Trump and healthcare

[kscarbel2]

Associated Press  /  January 5, 2016

With the fight over health care in Congress brewing, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders took to the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon to argue against the Republican plan to repeal Obamacare.

Sanders brought with him a a poster-size print of a tweet from President-elect Donald Trump.

In the May 7, 2015, tweet, Trump said he was the first potential GOP candidate to pledge no cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — and that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee had “copied” him.

I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. Huckabee copied me.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2015

 

"Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can’t do that.”

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 8, 2015

 

Either Donald Trump lied to the American people or he's got to say that he will veto any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 4, 2017

 

"The United States of America today is the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. I believe that health care for all is a human right"

— Bernie Sanders - January 4, 2017

Earlier Wednesday, Vice President-elect Mike Pence said that the first priority of the Trump administration would be to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, and that the process will begin with a series of executive orders by Trump on their first day in the White House.

“Obamacare has failed,” Pence said after a meeting with House Republicans on Wednesday. “Now is the time to keep our promises. Step one will be to repeal Obamacare.”

 “Trump didn’t just say this in passing,” Sanders said. “He didn’t say it in the middle of the night. He didn’t say it in an interview. This was a cornerstone of his campaign. He said it over and over and over again.”

Trump, Sanders added, “has got to come forward and say clearly that [he] will veto any legislation that cuts Medicare, that cuts Medicaid or that cuts Social Security.”

.

 

[mowerman]

You know I wouldn't hire Bernie Sanders to clean my yard so I don't know what he's getting at and neither does he. Give him a box of Kleenex and send them home......bob

Oh one more thing someone otta send that misfit to a barber shop and a taler man always looks like sh*t.....Come on now......I'm just a blue-collar got better threads than that begger.... Ahahahahahahaha......bob

[kscarbel2]

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul marched to the House side of the Capitol Thursday morning, knocked on a locked door and demanded to see a copy of the House's bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, which he believed was being kept under lock and key.

Aides in the room told the senator that there was no bill to see.

"This should be an open and transparent process," Paul said. "This is being presented as if it were a national secret, as if this was a plot to invade another country, as if this were national security. That's wrong."

Paul decided to visit the House Thursday afternoon after reports surfaced that House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee were being granted an opportunity to review the current draft of the Obamacare repeal legislation and ask questions behind closed doors.

Opposed to the House legislation's principles, Paul said he wanted to see the bill himself.

"I'm not allowed to read the working product so I can comment on it?" he asked.

.

 

[kscarbel2]

 

[RowdyRebel]

"Rights" do not require the actions of others in order for you to exercise them. Speech (nobody HAS to listen to you). Press (nobody HAS to read your publications). Keep & Bear Arms (nobody HAS to buy them for you). Etc., etc., etc...

Involuntary servitude was outlawed by the Constitution by the 13th Amendment, which is what doctors MUST do IF their service is somehow considered a "Right" held by everybody else. You don't have the RIGHT to MY services any more than I have the RIGHT to YOUR services. It doesn't matter if I am a truck driver, banker, mason, blacksmith, proprietor of a store...or even a doctor. If I provide a service you need, you STILL do not have the RIGHT to force me to perform that service for you. You may ASK, and offering proper and fair compensation will likely convince me to help, but MY service is NOT a RIGHT you are entitled to have.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Rowdy, nobody was even requesting your medical services...

[RowdyRebel]

I'm not a doctor. If I was, though, should I be FORCED to offer my time and services free of charge just because that service is deemed to be "vital"? What's next? Everybody needs food, so should farmers be forced to give away their crops, beef, pork, and poultry? Should truckers haul those commodities pro-bono as well because it is "required for life"? What about grocery stores and restaurants? Should they be required to let anybody who is hungry walk out of their doors with full bellies without paying?

Doctors spend years going to college, medical school, completing their residency...requiring tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to be paid (or borrowed) in order to acquire the knowledge and experience necessary to perform their craft. Who are you to say they shouldn't be justly compensated?

Just because you WANT something, or even because you think you NEED it, does NOT mean you have the RIGHT to it...especially when it comes at the expense of another. It isn't a right when somebody else is required to provide it to you.

[kscarbel2]

It's embarrassing that in the year 2017, the greatest country on earth does not provide national health care. Instead, we enjoy the highest prices for health care in the world.

Sweden has national health care and it works great. 

Even China has national health care.

In other countries, the cost of an MRI is just a fraction of that in the US, with the latest equipment. Rather than paying US$3500, you pay $120.

