ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Affordable Care Act , AHCA , donald trump , health care issues , health insurance issues , obamacare , Trumpcare

Closed Thread
Old 19th April 2017, 02:24 AM   #2641
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,035
GOP willing to dump money on insurance companies rather than give citizens dreaded subsidies:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...yan/100323512/

Alaska already does this.
__________________
This is how politics goes
1 Republicans cut tax, let everything run down to barely working...8 years
2 Democrats fix public spending to normal...8 years

Rinse, repeat.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 07:08 AM   #2642
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,609
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Part of the problem is that neither side really retreats from their ideological positions.
Not true at all. The ACA act was originally a Republican proposal pushed forward by Democrats, so both sides moved from their original positions, the Democrats moved towards the Republican position and the Republicans moved to a more extreme position.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 09:47 AM   #2643
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,731
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Not true at all. The ACA act was originally a Republican proposal pushed forward by Democrats, so both sides moved from their original positions, the Democrats moved towards the Republican position and the Republicans moved to a more extreme position.
It is odd to hear GOP complaints that the Dems won't compromise when it seems like all the Dems did under Obama was compromise form the start. I don't think I'm alone in being frustrated by Obama's pre-compromise on healthcare. He negotiated against himself and paid for it.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 11:49 AM   #2644
GodMark2
Graduate Poster
 
GodMark2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1,961
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
It is odd to hear GOP complaints that the Dems won't compromise when it seems like all the Dems did under Obama was compromise form the start. I don't think I'm alone in being frustrated by Obama's pre-compromise on healthcare. He negotiated against himself and paid for it.
The GOP are masters of projection. They know they'll never compromise, so they assume that any failure to reach agreement must be because the other side won't compromise either. Also, the GOP dictionary appears to define "compromise" as "give us everything we ask for".

They're also masters of the pre-emptive projected accusation: if you know you're not going to compromise, make sure to accuse the other side of not being willing to compromise first. That way, when the other side eventually points out that you're not compromising, it sounds like a tit-for-tat accusation ("You do it, TOO"), even if the initial accusation is false. People tend to have less regard for the second accusation, even if the first was completely baseless.

They also appear to have no concept of what hypocrisy actually is, and why so many people dislike it. They hear accusations of hypocrisy as "You do it, too", and, like above, give that accusation less regard. They seem to be completely unable to discern a difference between "You do it, too" and "You disparage our doing it, command us not to do it, penalize us for doing it, and then 'You do it, too'"
__________________
Knowing that we do not know, it does not necessarily follow that we can not know.
GodMark2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 10:57 PM   #2645
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
It is odd to hear GOP complaints that the Dems won't compromise when it seems like all the Dems did under Obama was compromise form the start. I don't think I'm alone in being frustrated by Obama's pre-compromise on healthcare. He negotiated against himself and paid for it.
You have to understand that "compromise" to the right wing means getting exactly what they want. Unless you are willing to give them what they want, you aren't compromising. Meeting them halfway isn't good enough.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 10:58 PM   #2646
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,146
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
It is odd to hear GOP complaints that the Dems won't compromise when it seems like all the Dems did under Obama was compromise form the start. I don't think I'm alone in being frustrated by Obama's pre-compromise on healthcare. He negotiated against himself and paid for it.
No, you're not. At all. I remember being pissed at Obama at reaching across the aisle time after time after time again only to have it slapped away.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 11:04 PM   #2647
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Well if it's that simple, why has no politician in the history of the USA ever proposed such a plan? Bernie's proposal included increased taxes on the rich. Why do that if all we have to do is use the money most of us currently pay in premiums?

Maybe it's not as simple and cheap as you might imagine.
Because a proposal of such a plan means cutting the Insurance companies out entirely and they have a strong enough lobby in Washington that there aren't any politicians that will go against them. If the money that is being spent on healthcare in the US currently was pumped into a public single payer system, there would be far more money available that would be needed, but a lot of people would lose their jobs and the Insurance companies which are all multi-million dollar companies would be dead in the water overnight. It'll take a lot of public will and political power to push that through, especially when one side is idealistically set against anything they deem to be socialism.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 06:30 AM   #2648
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,842
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Because a proposal of such a plan means cutting the Insurance companies out entirely and they have a strong enough lobby in Washington that there aren't any politicians that will go against them.
I don't think lobby money is as powerful as you think it is. It seems like the ones that actually have power have sway over voters.

