This Sucks... Disappointed

It appears that Trump just pulled it because it didn't have the votes. Maybe now we can talk some sense. With Obamacare still in place without the mandates and taxes, we are even worse off than before. There will be no insurers left.
 
What's really disappointing about this is how the GOP has lied over and over about repealing and replacing Obamacare. Think back to when the Congress voted to pass Obamacare how the Republicans were holding up rolled up sheets of paper screaming, "We have a plan." Apparently they were lying then. The lied continued with the "give us the majority in the senate and we will repeal Obamacare." Holy crap, they knew that could never happen because any legislative attempt made to repeal it would have resulted in Obama vetoing it. Then the GOP began telling the voters that if they won the WH and maintained the majorities in Congress they would repeal and replace Obamacare. It is apparent they didn't start working on a plan until after Trump won the election. They could have been begun working on a replacement plan years ago to have it ready once a Republican won the WH while they held the majorities. In fact, they kept telling us they were working on a plan all these years, but that was nothing more than a lie.

If a good plan is not passed to replace Obamacare during Trump's first term, he will most likely not be re-elected and the GOP will lose both the majority in both houses in Congress.
 
Boss 302 said:
What's really disappointing about this is how the GOP has lied over and over about repealing and replacing Obamacare. Think back to when the Congress voted to pass Obamacare how the Republicans were holding up rolled up sheets of paper screaming, "We have a plan." Apparently they were lying then. The lied continued with the "give us the majority in the senate and we will repeal Obamacare." Holy crap, they knew that could never happen because any legislative attempt made to repeal it would have resulted in Obama vetoing it. Then the GOP began telling the voters that if they won the WH and maintained the majorities in Congress they would repeal and replace Obamacare. It is apparent they didn't start working on a plan until after Trump won the election. They could have been begun working on a replacement plan years ago to have it ready once a Republican won the WH while they held the majorities. In fact, they kept telling us they were working on a plan all these years, but that was nothing more than a lie.

If a good plan is not passed to replace Obamacare during Trump's first term, he will most likely not be re-elected and the GOP will lose both the majority in both houses in Congress.
Click to expand...
The Republicans had a pretty good plan as far as government run healthcare goes (S1099). It at least made better sense than Obamacare. Paul Ryan was waving it in the face of the press before and during the "healthcare summit" that Barry held. Ryan made Obama look like a fool in that televised roundtable.

What has changed is that Obamacare is an entitlement that is fully entrenched, and no party in power has ever killed an entitlement program even if it means the total fiscal failure of government and the people. The Republicans are chickens#it. It's that simple. Only the Freedom Caucus and two or three others are willing to stand by their convictions and take the poitical hit for what has to be done.
 
Guard Dad said:
Insurers need to go.

We need to buy direct from providers.
Click to expand...
depends on what community or area you are in. Providers are not going to work for cheap. I know some providers already going towards this model, in fact, the one I worked in completely went under because in that particular community, most were self=pay because the hospital would not take Obamacare insurance and they slid into this model and stacked up bills that were never paid and expected us to discuss a payment plan while providing sometimes life saving care which really got ugly with ethical standards and along with myself 20 providers of 50 left that clinic because the one that was even bigger wanted us to see a patient with pelvic pain, no matter if life threatening in 5.6 minutes and then enter computer data for 5 minutes and move on seeing a minimum of 30 patients a day to hold our position at base salary.
There are pros and cons to both sides of the stream.
For example, if you are in good financial standing and have obvious surplus income and feel confident about paying the fees the particular clinic sets or even worse, hospital.........then you probably would pick out one of the best if it's your eye or uterus or heart that has a diagnosis.
We used to joke about what is the difference between a minor and major diagnosis?
They would say it's minor if it happens to you and it's major if it happens to me.
So in the particular county where I worked the model would definitely would not work because the clinic would be broke even if it advertised cash.
In an urban area or suburbs? might work for some but most middle class and especiall lower class would bankrupt with one surgery.

but honestly, if it all goes to this like a car dealership, then there is going to be poverty like you've never seen and there are folks that don't mind that and there are folks that don't like people hurting or dying on their timeclock. You would find some providers in areas of the country taking in less than they can keep the lights on for.