The entire U.S. health and pharmaceutical industries is a government-supported scam. Most who has spent time overseas know what I am speaking of.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

After wages, health care is usually the biggest labor cost for employers, and that cost is making it hard for them to compete with foreign competitors. In Canada, Japan, Europe, etc. health care isn't even an issue.

[kscarbel2]

 

[RowdyRebel]

No, what is embarrassing is the fact that grown-a** adults think somebody else ought to have to pay for their health care so that they don't have to make the difficult choices that might otherwise be necessary to find room in their budget.

What is embarrassing is the fact that NOBODY in the health care industry can tell you what anything ACTUALLY costs! Makes it difficult for a consumer to comparison shop when nobody can tell you what you'll be billed until AFTER the fact. We got here because the consumer has been so far removed from the payment process that they simply don't care. They pay their $20 co-pay and "insurance" covers the rest. I put "insurance" in quotes, because insurance it is NOT! Preventive care? Maintenance type stuff like regular checkups? Why is insurance expected to pay for that? Does your car insurance cover tire rotations and tune-ups? Car washes? Oil changes? Fuel-ups? No! If it DID cover those things, you'd be crying about how unaffordable car insurance was. Try wrapping your car around a tree...and then finding a policy that covers that "pre-existing condition".  Or perhaps wait until your home is fully engulfed in flames to buy a homeowners insurance policy that covers the "pre-existing condition".  Again, NOT insurance...but that's what you expect from your health insurance. 

What is embarrassing is all of the extra, useless coverages I have to buy because somebody in government thinks I ought to have it...which unnecessarily increases the cost of the insurance. Why should I pay for drug rehab coverage when I have never taken drugs, and other than antibiotics prescribed by a doctor, I don't take drugs of any kind (not even tylenol for a headache). As a responsible adult, I ought to have the option to pay for the coverages I want, and opt out of coverages for which I have no need.

What is embarrassing is the number of people who allow the federal government to tell them they MUST buy a specific product, whether they need it or not, or pay a financial penalty. Nowhere in the Constitution did "We the People" grant that power to the federal government. How sovereign is the individual when the government claims this sort of power over them? Not very! Our government was founded upon the principal that the individual IS the sovereign entity with certain unalienable Rights endowed by our Creator. The individual yields certain specific powers to the different levels of government. These powers are spelled out clearly in charters (village, city, county) and constitutions (state, federal)...generally gathering power to do collectively that which is unreasonable or impossible for individuals to accomplish independently (i.e. national security). Where the private life of the individual are concerned, the government has no power to intervene.

What is embarrassing is the fact that all of these other nations, who cut their military budgets to almost nothing in order to pay for this socialist crap, know WE'LL be there to defend them if they need protection. Who's left to protect US if we do the same? I don't trust the government to protect my home, and I sure as hell don't trust the UN or any other "world body" to protect my country. Like they say, "When seconds matter, the police are minutes away".

I have NEVER found freedom to be embarrassing, though. Arguing in favor of government-mandated/government-run/one-size-fits-all healthcare is arguing AGAINST freedom. The individual needs to have the choice in whether or not to buy, what coverages to buy or reject, and whatever limits and deductibles the individual decides to be best for their own situation. Anything else, and the government is treating the individual as incompetent in making those decisions...and THAT is also embarrassing.

[kscarbel2]

Replacement healthcare plan would cost poor and older people the most

The Guardian  /  March 7, 2017

GOP Obamacare replacement bill’s key provisions include cuts to Medicaid and leeway for insurance companies to charge older Americans five times more

House Republicans unveiled their long-promised plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, on Monday. And though Donald Trump promised Americans increased access and lower costs, many would in fact get the opposite.

Some of the bill’s key provisions include cuts to one of America’s largest social safety nets, Medicaid; less generous tax credits for individuals who buy insurance on the open market; and the undoing of incentives for younger Americans to buy health insurance.

To those proposals, add leeway for insurance companies to charge older Americans more, the end of taxes on pharmaceuticals and tanning beds and a 30% penalty for anyone who has a gap in insurance coverage. Many Republicans argue these proposals would help get the federal government out of the way of the market, and drive down prices by increasing competition.

What it would all mean for Americans’ pocketbooks is still coming into focus, but if the bill is passed into law, some effects are clear.

Older Americans are likely to pay more

The proposal introduced by Republicans would allow insurance companies to charge older adults five times what they charge the young. Analysts call this an “age band”. At the same time, the bill would reduce subsidies to all Americans, distributing them by age to everyone who earns less than $75,000 a year individually or $150,000 for a couple.