The people who get the most money from X seem like people who were already inclined to favor X in the first place.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 07:12 AM   #2649
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,408
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Because a proposal of such a plan means cutting the Insurance companies out entirely
.....
Not necessarily. Many UHC systems around the world -- France, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, etc. -- rely on private insurance companies that are closely regulated, like public utilities. They still make a fair profit, but they can't gouge customers or pay execs zillon-dollar bonuses.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 07:30 AM   #2650
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,397
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Not necessarily. Many UHC systems around the world -- France, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, etc. -- rely on private insurance companies that are closely regulated, like public utilities. They still make a fair profit, but they can't gouge customers or pay execs zillon-dollar bonuses.
We certainly can't have that here.
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 07:45 AM   #2651
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,882
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
We certainly can't have that here.

Yeah, it's practically communism.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 09:21 AM   #2652
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 12,815
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Because a proposal of such a plan means cutting the Insurance companies out entirely and they have a strong enough lobby in Washington that there aren't any politicians that will go against them. If the money that is being spent on healthcare in the US currently was pumped into a public single payer system, there would be far more money available that would be needed, but a lot of people would lose their jobs and the Insurance companies which are all multi-million dollar companies would be dead in the water overnight. It'll take a lot of public will and political power to push that through, especially when one side is idealistically set against anything they deem to be socialism.
Here's what I don't understand: Insurance companies LOVE Medicare, because they can sell supplemental and Medicare Advantage plans but the government covers catastrophic expenses. What's wrong with that as a model?
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 09:53 AM   #2653
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Here's what I don't understand: Insurance companies LOVE Medicare, because they can sell supplemental and Medicare Advantage plans but the government covers catastrophic expenses. What's wrong with that as a model?
Depends on who you ask. If you ask traditional Conservatives, they'll point out that firstly the catastrophic coverage that Medicare provides is a taxpayer burden, and should be eliminated on principle no matter who benefits.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 03:10 PM   #2654
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
White House pressures GOP leaders on Obamacare showdown next week

Quote:
A frantic and impatient White House is pressuring House GOP leaders for another showdown vote on repealing Obamacare next week so it can notch a legislative win before President Donald Trump reaches the milestone of his first 100 days in office.

But while the outlines of a possible deal are starting to come together, it’s far from clear that House Republican leaders have found the sweet spot to pass their embattled alternative health plan.


The White House does not schedule House floor votes. And while some senior administration officials suggested Thursday that a vote will occur next week, multiple House GOP sources told POLITICO that is unlikely.

Indeed, the vote is not currently on the calendar. Nor do Republican insiders think it’s even possible, as Congress will reconvene Tuesday after a two-week Easter recess. That would leave them with one day to whip votes — an unlikely time frame for such a heavy legislative lift.

...

Trump on Thursday predicted that health care legislation would pass "next week or shortly thereafter.” During a joint news conference alongside Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, the president also took issue with the characterization that Republicans gave up on health care after they pulled the original House bill. He reminded reporters that Obamacare was roughly a year-and-half-long effort, while he said he’s only had about two months to negotiate a better deal.

But multiple House GOP insiders say the White House doesn’t understand how Congress works, and just because Trump officials say there will be a vote next week doesn’t make it so. GOP leaders cannot whip votes until legislative text is actually written, and it will be tough to get a good sense of where the conference stands until members return to town on Tuesday.



lol

Last edited by Tony Stark; 20th April 2017 at 03:12 PM.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 03:58 PM   #2655
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,265
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Why doesn't he just claim he already passed it? At least 50% of GOP voters would believe him. It's a much more plausible plan.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 04:02 PM   #2656
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,458
Lala Land.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 04:07 PM   #2657
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
So the new GOP plan would allow states to waive Obamacare's ban on charging people who have preexisting conditions more for insurance.

The following are estimates for how much it would increase premiums for those people:



Now the plan does stipulate that states that take the waiver would have to set up high risk pools for people who would be priced out of insurance. Which is fine in theory. But high risk pools are not a new idea. Some states have done them before and they were not funded nearly well enough. Most of the people that needed coverage didn't get it. People were literally dying while trying to get in the high risk pools. And for those that did get coverage, it was often to limited to pay for the care they needed.