A healthcare facility and ancillary facilities, and staff is very complicated, too much to explain here.
Basically, not the deductible but what insurance companies (not obamacare but private insurances) are doing now are putting in cost share or coshare in addition to deductibles. So even with good health insurance we have people (not high deductible plans) who have to pay a 3000.00 deductible and do not realize that a co share payment of 10,000 is also required in addition.
So healthcare is a diverse complicated system in which things like research, continuing education, supplies , the salary of high tech staff, and on and on mesh with people who are trying to call up clinics or hospitals to see where they can get the cheapest rate for a heart blockage.

now with a car, you might want to get a lower cost battery for a shorter duriation but do you really want to go to the cheapest facility because most can't afford a really good heart surgery procedure or hysterectomy done? How about a brain tumor?
How would you, the patient, respond if given a cancer diagnosis with self pay everywhere in all clinics, offices, and hospitals?
Does Aunt Suzy decide Uncle Tom will have to die now because they can't pay the facilities? Because it's a myth that you can pay along at a medical center pretty much now. They will call collection agencies really fast.
And all in all you will get what you pay for.

Also preventative care would completely be ignored and people will wait until they have a major heart attack or other preventable conditions that would be actually most costly.
Healthcare is a mess. Students are drawn to the field now not because they have a genuine care for people but because they think they can make the big bucks. I've seen that along with my physician friends and it's disheartening to say the least.

Providers would also try solo practice at a fee base and then in about 3 years decide they absolutely cannot pay the hideous malpractice premiums. That already is a nightmare. And the emotional toil on providers for turning people away who really do need procedures would start the burnout process.

Also in picking out the person who will be handling your life for example during a major surgery would decide (unethically and it happens now) to spend the least amount of time to get to the next one. I've been in lunchs alot of times that physicians literally are talking about their wives spending too much and they want to buy that 3rd or 4th house somewhere so they literally scout out the patients they can operate on.
Patients will be told they need the surgery when they can take conservative options (and most don't know what those are) and do not realize they are just padding the physicians bank account.

Yes, this happens in real life. In medical training, nursing training, practitioner school.....there are oaths that we take and some really do practice by those oathes and some do not and instead if they know, insurance or not that you have money, they will take you for a ride in the surgery suite.

I think that if you have a plan and think you should remove pediatric care and maternity care then I would think this would lead to removing certain obvious conditions from lifestyle like obesity and smoking. Because people who are nonsmokers probably don't thinkit's fair to pay higher costs due to the smokers conditions that develop and are much more costly than a maternity bill.

This reminds me of the animal vet er in Gainesville. They are fee based only. We had a dog that got hit by a car andpeople are waiting in the waiting room while their dog is in surgery while an appointed person comes out hourly to let you know what the balance is so you can decide if you want to just put the dog asleep or keep working. By morning our dog had a 4000.00 bill because my X husband at the time just couldn't tell them to stop.

so I guess the main thing is do you think healthcare is a right or a priviledge?

Sorry about the long post.
 
Mrs. Foxmeister said:
depends on what community or area you are in. Providers are not going to work for cheap. I know some providers already going towards this model, in fact, the one I worked in completely went under because in that particular community, most were self=pay because the hospital would not take Obamacare insurance and they slid into this model and stacked up bills that were never paid and expected us to discuss a payment plan while providing sometimes life saving care which really got ugly with ethical standards and along with myself 20 providers of 50 left that clinic because the one that was even bigger wanted us to see a patient with pelvic pain, no matter if life threatening in 5.6 minutes and then enter computer data for 5 minutes and move on seeing a minimum of 30 patients a day to hold our position at base salary.
There are pros and cons to both sides of the stream.
For example, if you are in good financial standing and have obvious surplus income and feel confident about paying the fees the particular clinic sets or even worse, hospital.........then you probably would pick out one of the best if it's your eye or uterus or heart that has a diagnosis.
We used to joke about what is the difference between a minor and major diagnosis?
They would say it's minor if it happens to you and it's major if it happens to me.
So in the particular county where I worked the model would definitely would not work because the clinic would be broke even if it advertised cash.
In an urban area or suburbs? might work for some but most middle class and especiall lower class would bankrupt with one surgery.

but honestly, if it all goes to this like a car dealership, then there is going to be poverty like you've never seen and there are folks that don't mind that and there are folks that don't like people hurting or dying on their timeclock. You would find some providers in areas of the country taking in less than they can keep the lights on for.

