care gets expensive. Generates all kinds of different special interests, profit motives and expensive lawsuits.

Single payer doesn't mean you don't get doctors. Limits on refills...it would be price, but the cheapest because everyone is helping pay for your Viagra, and Betty's car crash would be the cheapest because EVERYONE is helping pay for Betty, and etc. You will have a premium, and your Viagra will cost the same as everyone else, and if you buy too much Viagra, than you're simply the one responsible for raising the previously low Viagra premium.

No, EVERYONE won't pay...those of us with legitimate incomes will foot the bill for all the bangers shot gunfighting in the streets, dealing drugs on the corners, or generally causing mayhem and getting hurt, as well as the rest of US society that chooses not to work and sponge off of others...THEY won't pay a thing...ever...

You're also paying for other people's police and fire emergencies and other people's broken roads getting fixed. Get over it.

He is also paying for the security and welfare for other nations like Syria and South Korea via the MIC, which has nothing to do with our defense

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: Aazadan

If they modeled single payer after Medicare, but kept it separate....the insurance companies would still be able to make money....selling supplemental insurance.

But no matter what happens---single payer or something else---without tort reform, price controls and drug prices being capped and reigned in....insurance will still be too damn expensive.

There's a couple issues at work here. Because insurance is all that most Americans have ever known, many say they want accessible low cost insurance when what they really mean is they want accessible low cost medical coverage. The two are not the same thing. As I said before, insurance works on the concept of protecting from catastrophic loss. But you can only protect against that type of loss, when the loss is rare. 60% of people get cancer, 1/3 heart disease, and the numbers go on. It's extremely common (as in, almost guaranteed to happen to you in your lifetime) that you get seriously ill. That means any insurance against the catastrophic has to cost enough to cover that type of cost, in addition to all of your other costs.

If only 1% of the population got cancer, AIDS, and such combined... insurance would be a worthwhile system.

Insurance companies know this, they're trying to morph into this weird health care provider, where they fund preventative care on the basis that it lowers their catastrophic payouts decades into the future.

I think we need to get away from this model entirely.

What I would like is single payer, if we need to control costs by capping coverage, I'm fine with that. Cover medications, cover doctors visits, cover anything routine. Then we can let people pay for their own private catastrophic plans if we don't want the serious stuff under control of the government. Catastrophic coverage would be cheap (or so they tell all the 20 year olds that are supposed to buy it), while the routine stuff could be covered through taxes.

This way we all get the medical care we need access to, and the people who would rather go untreated and die early can do so, while those who want to take care of themselves could buy supplemental plans. For example single payer could cover up to say $30k per person, per year, with catastrophic handling the rest.

originally posted by: Phoenix
Drugs can easily be addressed by allowing reimportation which would level world market, right now US is closed market where it's whatever market will pay.

Drugs aren't that simple. Drug manufacturers need to make an ROI and it costs billions to get a drug to market. Most drugs only get prescribed a couple thousand times per year because each individual illness is relatively rare (they just combine for a common occurrence of people falling ill). This means there's a small pool of people to pay into the R&D cost for each drug. We can fix this domestically through a combination of longer patents and higher markups. But the real fix is that we need to get a high population nation like India, or China, or a large chunk of Europe on board with using our name brand drugs rather than making their own generics. This is something that's fundamentally against their own interests, so it would be a major point in any international trade deal.

a reply to: Aazadan

Big Pharma spends more on marketing than R&D by ratio of 1.7

Reimportation would spread meager R&D costs and certainly help on the HUGE advertising bill.

Obviously the marketing IS working as you've seemingly fallen for their propaganda.

Ever wonder why they never cure anything? See that kind of R&D would crimp bottom line.

Much more profit in symptoms treatment.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Aazadan

Big Pharma spends more on marketing than R&D by ratio of 1.7

Reimportation would spread meager R&D costs and certainly help on the HUGE advertising bill.

Obviously the marketing IS working as you've seemingly fallen for their propaganda.

Ever wonder why they never cure anything? See that kind of R&D would crimp bottom line.

Much more profit in symptoms treatment.

Because curing things is really hard. If someone cured an illness they would have a significant competitive advantage, it would force everyone else out of the market, and give them the ability to name whatever price they wanted on a medicine.

As far as marketing goes, most nations don't allow drug companies to market to citizens, they also have strict limits on how they can market to doctors. I have no problems with either of those. I wouldn't even be opposed to no marketing whatsoever. If something works and is a quality product, it doesn't need additional advertisement to sell people on that fact.

originally posted by: Aazadan


We can fix this domestically through a combination of longer patents and higher markups.

Treating a few thousand for what in the market would be considered rare event is perfect example where "catastrophic" insurance would be perfect.

In fact this is exactly how insurance is supposed to work.

Using or having insurance for common events like routine care is just paying middle man a cut, except in this case middle man has vested interests to ensure higher pricing to intercept more dollars.

Providers and Insurance are symbiotic creature that have insatiable appetite for money which politicians and other parasites feed from.

originally posted by: Phoenix
Treating a few thousand for what in the market would be considered rare event is perfect example where "catastrophic" insurance would be perfect.

In fact this is exactly how insurance is supposed to work.

Using or having insurance for common events like routine care is just paying middle man a cut, except in this case middle man has vested interests to ensure higher pricing to intercept more dollars.

Providers and Insurance are symbiotic creature that have insatiable appetite for money which politicians and other parasites feed from.

But it's not rare. Yes, it's rare that someone comes down with Acardia or Keutel Syndrome (to pick two at random off the rare disease list) but the chances of coming down with something are a near certainty. Insuring against rare diseases can only work if you make the customer pick and choose which ones they want to be insured against, and that just comes down to random chance. At some point in our lives we're all going to get something. It could be wounds from being attacked, getting in a car accident, kidney failure, or just our bodies shutting down in our final years of life.

Very few are healthy up until the day they die.

Insurance can only protect against rare catastrophic events, but unless we start up death panels and condemn people to death, catastrophic events are all but certain. It's a part of life, it's like trying to insure against getting the common cold. It just doesn't work. That's why we have to move to single payer for the majority of coverage, if not all of it.