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.

 

A real alternative to Obamacare may be in the works.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Just saw this on Breitbart. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum are working on a block-grant approach to healthcare funding that takes a different approach than Obamacare. Each state would have more control over how money is spent. There would be no individual mandate or employer mandate, unless your particular state really wants one.

Of course the Left will cry about how many people will lose healthcare, but really any plan that cancels the individual mandate will lead to millions of people "losing" their healthcare simply because they are no longer required by law to buy it.

I haven't dived into the details enough to decide if this is a good plan or not, but this is what I've been saying for the past year: Take your time and do it right. Don't rush thru something stupid just so you can say you repealed Obamacare.




posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

My perspective is cost.

The US pays 2 X the what the next industrialized country pays. Until we address cost all this is for not.

How do we address costs?



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


Take your time and do it right. Don't rush thru something stupid just so you can say you repealed Obamacare.

We've heard of endless war, endless debt, this is endless debate.

If it were a new aircraft carrier there would be no debate all...



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   
If there is anything Americans can learn from Russians, it's suppression of corporate interests. Russia has single payer health care and flat tax because Russia has no corporate lobby power. America can't have these because America has too much corporate lobby power.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I will say this once more.

The only way to fix healthcare in America, is to make two things the case. First, socialise medicine as a science so that all hospitals are run by the state, all suppliers to that hospital are run by the state, all the people making pills, treatments, equipment for those hospitals, are state employees, and stop going to war in every other pisspot country that has mineral wealth to pay for it.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: tannerc


I can't see the medical system changing for the reason you said, lobby.

The things that I am hearing to address costs are HSA's and selling insurance across state lines. Both are not going to address costs.

Single payer or universal care seems to keep costs down ad quality up. Of course we are told this is the evil. And the corps that control this medical also control the media telling us this is bad. We are hip deep in trouble.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I will say this once more.

The only way to fix healthcare in America, is to make two things the case. First, socialise medicine as a science so that all hospitals are run by the state, all suppliers to that hospital are run by the state, all the people making pills, treatments, equipment for those hospitals, are state employees, and stop going to war in every other pisspot country that has mineral wealth to pay for it.


For once, we agree on something. Unfortunately, the Oligarchy of Corporations and Financial Institutions that overlord this "country", (more a colony than an independent nation) will never allow that.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit




First, socialise medicine as a science so that all hospitals are run by the state, all suppliers to that hospital are run by the state, all the people making pills, treatments, equipment for those hospitals, are state employees,


Because government has such a great track record of running anything. Look at our V.A. system.
No thanks.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Why not instead look at every other country that has a single payer system? Their healthcare systems are continuously ranked way higher (with the exception of Canada who just rank higher) than the US. We are the only First World country in the world that doesn't have a single payer system. At the same time none of the countries that have a single payer system are clamoring to switch to the US model.

Single payer works better consistently the world over. If it you think it would fail in the US then that is the fault of the government not the healthcare model. How do you fix those failings? I'm sure there are multiple ways. But one way that will not fix it is to pass a bill that will have the government kowtowing to corporate interests more than they already are.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Your V.A. system is run by the state, and badly. That is true.

But that is because successive administrations have been able to get away with providing inappropriate amounts of funding, which they would find very much more difficult, in the case of healthcare provision, which does not affect just one demographic, but all persons who have ever had so much as a cold.

My nations government is on the way out. The next election will see them butchered beyond belief in the polls, and replaced with more effective components. One of the major reasons for that, is that they are considering selling off more of our NHS. We simply know better here, how to look after our people, and therefore know that this is a bad thing for us, and will not permit it. Regardless of the cost, we will see to it that our people are provided for, by way of the NHS, an organisation born toward the common good of all in the realm. We will NOT permit it to be sold away, as we have so many other things.

We will take everything back, in time. The roads, the railways, the gas and electricity infrastructure. We will boot out all the corporatist dirt from our government and our nation, and re-establish the socially responsible governance that is the hallmark of our finest traditions as a country, and a poke in the eye to all the worst excesses of our history.

We had a system like yours once. We replaced it because it was essentially genocidal, with only the rich having any ability to access healthcare worth having. We were right to do it. The US is wrong to continue as it has been with regard to healthcare and its provision. We stand or fall together, for better or worse, because we understand that this is the only just way. To do anything else is either selfish at best, or at worst mercenary and callous.

We refuse to engage with anything remotely like a privatised healthcare system, with insurers and other such rubbish, because they are inherently evil and are damaging to the society they preside over. They are designed to keep people poor, and eventually kill the poor, so that more remains for the rich to pick over. You can appease that system if you like, by excusing it, or holding up examples of how the state messed things up before, or in other ways, but the rub is this. Socialised, universal healthcare, with no insurance companies involved, no HMOs, no nothing, is the only legitimate way to run things. Whether you are prepared to see the universal system adopted, paid for by taxation, and then force your government by weight of opinion, to fund that healthcare, instead of trillion dollar war campaigns against entities your government also controls, instead of expensive mass surveillance that kills liberty, removes privacy and freedom, and achieves nothing more than that, is your call.