A healthcare facility and ancillary facilities, and staff is very complicated, too much to explain here.
Basically, not the deductible but what insurance companies (not obamacare but private insurances) are doing now are putting in cost share or coshare in addition to deductibles. So even with good health insurance we have people (not high deductible plans) who have to pay a 3000.00 deductible and do not realize that a co share payment of 10,000 is also required in addition.
So healthcare is a diverse complicated system in which things like research, continuing education, supplies , the salary of high tech staff, and on and on mesh with people who are trying to call up clinics or hospitals to see where they can get the cheapest rate for a heart blockage.

now with a car, you might want to get a lower cost battery for a shorter duriation but do you really want to go to the cheapest facility because most can't afford a really good heart surgery procedure or hysterectomy done? How about a brain tumor?
How would you, the patient, respond if given a cancer diagnosis with self pay everywhere in all clinics, offices, and hospitals?
Does Aunt Suzy decide Uncle Tom will have to die now because they can't pay the facilities? Because it's a myth that you can pay along at a medical center pretty much now. They will call collection agencies really fast.
And all in all you will get what you pay for.

Also preventative care would completely be ignored and people will wait until they have a major heart attack or other preventable conditions that would be actually most costly.
Healthcare is a mess. Students are drawn to the field now not because they have a genuine care for people but because they think they can make the big bucks. I've seen that along with my physician friends and it's disheartening to say the least.

Providers would also try solo practice at a fee base and then in about 3 years decide they absolutely cannot pay the hideous malpractice premiums. That already is a nightmare. And the emotional toil on providers for turning people away who really do need procedures would start the burnout process.

Also in picking out the person who will be handling your life for example during a major surgery would decide (unethically and it happens now) to spend the least amount of time to get to the next one. I've been in lunchs alot of times that physicians literally are talking about their wives spending too much and they want to buy that 3rd or 4th house somewhere so they literally scout out the patients they can operate on.
Patients will be told they need the surgery when they can take conservative options (and most don't know what those are) and do not realize they are just padding the physicians bank account.

Yes, this happens in real life. In medical training, nursing training, practitioner school.....there are oaths that we take and some really do practice by those oathes and some do not and instead if they know, insurance or not that you have money, they will take you for a ride in the surgery suite.

I think that if you have a plan and think you should remove pediatric care and maternity care then I would think this would lead to removing certain obvious conditions from lifestyle like obesity and smoking. Because people who are nonsmokers probably don't thinkit's fair to pay higher costs due to the smokers conditions that develop and are much more costly than a maternity bill.

This reminds me of the animal vet er in Gainesville. They are fee based only. We had a dog that got hit by a car andpeople are waiting in the waiting room while their dog is in surgery while an appointed person comes out hourly to let you know what the balance is so you can decide if you want to just put the dog asleep or keep working. By morning our dog had a 4000.00 bill because my X husband at the time just couldn't tell them to stop.

so I guess the main thing is do you think healthcare is a right or a priviledge?

Sorry about the long post.
Click to expand...
But in my scenario, Obamacare would be gone and the feds will have nothing to do with healthcare.

There would be preventative care. I have service contracts with some of my customers. These are contracts where they pay us a monthly fee, and when it breaks, we have to fix it at our cost. We do the preventative religiously because doing so greatly reduces the breakdowns and the parts and equipment we have to buy. The same principle would apply to healthcare. Many of the insurance companies pay for preventative now, the providers would do the same thing.

There will be details to work out. But the key is to get government out of it and allow market competition to work it's magic.
 
Guard Dad said:
But in my scenario, Obamacare would be gone and the feds will have nothing to do with healthcare.

There would be preventative care. I have service contracts with some of my customers. These are contracts where they pay us a monthly fee, and when it breaks, we have to fix it at our cost. We do the preventative religiously because doing so greatly reduces the breakdowns and the parts and equipment we have to buy. The same principle would apply to healthcare. Many of the insurance companies pay for preventative now, the providers would do the same thing.

There will be details to work out. But the key is to get government out of it and allow market competition to work it's magic.[/QU
Guard Dad said:
But in my scenario, Obamacare would be gone and the feds will have nothing to do with healthcare.

There would be preventative care. I have service contracts with some of my customers. These are contracts where they pay us a monthly fee, and when it breaks, we have to fix it at our cost. We do the preventative religiously because doing so greatly reduces the breakdowns and the parts and equipment we have to buy. The same principle would apply to healthcare. Many of the insurance companies pay for preventative now, the providers would do the same thing.