The same thing will happen again. The states that opt to waive the ban on charging more for preexisting conditions would set up high risk pools that are very underfunded. I guess the GOP could make it mandatory that the states adequately fund them. By could, I mean theoretically possible. There is no chance in hell that they would do that.

So if you have preexisting conditions and buy an individual plan because you're self employed or something, the GOP is perfectly fine with making the insurance so expensive you couldn't afford it. If you die as a result, tough crap, should have thought about that before you decided to be sick and not rich.

Anyway, I doubt this new plan will pass the House. If it does, it will be just barely. Then it would be DOA at the Senate. I'm not even sure if Senate reconciliation rules allow for changes in regulations like that. Even if it does, I doubt it could pass a vote there. Either the whole bill would die in the Senate or they would rewrite it to the point that it wouldn't be able to pass the House. Not just because of the preexisting conditions thing. There are also Republican Senators that are opposed to eliminating Medicaid expansion.

Last edited by Tony Stark; 20th April 2017 at 04:10 PM.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 04:10 PM   #2658
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,290
I suspect that any sane Republican would want to avoid re-initiating the Obamacare debate at any cost. Virtually any such discussion will only further rip apart the Republican party along ideological lines, alienate one half or the other of their constituency, and is likely to produce a political and practical fiasco. Trump's ego may not be able to just let things lie, but I imagine that many of the Republicans in Congress would prefer to just move on to other things and leave the Obamacare issue in a dusty corner somewhere.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 04:18 PM   #2659
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,290
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
So the new GOP plan would allow states to waive Obamacare's ban on charging people who have preexisting conditions more for insurance.

The following are estimates for how much it would increase premiums for those people:

http://i.imgur.com/FVuaS8H.jpg?1

Now the plan does stipulate that states that take the waiver would have to set up high risk pools for people who would be priced out of insurance. Which is fine in theory. But high risk pools are not a new idea. Some states have done them before and they were not funded nearly well enough. Most of the people that needed coverage didn't get it. People were literally dying while trying to get in the high risk pools. And for those that did get coverage, it was often to limited to pay for the care they needed.

The same thing will happen again. The states that opt to waive the ban on charging more for preexisting conditions would set up high risk pools that are very underfunded. I guess the GOP could make it mandatory that the states adequately fund them. By could, I mean theoretically possible. There is no chance in hell that they would do that.

So if you have preexisting conditions and buy an individual plan because you're self employed or something, the GOP is perfectly fine with making the insurance so expensive you couldn't afford it. If you die as a result, tough crap, should have thought about that before you decided to be sick and not rich.

Anyway, I doubt this new plan will pass the House. If it does, it will be just barely. Then it would be DOA at the Senate. I'm not even sure if Senate reconciliation rules allow for changes in regulations like that. Even if it does, I doubt it could pass a vote there. Either the whole bill would die in the Senate or they would rewrite it to the point that it wouldn't be able to pass the House. Not just because of the preexisting conditions thing. There are also Republican Senators that are opposed to eliminating Medicaid expansion.
Why would they even seek to target one of the very most popular (and humane) aspects of Obamacare? Most people understand just how crucial the coverage of pre-existing conditions is to their own health and medical care. As I've posted before, should my own circumstances change and I lose my current health insurance, I am a dead man. My "pre-existing" condition requires continued fairly expensive healthcare, but would disqualify me from obtaining a new insurance policy (or, as here, subject me to a surcharge that essentially means the same thing). So after many years of dutifully paying high health insurance premiums, I would be left with the decision of bankrupting my family or refusing treatment and dying quickly but cheaply. Wonderful!

Last edited by Giordano; 20th April 2017 at 04:19 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 04:47 PM   #2660
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Why would they even seek to target one of the very most popular (and humane) aspects of Obamacare? Most people understand just how crucial the coverage of pre-existing conditions is to their own health and medical care. As I've posted before, should my own circumstances change and I lose my current health insurance, I am a dead man. My "pre-existing" condition requires continued fairly expensive healthcare, but would disqualify me from obtaining a new insurance policy (or, as here, subject me to a surcharge that essentially means the same thing). So after many years of dutifully paying high health insurance premiums, I would be left with the decision of bankrupting my family or refusing treatment and dying quickly but cheaply. Wonderful!
Well the premiums for healthy people like me would probably drop a little. I guess that's worth your life to Republicans.