That may sound like a philosophical difference, until you get into the arithmetic. Young Americans would be eligible for up to $2,000 in tax credits, and older Americans would get double, topping out at $4,000. But with just twice the tax credit, and up to five times the charges from insurance companies, older adults could be left to foot the bill.

So would the poor

Republicans have long sought to upend Medicaid, the government program that provides free or low-cost healthcare to the poor. This bill would accomplish just that. Proposals in the bill would give less incentive to states to cover people by limiting the federal contribution.

The law would transform the current system from an open-ended entitlement to a per capita block grant (stick with me here!). Medicaid relies on the federal government and states splitting the bill. Currently, the federal government pays a percentage of the Medicaid tab, no matter how big or small. This allows the program to be flexible in times of economic turmoil, when more people come on to the rolls.

But Republican changes to the ACA would transform Medicaid into a system that pays states based on the number of people in the system in 2016, even if more people become eligible for Medicaid in subsequent years. Critics say that would leave states with the bill if a wave of people become newly eligible for Medicaid, such as during a recession. That could lead states to cut services, enrollment or both.

It would also roll back the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid by 2020. The ACA paid states to expand Medicaid, with the federal government picking up 90% of the bill. That led to 15 million more Americans gaining insurance, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Thirty-two states, including 16 with Republican governors, expanded Medicaid. Starting in 2020, the federal government will no longer pay for new people to join the expansion group.

(House speaker Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin pioneered a partial Medicaid expansion in 2008 before the ACA was in place. If you live in Wisconsin, you can get “Badgercare”, which the state pays for.)

One last Medicaid provision – if you win the lottery, you can’t have it. A provision in the Republican bill bars jackpot winners from getting the public insurance program. We’re not sure how many people this applies to, but call us if you are one of them (seriously).

For people who don’t qualify for Medicaid, and don’t get insurance through their employer, individual subsidies will be smaller. One analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that a 27-year-old earning $20,000 a year in Mobile, Alabama, would receive $4,522 in subsidies under the ACA. But the same individual would only receive $2,000 under the current Republican proposal, leaving that person to make up a $2,522 shortfall.

The unemployed could pay more, too

Republicans proposed adding a 30% surcharge in premiums to anyone who loses insurance coverage for more than two months. So, if you suddenly lost your job, and were looking for insurance on the individual marketplace, you would need to find it within two months to avoid this penalty, despite having a reduced subsidy to buy it.

Remember how we said you might pay more?

It won’t be just because the subsidies Republicans are providing are lower. The actions taken in this bill – eliminating the individual mandate and keeping insurance protections – could actually increase your insurance costs.

How? By removing the incentive for younger people to purchase insurance, as well as some of their ability to do so with smaller tax credits, Republicans abandon the Democratic ideal of covering all Americans.

Insurance works by requiring people to buy it when they’re healthy to protect them in the event that they get sick. If people only sign up for insurance when they’re sick, it’s much more expensive for everyone, not just the sick people signing up. Republicans argue their plan will increase competition, blunting the impacts that segmenting risk might have.

Here’s where we know less. Bills like this one usually receive a score from the Congressional Budget Office, essentially an assessment of its impacts and costs, which would predict effects on insurance premiums, coverage and even the federal debt. But because the proposal is so new, the CBO (and most analysts) have not scored it yet. That makes it difficult to predict how it could affect the health system.

However, when the Congressional Budget Office assessed a different Republican plan, where Republicans hoped to remove more ACA provisions including the so-called individual mandate, it predicted insurance premiums would increase by a staggering 25% in one year and that they could be expected to double in 10 years.

Speaking of years from now …

The Republicans want to delay enactment of their plan until 2020. Guess when that falls?

If you guessed after the midterm elections, you would be right.

[kscarbel2]

2 minutes ago, RowdyRebel said:

I have NEVER found freedom to be embarrassing, though. Arguing in favor of government-mandated/government-run/one-size-fits-all healthcare is arguing AGAINST freedom. The individual needs to have the choice in whether or not to buy, what coverages to buy or reject, and whatever limits and deductibles the individual decides to be best for their own situation. Anything else, and the government is treating the individual as incompetent in making those decisions...and THAT is also embarrassing.

Freedom...........national health care........???

Um, you do have a choice. You are not required to use national health care. Most do however, because it works very well.

[Keith Pommerening]

1 hour ago, kscarbel2 said:

Freedom...........national health care........???

Um, you do have a choice. You are not required to use national health care. Most do however, because it works very well.