There will be details to work out. But the key is to get government out of it and allow market competition to work it's magic.
Click to expand...
so if the feds have absolutely nothing to do in healhcare, who is going to make sure a new medication is ok for humans to consume? the states? 50 opinions?
who would make sure people are not unethically treated?
basicly managed care plans are fee per year betting that you won't get sick. This is private insurance not obamacare. if you choose an HMO (health managed organization ) is a whole lot cheaper but you get bad care. Again, you get what you pay for.

The problem I see and many others do too is that we don't see equipment (an object) the same as when a person breaks down and needs repair.
People that own equipment usually fix just what they have to. Again it could be an area thing. And if they have to replace it there is no emotion at all in replacing it but having to come up with the money.
In healthcare, we care for people's bodies and minds. Many of which cannot be replaced and if so at a high price that would bankrupt the family.
When a piece of equipmen dies, you don't have a funeral, you don't hug it, there are no other ethical considerations really.
In healthcare we are dealing with human beings, cancer, tumors, bleeding, fatalities if if cheap care given.
Medical research and funding is crucial to test meds and make sure people do not die from it.
JACHO, an organization that checks on the regulations of the hospitals would still need to be in place or there would be some slummy places doing things illegally and people going because they are poor and don't have a choice.
I know it sounds simple, cut black and white but medicine is an art. It involves humans not objects. There are more caveats than you will ever think of providing medical care.
Its a set up for doctors who need money or their perceive to need money to rip off people legally.
There would be so many unnecessary procedures and surgeries on the rich.
I know prevention is paid for and that has been around since before obama.
The healthcare model came in the 90s for a push for preventative care because people were not getting it due to cost and then allowing really expensive problems cook in their bodies.
I know of several small hospitals that will not turn away indigent patients. They know they will not get paid; however, these patients are usually working for some place that keeps them at 7.50 an hour and prides themselves on a quarter raise when people can't live on that anymore.
They also don't qualify for medicaid that way. But thankfully there are a few, very few providers in hospitals who will not turn a sick person away at the ER. It's just in humane to me to think we should equate all the same principles of an HVAC unit to a person. Like apples and oranges. An AC can die and people just hate the cost of a new one. A person die on my time table or on many doctos I know, and we have to suck up the guilt and movve on.
It amazes me how we put our life on the line daily with blood and body fluids and we get treated with no regard.
But man, if you put your life on the line or even not on the line, just join the military then your entitled to a bunch of things.
So entitlement, or the sense of it, extends into other areas of people as well.
When you have people's lives on the line, its a whole different matter than fixing an AC unit.
Click to expand...
 

sorry about posting in your thread......it's early with little coffee.

so if the feds have absolutely nothing to do in healhcare, who is going to make sure a new medication is ok for humans to consume? the states? 50 opinions?
who would make sure people are not unethically treated?
basicly managed care plans are fee per year betting that you won't get sick. This is private insurance not obamacare. if you choose an HMO (health managed organization ) is a whole lot cheaper but you get bad care. Again, you get what you pay for.

The problem I see and many others do too is that we don't see equipment (an object) the same as when a person breaks down and needs repair.
People that own equipment usually fix just what they have to. Again it could be an area thing. And if they have to replace it there is no emotion at all in replacing it but having to come up with the money.
In healthcare, we care for people's bodies and minds. Many of which cannot be replaced and if so at a high price that would bankrupt the family.
When a piece of equipmen dies, you don't have a funeral, you don't hug it, there are no other ethical considerations really.
In healthcare we are dealing with human beings, cancer, tumors, bleeding, fatalities if if cheap care given.
Medical research and funding is crucial to test meds and make sure people do not die from it.
JACHO, an organization that checks on the regulations of the hospitals would still need to be in place or there would be some slummy places doing things illegally and people going because they are poor and don't have a choice.
I know it sounds simple, cut black and white but medicine is an art. It involves humans not objects. There are more caveats than you will ever think of providing medical care.
Its a set up for doctors who need money or their perceive to need money to rip off people legally.
There would be so many unnecessary procedures and surgeries on the rich.
I know prevention is paid for and that has been around since before obama.
The healthcare model came in the 90s for a push for preventative care because people were not getting it due to cost and then allowing really expensive problems cook in their bodies.
I know of several small hospitals that will not turn away indigent patients. They know they will not get paid; however, these patients are usually working for some place that keeps them at 7.50 an hour and prides themselves on a quarter raise when people can't live on that anymore.
They also don't qualify for medicaid that way. But thankfully there are a few, very few providers in hospitals who will not turn a sick person away at the ER. It's just in humane to me to think we should equate all the same principles of an HVAC unit to a person. Like apples and oranges. An AC can die and people just hate the cost of a new one. A person die on my time table or on many doctos I know, and we have to suck up the guilt and movve on.
It amazes me how we put our life on the line daily with blood and body fluids and we get treated with no regard.
But man, if you put your life on the line or even not on the line, just join the military then your entitled to a bunch of things.
So entitlement, or the sense of it, extends into other areas of people as well.
When you have people's lives on the line, its a whole different matter than fixing an AC unit.
 