Anyway, Republicans should be glad that they probably can't pass their plan. A president that most Americans don't like passing an extremely unpopular bill that would hurt tens of millions of people is a terrible move politically. Do they want Democrats to take back the House?

The should just forget about Obamacare. Or they could decide to do their jobs and do what most people want them to do and work with Democrats to make it better and claim victory.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 05:56 PM   #2661
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
One explanation for why the House Republicans are still working on this is because they hope they can put together a bill that will pass the House. Then it will go the Senate to die. That would allow them to save face. After all it isn't a good look for them if they are unable get enough votes for Obamacare repeal given their large majority. They could say they did all they could, it is the Senate's fault that it died.

As for why Trump is still pursuing it, well he's a moron who has no idea what he's doing or how Congress works. Also he desperately wants to win and if he has to screw over tens of millions of Americans to do it, that's fine with him. And he either doesn't understand that people would blame him personally for the consequences of his "win" or understands but doesn't care.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 06:11 PM   #2662
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,842
If the policy is let the states decide what they wish to waive, I am in favor of that. Making medicaid expansion optional has worked well. Each state house seems generally happy with their choice.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 06:16 PM   #2663
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If the policy is let the states decide what they wish to waive, I am in favor of that. Making medicaid expansion optional has worked well. Each state house seems generally happy with their choice.
Yes, lots of scumbag Republicans in red states would rather poor people go without healthcare than let Obama give it to them.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 06:17 PM   #2664
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,842
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Yes, lots of scumbag Republicans in red states would rather poor people go without healthcare than let Obama give it to them.
Yes, seems like an acceptable solution.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 06:48 PM   #2665
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Yes, seems like an acceptable solution.
The funny thing is that people in those states still have to pay for Medicaid expansion. But for people who live in better states. Money is literally flowing from crap red states into states that have accepted Medicaid expansion without the crap red states getting anything in return.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 07:01 PM   #2666
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Not necessarily. Many UHC systems around the world -- France, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, etc. -- rely on private insurance companies that are closely regulated, like public utilities. They still make a fair profit, but they can't gouge customers or pay execs zillon-dollar bonuses.
reread my posting, none of these systems is a public single payer system.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 07:06 PM   #2667
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Here's what I don't understand: Insurance companies LOVE Medicare, because they can sell supplemental and Medicare Advantage plans but the government covers catastrophic expenses. What's wrong with that as a model?
Under a single payer system this would not be able to happen though. Having Insurance covering parts of health mean that people either have to get that insurance or wait in line while those with Insurance skip to the front of the queue. You create a two tier system and that ends up harming your health system by creating longer wait times and also cutting down the amount of money funding the public system. By removing Insurance altogether and putting all that money into the public system you can avoid those pitfalls and you don't have any insurance companies undermining the public system to get bigger slices of the pie where they think it will be profitable for them, leaving the public system handling only the expensive care.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 08:13 PM   #2668
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,408
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
reread my posting, none of these systems is a public single payer system.
But for many of us, the goal is universal coverage. Single-payer is just one model that would accomplish that goal. Considering that a large percentage of Americans are accustomed to getting their health coverage through insurance companies, transitioning to an insurance-based system rather than a Medicare-for-All system might be more realistic. The ACA would have been more successful if every state had expanded Medicaid, and if a public option had been created to compete with the insurance companies.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 08:29 PM   #2669
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,408
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Here's what I don't understand: Insurance companies LOVE Medicare, because they can sell supplemental and Medicare Advantage plans but the government covers catastrophic expenses. What's wrong with that as a model?
That's not really the way Medicare works. Medicare covers specified services; supplemental and Advantage plans cover some or much of what Medicare doesn't. A traditional catastrophic plan would basically have a very high deductible that people wouldn't reach with ordinary expenses, but would kick in after a, well, catastrophe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

An ideal Medicare-for-All single-payer plan would cover everything for everybody, maybe with some income-based co-pays or deductibles.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 09:17 PM   #2670
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,146
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't think lobby money is as powerful as you think it is. It seems like the ones that actually have power have sway over voters.
That's naive. You don't think the billions that are spent on media advertising every election cycle have a very large effect? That's lobby money.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The people who get the most money from X seem like people who were already inclined to favor X in the first place.
No ****. So how did they get in office in the first place. Riiiiight. Lobby money. And they're smart enough to support those who share their views.