It takes WORK and CONSTANT vigilance, to ensure government behaves correctly toward the people, and determination to force it to change when it does not. It is not easy, it takes time, and you will not be able to spend as much time gazing at your navel, or slaving for your corporate overlords, because you will have to work hard to campaign to keep services running, to banish ever more corporate influence from those services, but... if your people are prepared to put in the effort, the reward is healthcare that everyone can access, regardless of social and economic status, regardless of whether they are homeless or in a mansion, regardless of whether they have four mouths to feed or fourteen, regardless of whether they work 18 hour shifts at a burger bar, or whether they own one.

That is worth inconveniencing oneself for.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I don't know aboit your claims the Swiss have a better system then Brittain. So does Germany. Austria uses a two tier approach, and the Dutch love their system.
edit on 30-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DAVID64

Why not instead look at every other country that has a single payer system? Their healthcare systems are continuously ranked way higher (with the exception of Canada who just rank higher) than the US. We are the only First World country in the world that doesn't have a single payer system. At the same time none of the countries that have a single payer system are clamoring to switch to the US model.

Single payer works better consistently the world over. If it you think it would fail in the US then that is the fault of the government not the healthcare model. How do you fix those failings? I'm sure there are multiple ways. But one way that will not fix it is to pass a bill that will have the government kowtowing to corporate interests more than they already are.


Many countries with single payer are having serious financial problems. I personally think it's the worst form in Europe with the most problems but it's subjective I suppose.

And we are not the only non Single payer. In fact can you name who has them?]
edit on 30-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

At no point have I mentioned other nations. I have only mentioned the States, and the UK. Of the two, the UK system is the one most based on the desire to cure all ailments, regardless of who has them. Our system is not perfect and does not need to be. But everyone who uses it is in the same boat, because our society demands that it be so, and should demand that it be so.

At least here, if you live through an ailment, you do not come out of recovery to a bill you will never be able to afford to pay. At least here, if you survive cancer, you do not spend the next forty years a pauper to pay for it, unable to aid your children in funding their education, unable to pay for electricity for heating, or food for that matter, simply because you had the temerity to live through some of the worst medical circumstances it is possible to survive.

The Tories may victimise the sick, but the system as it stands was designed to protect them, which is why conservatives have spent decades trying to destroy it. They will not be permitted to do so.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Well why do the Swiss get ranked higher than the UK and they still have insurance companies?

People seem to think Europe is all single payer I was just saying it's not true and may even be a minority. Yet other countries in Europe also have very good care and the customers are happy because they have choices. Germany for instance has pretty good care. The Dutch etc.

Any country with universal health care makes it mandatory to treat people. That doesn't have to be single payer.
edit on 30-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Looking into the Swiss model it actually looks similar to what we have now. Except it has two key differences. 1.) It is 100% compulsory and 2.) The insurance companies cannot make a profit off of the basic level of care.

A larger pool and prohibiting the insurance companies from making a profit on basic required services are going to drive prices down.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Exactly. And still has choices and competition, acts more like a marketplace.

It's the easiest transition for us I think.

It also takes care of some over regulation issues needed to control all the conflict of interest situations in pharma research.

Germany is multi payer, it used employer, employee, and government finance. There really aren't many single payer systems in the world. Many people confuse universal health care with single payer.

Our system is the worst. It uses government money to pay and direct for profit insurance. The conflict of interest there is huge.
edit on 30-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I think we all, Democrat and Republican, Nazi and Antifa, need to let our elected officials know they need to work together to get this issues resolved in a way that the average American can get good healthcare without it taking a huge chunk of their income. It's insane that we are talking about Republican plans, Democrat plans on this. Both sides have ideas that will help and we need to have a broad consensus on this if it is to work. The medical/insurance/pharmalogical industrial complex is the greatest obstacle to real healthcare reform



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I will admit that I misspoke when I said single payer.

The problem with switching to the Swiss model is that the insurance companies are already pulling out of the marketplace and complaining about money despite posting record profits. What do you think they're going to do if they're told they can't profit on the majority of their services?

I guess we could always threaten them with the prospect of switching over to something like France's system (the best in the world) if they don't play ball. At the same time they have such a powerful lobby that even if they went along with the change they would probably just have the services they're required to provide be so basic that everyone would need to end up buying supplemental coverage as well. More or less putting us right back where we are now.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

France has a hybrid system like we do. Just with more controls by the government.



What would the companies do stop offering insurance all together? Companies would fill the gap and if it's a universal law there is no other way to offer health insurance, and frankly nobody else wants a system like ours so they would have to pray on the third world.

The main issue for me is the actual diagnosis and treatment fraud in our system. The NEJM the premier us journal says half the drug trials can't be reproduced if they get retried. This comes from needing to recoup costs of the research even if the drug has problems. Also includes the diagnosis and treatment being fabricated. They go so far as to hire ghost writers in journals and publications like psychology today praising fake drugs and treatment.

That in my opinion is far worse than even the expense imo.

So the nonprofit pharma and insurance sounds like a way to avoid complicated regulations.
edit on 30-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

My wife works for a Texas Veterans Nursing Home as a nurse. Their facility sits right next door to the VA hospital. They take their patients to Scott & White Hospital, a private facility, instead.

Seeing how the VA is run, i wouldn't trust my government to take over my healthcare. I dont want to die in a stairwell







 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join