I am glad it was pulled. This was a knee jerk politically motivated reaction to the liberals calling the POTUS out and DJT doing what he does by knee jerking right back. Do I want to repeal Obama Care and the penalties involved. Hell yes I do. Do I want to make the same mistake congress made by rushing O Care through the first time. Hell no I don't. Sit back, take a breath, put the best minds available on the subject and write a truly comprehensive bill that addresses most of the issues. This bill can be a revised form of the current bill that is fine as long as it is well thought out and covers as many people/conditions as plausible. Have congress actually read the bill before they take a vote. If I could tell DJT one thing it would be , slow down/think/ quit responding to every single negative thing reported it is taking your eye off the goal and go forward with your ideas and promises. I do not recommend going at the usual snails pace that we are used to in Washington but something this large takes time to correct. Life is not a Tweet.
 
Stonewall said:
I am glad it was pulled. This was a knee jerk politically motivated reaction to the liberals calling the POTUS out and DJT doing what he does by knee jerking right back. Do I want to repeal Obama Care and the penalties involved. Hell yes I do. Do I want to make the same mistake congress made by rushing O Care through the first time. Hell no I don't. Sit back, take a breath, put the best minds available on the subject and write a truly comprehensive bill that addresses most of the issues. This bill can be a revised form of the current bill that is fine as long as it is well thought out and covers as many people/conditions as plausible. Have congress actually read the bill before they take a vote. If I could tell DJT one thing it would be , slow down/think/ quit responding to every single negative thing reported it is taking your eye off the goal and go forward with your ideas and promises. I do not recommend going at the usual snails pace that we are used to in Washington but something this large takes time to correct. Life is not a Tweet.
Click to expand...
I so agree. There should be amendments but not a knee jerk reaction.
Trump is about as much president material as a tree outside my window. He is a narcisist and is playing his presidency like he did his reality show.
He will always want the drama and be a sore loser.
Instead of saying "he is waiting for it to Implode" or explode or whatever dramatic comments, he should try to work with the American people on a better revision, one that people can know about and not just a wipe it all out mentaility" because I'm the best"
I tweet myself but dear goodness, he needs to find some kind of restraint on himself with the Twitter account.
This is going to bite him in the -ss. I said that on the election day and it will continue to be a source where he will get in big trouble.
I know alot of people have made jokes about the Russians but they are opening an investigation and it will not surprise me he resigns with what they find or either get impeached.
 
Good point about the FDA, though it could use some cleaning up around there.

But I was referring more to the care and treatment end of it. Cut taxes to the states, let them handle the safety nets and any of the healthcare that the government pays for (VA, etc), but privatize the care. Lift all the micromanagement and excessive regulation, and let market competition work it's magic on the healthcare industry.

The power will be back in our hands, and we'll get better quality and service at lower prices than we've seen in decades.
 
Right now a healthy middle class family of four is likely to pay $1000 or more per month for health insurance. In areas where concierge primary care is available, the cost is about $250 per month for that family of four, and a catastrophic policy with a $10,000 stop loss is about $200 per month. This covers everything from a common cold to major surgery with very little left out. Pharmacy policies and discounts are also available for free to $150 per month. Many concierge practices even cover common urgent care treatments like x-rays, stitches, setting and casting minor to moderate breaks, and most blood tests, and the catastrophic policy will cover most hospitalizations with a cap on your out of pocket expenses. All of this for the fair market price of $450 per month, less than half the going rate for employer provided group coverage.