Politics 101, Bob: follow the money.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 09:27 PM   #2671
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,146
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
The same thing will happen again. The states that opt to waive the ban on charging more for preexisting conditions would set up high risk pools that are very underfunded. I guess the GOP could make it mandatory that the states adequately fund them. By could, I mean theoretically possible. There is no chance in hell that they would do that.
One of the common complaints from the states is that the feds pass requirements on the states but don't provide funds to meet those requirements. This, by the way, is one of the few complaints made by Republicans that I agree with. Anyway, requiring a robustly funded high risk pool by the states as part of ACA overhaul would be greeted by howls of protest from the Red states. That idea is DOA.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:22 PM   #2672
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,842
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
That's naive. You don't think the billions that are spent on media advertising every election cycle have a very large effect? That's lobby money.



No ****. So how did they get in office in the first place. Riiiiight. Lobby money. And they're smart enough to support those who share their views.

Politics 101, Bob: follow the money.
Actually, yeah, it doesn't appear political ads have much effect.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 11:14 PM   #2673
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,144
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Under a single payer system this would not be able to happen though. Having Insurance covering parts of health mean that people either have to get that insurance or wait in line while those with Insurance skip to the front of the queue. You create a two tier system and that ends up harming your health system by creating longer wait times and also cutting down the amount of money funding the public system.
Sounds like a case of perfect as the enemy of good. All of the revenue would still come in through taxes. For those willing to pay for supplemental insurance, that's not exactly fair but might satisfy the U.S. electorate. If you can pay for the privilege, you must deserve it (according to my reading of some conservatives).

Yes, single payer may be fairer overall. But if there's a suspicion that some sick people are gaming the system, this might be OK with U.S. voters. For Canadians, Kiwis etc. this would seem bad, but in the U.S., supplementary insurance would resonate with "personal responsibility" advocates.

For the sickest of the sick (IMO, anyone needing a heart, lung, kidney, pancreas, liver transplant etc.) one of the main problem is not cost but the availability of donors. In that case there are protocols in place - not who "deserves" a transplant, but who are youngish, otherwise healthy and non-smokers. It would all be quantifiable. I don't know if there should be a different policy for someone able to pay for a kidney. It's (probably) illegal in the U.S., but some could skip the queue by paying a private donor for the kidney. AFAIK it is kidneys that are needed most. If someone's willing to part with a kidney for a price - it sounds unethical, but it might be an asset worth the risk for potential donors. A libertarian solution.

Last edited by Minoosh; 20th April 2017 at 11:16 PM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 11:17 PM   #2674
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,458
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Actually, yeah, it doesn't appear political ads have much effect.
You got any actual evidence of this revelation? Because I'm pretty sure there is overwhelming evidence said ads do have significant effect with a few exceptions.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 02:59 AM   #2675
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Political ads probably aren't that effective at the presidential level. Trump and Hillary had near universal name recognition. Hillary's ads were probably especially pointless. They mostly featured Trump saying something outrageous/offensive. But everyone already knew that Trump is a jackass. And his followers don't care or even like him more because he pisses off liberals. Hillary would have been better off using her ad money to promote herself.


But for other races where the candidates might have low and even no name recognition, I'm sure they ads help.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 05:26 AM   #2676
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,842
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You got any actual evidence of this revelation? Because I'm pretty sure there is overwhelming evidence said ads do have significant effect with a few exceptions.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...-flurry-of-ads

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ical-ads-work/

The first few links that come up when googling the question all say inconclusive or shockingly small effect.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 11:20 AM   #2677
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,227
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
That's not really the way Medicare works. Medicare covers specified services; supplemental and Advantage plans cover some or much of what Medicare doesn't. A traditional catastrophic plan would basically have a very high deductible that people wouldn't reach with ordinary expenses, but would kick in after a, well, catastrophe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

An ideal Medicare-for-All single-payer plan would cover everything for everybody, maybe with some income-based co-pays or deductibles.
That's not quite right.

