It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: burntheships
Heck, I don’t care, spiff up the ACA, do Medicare for All or whatever — steal Dems thunder and call it TrumpCare —
Nope. I just don’t believe that Trump or the R’s have the policy chops to really get that done...
In his report, Blahous provided an alternative-scenario estimate, one that assumed instead that payments to health care providers would “remain equal on average to the current-law blend of higher private and lower public reimbursement rates.” Under that scenario, there would be a net increase in health care spending.
The report’s methods are pretty straightforward. Blahous starts with current projections about how much the country will spend on health care between 2022 and 2031. From there, he adds the costs associated with higher utilization of medical services and then subtracts the savings from lower administrative costs, lower reimbursements for medical services, and lower drug prices. After this bit of arithmetic, Blahous finds that health expenditures would be lower for every year during the first decade of implementation. The net change across the whole ten-year period is a savings of $2.054 trillion.
Question. How are you INCREASING demand by 10% (10% more people, procedures etc...) while paying 40% less?
lower reimbursements for medical services
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic nominee for New York’s 14th Congressional District seat, are pointing to a study they say shows “Medicare-for-all” would save Americans money. But the author says their comments “appear to reflect a misunderstanding of my study.”
I already quoted the study author, you can post erroneous attributions all you want, his study does NOT say that.
Messaging strategy aside, there is room to quibble with Blahous’s positive findings. He assumes administrative costs will only drop from 13 percent to 6 percent for those currently privately insured. But, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare’s administrative costs have consistently been below 2 percent. He assumes utilization of health services will increase by 11 percent, but aggregate health service utilization is ultimately dependent on the capacity to provide services, meaning utilization could hit a hard limit below the level he projects.
But even if you take the report’s headline figures at face value, the picture it paints is that of an enormous bargain. We get to insure every single person in the country, virtually eliminate cost-sharing, and save everyone from the hell of constantly changing health insurance all while saving money. You would have to be a fool to pass that offer up.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
President Obama and his administration worked within the system that is/was in existence. He worked with Republicans and implemented their "Heritage Foundation" plan. Are you suggesting that President Obama should have bypassed the Republican plan and the private insurance industry and gone straight for single payer?
Republicans are slamming President Obama for his silence on drug reimportation legislation, claiming he has broken his campaign promise to allow seniors to buy cheaper medications from other countries.
“There was nothing in the deal that was a structural reform of the [drug] industry,” said John McDonough, who was a top health policy adviser to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) during health law negotiations “They were first in line; they were on the winning side; they got a good deal that they could live with and they stuck to it.”
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Which would come to less than what their current private insurer's premiums are now.
There was no 'Heritage Plan' from the Republicans.
Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island was the point man. The bill he introduced, Health Equity and Access Reform Today, (yes, that spells HEART) had a list of 20 co-sponsors that was a who’s who of Republican leadership. There was Minority Leader Bob Dole, R- Kan., Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and many others. There also were two Democratic co-sponsors.
Among other features, the Chafee bill included:
An individual mandate;
Creation of purchasing pools;
Vouchers for the poor to buy insurance;
A ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition.
"You would find a great deal of similarity to provisions in the Affordable Care Act," Sheila Burke, Dole’s chief of staff in 1993, told PunditFact via email. "The guys were way ahead of the times!! Different crowd, different time, suffice it to say."
RomneyCare is the name given to Mitt Romney’s health care insurance reform laws passed in MA in 2006. RomneyCare aimed to reform healthcare by providing all MA residents with affordable quality health insurance. It also offered additional protections to MA residents including the retention of health coverage when switching employers or when they faced financial difficulties. The idea being that all citizens of that state should have health coverage.
As of today Romneycare is still in effect and was used as a model for the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) due to it’s widely recognized success and popularity within Ma. However, parts of MA healthcare reform have been replaced with rules from the Affordable Care Act.
“RomneyCare” is the nick name for MA health care reform enacted as Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 of the Massachusetts General Court; its long form title is An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care.
Coal jobs have not been made obsolete, otherwise no coal mines would be in operation