What does this tell us? It isn't the doctors or the insurance companies driving the outrageous premiums, it's the regulations covering the market. A "policy" that pays for anticipated uses like "free" checkups and diagnostic testing is prepaid healthcare, not insurance. By the same token, a policy that makes a 62 year old pay for birth control, well baby coverage, and delivery is just a transfer of wealth from the old to the young. You also have a 3X cap on the cost of a policy for a healthy 20 year old vs. a dog sick 62 year old, forcing that young person to cover a huge cost for the oldster's healthcare. Same with the pre-existing mandate. Then you have the reporting and compliance costs found in the twenty two thousand Obamacare regulations that cost four non patient care positions for every nurse, PA, and doctor.

The "cure" is to tear up those 22,000 pages and get the government the hell out of the market. If we want to use taxpayer money to subsidize indigent and chronic or catastrophic care, then do so. But for heaven sake stop telling the industry what they can and cannot do, and what they must and must not provide as a service to their customers. The market will provide the most value possible for the healthcare dollar as well as far greater choice for everyone out there. The reality is that sick people consume a lot more healthcare than healthy people and the government cannot mandate that fact out of existence.
 
lotstodo said:
Right now a healthy middle class family of four is likely to pay $1000 or more per month for health insurance. In areas where concierge primary care is available, the cost is about $250 per month for that family of four, and a catastrophic policy with a $10,000 stop loss is about $200 per month. This covers everything from a common cold to major surgery with very little left out. Pharmacy policies and discounts are also available for free to $150 per month. Many concierge practices even cover common urgent care treatments like x-rays, stitches, setting and casting minor to moderate breaks, and most blood tests, and the catastrophic policy will cover most hospitalizations with a cap on your out of pocket expenses. All of this for the fair market price of $450 per month, less than half the going rate for employer provided group coverage.

What does this tell us? It isn't the doctors or the insurance companies driving the outrageous premiums, it's the regulations covering the market. A "policy" that pays for anticipated uses like "free" checkups and diagnostic testing is prepaid healthcare, not insurance. By the same token, a policy that makes a 62 year old pay for birth control, well baby coverage, and delivery is just a transfer of wealth from the old to the young. You also have a 3X cap on the cost of a policy for a healthy 20 year old vs. a dog sick 62 year old, forcing that young person to cover a huge cost for the oldster's healthcare. Same with the pre-existing mandate. Then you have the reporting and compliance costs found in the twenty two thousand Obamacare regulations that cost four non patient care positions for every nurse, PA, and doctor.

The "cure" is to tear up those 22,000 pages and get the government the hell out of the market. If we want to use taxpayer money to subsidize indigent and chronic or catastrophic care, then do so. But for heaven sake stop telling the industry what they can and cannot do, and what they must and must not provide as a service to their customers. The market will provide the most value possible for the healthcare dollar as well as far greater choice for everyone out there. The reality is that sick people consume a lot more healthcare than healthy people and the government cannot mandate that fact out of existence.
Click to expand...


^^^ What he said.

:thatsallfolks:
 
lotstodo said:
Right now a healthy middle class family of four is likely to pay $1000 or more per month for health insurance. In areas where concierge primary care is available, the cost is about $250 per month for that family of four, and a catastrophic policy with a $10,000 stop loss is about $200 per month. This covers everything from a common cold to major surgery with very little left out. Pharmacy policies and discounts are also available for free to $150 per month. Many concierge practices even cover common urgent care treatments like x-rays, stitches, setting and casting minor to moderate breaks, and most blood tests, and the catastrophic policy will cover most hospitalizations with a cap on your out of pocket expenses. All of this for the fair market price of $450 per month, less than half the going rate for employer provided group coverage.

What does this tell us? It isn't the doctors or the insurance companies driving the outrageous premiums, it's the regulations covering the market. A "policy" that pays for anticipated uses like "free" checkups and diagnostic testing is prepaid healthcare, not insurance. By the same token, a policy that makes a 62 year old pay for birth control, well baby coverage, and delivery is just a transfer of wealth from the old to the young. You also have a 3X cap on the cost of a policy for a healthy 20 year old vs. a dog sick 62 year old, forcing that young person to cover a huge cost for the oldster's healthcare. Same with the pre-existing mandate. Then you have the reporting and compliance costs found in the twenty two thousand Obamacare regulations that cost four non patient care positions for every nurse, PA, and doctor.