Medicare Advantage is a Medicare replacement plan through a private payer; you don't have traditional Medicare anymore. Medicare then pays the private payer to cover exactly what Medicare covers and the private payer keeps the difference between funding and spending as profit. You pay your regular Medicare premiums and perhaps an additional premium depending on the plan. Advantage plans cover the same thing as Medicare and often include a Part D component as well for prescription drugs as well as additional services that Medicare doesn't cover like: wellness, education and other benefits like nursing home coverage. You might still have the deductibles and coinsurance as you would with Medicare but they may be less, usually in exchange for a higher monthly premium. There are a wide variety of plans and they usually limit the doctors you can see because they contract with doctors to accept their fees and rules.

Medigap, or supplemental insurance, is a secondary insurance that covers deductibles and coinsurance and that's it. These plans are defined by law and must offer certain benefits depending on the plan you choose. They don't cover anything medicare doesn't cover.

There are also situations where you have a secondary insurance that is not a Medigap plan: Tricare for life, retiree health benefits, etc. In that case you don't need a Medigap plan and an Advantage plan may not help you much.

None of these is a catastrophic model. I would love to see a nationwide catastrophic model. Make everyone buy a government-issued/regulated catastrophic plan that fits their budget. Everyone pays their routine care but then are covered in case of a medical catastrophe.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 21st April 2017 at 11:21 AM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 07:19 PM   #2678
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But for many of us, the goal is universal coverage. Single-payer is just one model that would accomplish that goal. Considering that a large percentage of Americans are accustomed to getting their health coverage through insurance companies, transitioning to an insurance-based system rather than a Medicare-for-All system might be more realistic. The ACA would have been more successful if every state had expanded Medicaid, and if a public option had been created to compete with the insurance companies.
Which all had pretty much nothing to do with the conversation that was occurring.

The question was "Why do no politicians promote the option of using the medical insurance premiums paid out now instead of increasing taxes to pay for a UHC?" The answer is that this would require going to Public Single Payer and banning Health Insurance totally and no one has the political clout to do that. You can't have Health Insurance in a system where the premiums people are paying now go to the Single Payer as a Tax, or you are increasing the overall cost of Healthcare, which was what the conversation was about avoiding.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 07:21 PM   #2679
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Sounds like a case of perfect as the enemy of good. All of the revenue would still come in through taxes. For those willing to pay for supplemental insurance, that's not exactly fair but might satisfy the U.S. electorate. If you can pay for the privilege, you must deserve it (according to my reading of some conservatives).

Yes, single payer may be fairer overall. But if there's a suspicion that some sick people are gaming the system, this might be OK with U.S. voters. For Canadians, Kiwis etc. this would seem bad, but in the U.S., supplementary insurance would resonate with "personal responsibility" advocates.

For the sickest of the sick (IMO, anyone needing a heart, lung, kidney, pancreas, liver transplant etc.) one of the main problem is not cost but the availability of donors. In that case there are protocols in place - not who "deserves" a transplant, but who are youngish, otherwise healthy and non-smokers. It would all be quantifiable. I don't know if there should be a different policy for someone able to pay for a kidney. It's (probably) illegal in the U.S., but some could skip the queue by paying a private donor for the kidney. AFAIK it is kidneys that are needed most. If someone's willing to part with a kidney for a price - it sounds unethical, but it might be an asset worth the risk for potential donors. A libertarian solution.
As noted in the post above, the original conversation was about moving the premiums from the Insurance companies to the Government to avoid increasing healthcare spending and why it couldn't be don't. Having those premiums go to the Singer Payer and still having Health Insurance on top increases overall Healthcare spending and defeats the purpose of the original question.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 07:45 PM   #2680
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,458
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
An opinion piece on a single election sorely lacking in sources.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
From the link:
Quote:
Though noteworthy, this study did not settle the debate. The research analyzed was limited to surveys and laboratory experiments, both of which have drawbacks.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The first few links that come up when googling the question all say inconclusive or shockingly small effect.
Maybe you should have actually read them.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.