I don't think so.  They use it because some one else is paying for it.  I wouldn't care how much the fuel I use costs, if you were paying for it.  Were in the Constitution or Bill Of Rights does it say you have to pay for my health care?  I have many more wants and needs that I think you should pay for...

[kscarbel2]

Yes Keith, the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't say anything about healthcare, a concept unknown to them in 1776.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't say that you have to pay for U.S. streets and schools and around $50 billion in foreign aid. You may not own a car, or have children, but you pay for streets and schools.

Believe me, I myself would like nothing more than to have citizens provide financial support only for the services they use (government and armed forces costs covered by all).

Are you satisfied with the cost level of medical care and medicine in the US?

 

 

[RowdyRebel]

2 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

Freedom...........national health care........???

Um, you do have a choice. You are not required to use national health care. Most do however, because it works very well.

No, under the current law you do NOT have the choice. You either pay through the nose for an outrageously unaffordable policy that doesn't even come close to what a person might want or need...or pay a confiscatory fine to the government. If we were really free, we would not be penalized for choosing NOT to buy insurance, we could buy as much or as little as we decide we need, and it wouldn't be any concern of anybody in government as to whether or not and to what extent anybody is insured.

[kscarbel2]

6 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

No, under the current law you do NOT have the choice. You either pay through the nose for an outrageously unaffordable policy that doesn't even come close to what a person might want or need...or pay a confiscatory fine to the government. If we were really free, we would not be penalized for choosing NOT to buy insurance, we could buy as much or as little as we decide we need, and it wouldn't be any concern of anybody in government as to whether or not and to what extent anybody is insured.

I'm sorry. You misunderstood me. I wrote:

It's embarrassing that in the year 2017, the greatest country on earth does not provide national health care. Instead, we enjoy the highest prices for health care in the world.

Sweden has national health care and it works great. 

Even China has national health care.

In other countries, the cost of an MRI is just a fraction of that in the US, with the latest equipment. Rather than paying US$3500, you pay $120.

The entire U.S. health and pharmaceutical industries is a government-supported scam. Most who has spent time overseas know what I am speaking of.

Which is to say, the U.S. does not offer national health care, and I was speaking of other countries that do.

[Keith Pommerening]

Guess I do not understand that comment,  Most of the countries with the "GREAT" government healthcare have taxes that are extreme.  Our healthcare was too expensive to start with but went absolutely nuts when the gooberment stepped in to save us!  Now you want to give them total control and make it FREE. Really!  Look at their track record with every thing they touch,  Well at least they are consistent, they screw everything up.  I see more and more programs that usher government services into everyday functions,  For instance we have Head Start programs, they weren't  enough,  Now we have Early Head Start, now we really need Extra Early Baby Head Start.  Let's get everyone on the gooberment teat earlier and show them how much they need assistance for everything from Uncle Sam.  Maybe if you keep having kids and can't afford them, if you can't feed them, if you cant teach them a b c's, can't teach them how to count, can't potty train them, can't teach them how to....   We need more government indoctrination camps for the hapless masses.  People need newer and better cell phone and services packages paid for by taxpayers in addition to givenment healthcare.  It's not fair to offer less.

 

[kscarbel2]

Like the mattress industry, healthcare and pharmaceuticals has for decades in the US been a scam. The margins earned can be fairly called criminal.

As far as Head Start*, I know nothing about its success/history. But I would say, it's generally better to solve the cause of a problem than to spend money supporting the problem.

* Head Start is a program of the United States Department of Health and Human Services that provides comprehensive early childhood education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to low-income children and their families.

[RowdyRebel]

...and just HOW do those "great" countries pay for national health care? Confiscatory tax rates, and cutting out "unnecessary" budget items such as defense (because the good ol' USA will be there to pick up the slack).

Tell you what. If you think those other countries are so "great", pick one and go there. The fact that more people come here to realize their dreams (leaving those countries you call "great") and not the other way around tells me your idea of what makes a country "great" is a little warped. I don't need a nanny state looking after me. I prefer the freedom to make my own choices to better my situation. When the state makes your decisions for you, you're stuck where you're at. Born poor? You'll die poor. Born wealthy? You'll get to keep that wealth (unless you completely screw it up). I prefer the opportunity to rise above where I'm at, even if that means risking failure. I choose freedom.

[kscarbel2]

9 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

...and just HOW do those "great" countries pay for national health care? Confiscatory tax rates, and cutting out "unnecessary" budget items such as defense (because the good ol' USA will be there to pick up the slack).