The "cure" is to tear up those 22,000 pages and get the government the hell out of the market. If we want to use taxpayer money to subsidize indigent and chronic or catastrophic care, then do so. But for heaven sake stop telling the industry what they can and cannot do, and what they must and must not provide as a service to their customers. The market will provide the most value possible for the healthcare dollar as well as far greater choice for everyone out there. The reality is that sick people consume a lot more healthcare than healthy people and the government cannot mandate that fact out of existence.
Click to expand...
seems alot of people want to abolish maternity care and pediatric care if they do not have a pregnancy or children.
So no mention of insurances providing drug rehab, long term care, home healthcare, mental healthcare.
Why not mention you don't want these services as well if you are not a drug addict, mentally ill, or needed long term care or healthcare?
why do people only choose women and children?
If we get a selective policy as described, then there should policies where we don't have to pay for obesity care, bariatrics, anything to do with smoking, long term care, mental health, if that's what you want to choose because all that is included in a general policy and I haven't heard one person complaint about maintaining coverage on those services.
Problem is, most of us have some area we will need in a life time. There are people who still pay their insurance not needing your smoking related illnesses stacking up their premiums either or your drug rehab which is astrononical in price far more than maternity care.
So make it fair if that is what the point is.
 
Mrs. Foxmeister said:
seems alot of people want to abolish maternity care and pediatric care if they do not have a pregnancy or children.
So no mention of insurances providing drug rehab, long term care, home healthcare, mental healthcare.
Why not mention you don't want these services as well if you are not a drug addict, mentally ill, or needed long term care or healthcare?
why do people only choose women and children?
If we get a selective policy as described, then there should policies where we don't have to pay for obesity care, bariatrics, anything to do with smoking, long term care, mental health, if that's what you want to choose because all that is included in a general policy and I haven't heard one person complaint about maintaining coverage on those services.
Problem is, most of us have some area we will need in a life time. There are people who still pay their insurance not needing your smoking related illnesses stacking up their premiums either or your drug rehab which is astrononical in price far more than maternity care.
So make it fair if that is what the point is.
Click to expand...
Seriously. Allow me to address your concerns. First of all, please point out where I said I wanted to abolish maternity care and pediatric care. I did not. I just said that it is stupid for a 62 year old to be paying for that care in their own policy. Do you think a 62 year old needs pregnancy coverage? No, obviously not. Now do you think a 26 year old female needs to be paying for a "free" annual prostate exam? If we allow her to shop and pay for only the coverage she needs are we being sexist against men? Well obviously not.

I mentioned these items because, AS I CLEARLY STATED, they affect young people and not older patients. It has nothing to do with sexism, but that is perhaps a lens you are seeing it through. These differences are a generational transfer or wealth, again, as I so stated. I also CLEARLY POINTED OUT the opposite transfers of wealth such as the fact that we sick old farts consume far more healthcare dollars than your woman of child bearing age. Should she pay for that?

Now why didn't I mention drug rehab, long term care, home healthcare, mental healthcare? Well that would be because they affect all persons roughly equally regardless of age, and I didn't have time to go through all of the codes and call out each ailment and potential risk individually. Your examples are a risk for both my 62 year old male and your 26 year old woman and should be probably be covered as a matter of course. But 62 year old men aren't getting pregnant and 26 year old women aren't getting prostate cancer. But here's the rub. A truly free market healthcare system would allow you and I to pick exactly the coverage we want for ourselves. You want pregnancy coverage? Buy it. Prenatal care? Buy it. Prostate exams for yourself? Don't know why you would, but what the hell, buy it. As for disallowing certain provable obesity related illnesses, sure, a bit of a can of worms, but why not? If there is a market for thin people's insurance, sell it and let them buy it. We already charge smokers more, why not fat people? No family history of addiction and willing to take that risk yourself? Do it. Don't buy addiction coverage.

Do you see my point now...freedom to chose and responsibility for those choices. My statements have nothing to do with sexism. They have to do with the freedom for your 26 year old female and my 62 year old male to choose the healthcare coverage they want and need (BTW, yes I understand the concept of pooling as a risk mitigation and marketing strategy, that's another subject). It has to do with being responsible for yourself and making your own decisions instead of Washington telling you what your healthcare needs are. It has to do with real differences between the healthcare needs of groups of individuals. You don't want to pay for the healthcare I consume, and if you do, I'll give you the name of my agent.

I wanted to add an article that pretty well describes what I mean, probably better than I can. This is why healthcare cannot be a right:

http://reason.com/archives/2017/03/19/health-insurance-and-rights
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top