Tell you what. If you think those other countries are so "great", pick one and go there. The fact that more people come here to realize their dreams (leaving those countries you call "great") and not the other way around tells me your idea of what makes a country "great" is a little warped. I don't need a nanny state looking after me. I prefer the freedom to make my own choices to better my situation. When the state makes your decisions for you, you're stuck where you're at. Born poor? You'll die poor. Born wealthy? You'll get to keep that wealth (unless you completely screw it up). I prefer the opportunity to rise above where I'm at, even if that means risking failure. I choose freedom.

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding again. I wrote that their national health care worked great. I didn't comment on whether the countries were "great".

Sweden has national health care and it works great. 

I appreciate and respect your thoughts, but once more respectfully, I think you're out of line to tell me where I should go live.

Good day sir.

 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Unless we stop the cost inflation, the "health care" industry will destroy our U.S. economy. If you guys want to talk about freeloading, look at the way the drug companies can set their own prices for drugs will little or no effectiveness. And how about the hospitals with their new buildings and equipment and million dollar executive salaries? Then the insurance companies tack on their massive profit margins, while they make more money investing the premiums we pay them on the side. Is it any wonder that while the rest of the world's industrialized countries pay less than 10% of GDP for health care, we're paying nearly 20% and rising?

The ACA reformed the system a bit, but let the drug companies, hospitals, and insurance companies keep their massive profits. The GOP's "replacement" rearranges the deck chairs on this Titanic of a health care system a bit, mostly giving better more profitable seats to the same profiteers. The only real solution is to do what most industrialized companies did decades ago- Throttle the insurance companies profits or kick them out of the market, tell the drug companies what they'll be paid IF their drugs are actually effective, and stop the hospital building boom and cut back hospital administrator's million dollar salaries.

[RowdyRebel]

The reason health care COSTS so damn much is because NOBODY knows (or cares) what it costs. The person receiving the care isn't typically the one paying the bill. Try calling a few hospitals to get a price quote for a procedure. Pulling teeth is child's play by comparison. They don't know what it'll cost until AFTER the fact, when they bill you whatever they decide you ought to pay. Insurance companies only care that the paperwork is filed correctly, they they pay what they've decided the procedure ought to cost. The person who received the treatment doesn't care about anything more than their co-pay and deductible.

Think about it this way. If somebody else is paying for your fuel, and it doesn't affect you one way or the other what sort of mileage your car gets, are you going to care if it's getting 10 mpg vs 20? Probably not, because you aren't the one footing the bill. Even less so if the gas stations, knowing you as the driver aren't the one paying for the fuel, simply didn't post the price per gallon and wouldn't (or couldn't) tell you the actual price if you asked. They could charge $1/gallon or $10/gallon and you wouldn't know the difference because you aren't the one getting billed for it.

That's why drug companies can charge outrageous amounts for their drugs. The consumer isn't likely the one paying the bill, and the insurance company will either pay it or negotiate a different rate...using the threat of denial of coverage as leverage.

Until hospitals can tell you the price of a procedure, allowing you the consumer to shop around for the best value (encouraging FREE MARKET COMPETITION), then nothing the congress passes will do anything to curb the cost. The consumer MUST have a vested interest in controlling costs before hospitals and drug companies will ever consider pricing their products and services competitively.

...and the government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers.    Who cares if a health care corporation pays it's administrators millions of dollars per year? If they actually had to actually compete in the free market, how competitive could they hope to be with that sort of overhead? If they can't compete, they lose market share. Lose market share, and the administrators have a tough row to hoe in justifying that multi-million dollar salary. Free market wins again.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Do you really want to go shopping for emergency rooms in the middle of a heart attack? And competition... Minnesota is typical with Blues and Health Partners HMO having a near monopoly. The same two companies have most of the group market, and 3 hospital chains pretty much control that "market". It's even worse in the Dakotas and western Minnesota, with the Blues controlling most of the insurance market and just 2 hospital chains controlling that market. I'm 6 mile away from one chain's hospital, it's 20 miles to the other, and 40 miles to a competing single hospital that will probably soon be gobbled up by one of the two chains. Where's the competition?

[RowdyRebel]

Due to the regulatory climate in the health care industry, the market forces which would otherwise encourage competition haven't been allowed to work in decades. This encourages monopolies and large corporate "winners" while making it nearly impossible for anyone else to stay in business. What you're experiencing is BECAUSE government got involved picking winners and losers. So now you want to turn back to the same government that screwed things up and let them control even more? Sounds like a BRILLIANT idea!