mr6666

Healthcare in America?

696 posts in this topic

Nothing's gonna help Americans - sure as hell not anything backed by Republicans.

 

The Affordable Care Act enacted during Obama's presidency is failing because it was way too little for America's health care problems and the corporate co-operation, now that they've taken all the profits out they possibly can, is being pulled out from under it.

 

Until single payer becomes the established health care system, you're all screwed. Except the wealthy, of course.

 

Screwed 7 ways to Sunday.crazy_mini.gif

 

smg5ro.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing's gonna help Americans - sure as hell not anything backed by Republicans.

 

The Affordable Care Act enacted during Obama's presidency is failing because it was way too little for America's health care problems and the corporate co-operation, now that they've taken all the profits out they possibly can, is being pulled out from under it.

 

Until single payer becomes the established health care system, you're all screwed. Except the wealthy, of course.

I don't see it entirely that way.  The affordable Care Act's biggest problem is misleading rhetoric.  But MY biggest disappointment was......

 

When Obama menntioned "health care reform", I was hoping for something else.  Maybe an investigation into how doctors and hospitals file claims to health care insurance companies, or the trend to "gouge" with outlandish fees for relatively simple, routine proceedures.  Like the hospital that charged my brother-in-law's insurance $400 for "dispensing of medicine" when he went to a local ER from work for a work related injury.  They gave him ONE Motrin 800( which he had plenty of at home) and a shotglass sized dose of Maalox.  $400!!  And he at first refused the Motrin saying he had plenty at home, and the hospital refused to "officially" discharge him if he didn't take it, and charge HIM for the entire visit.

 

Now, doing something about THAT kind of crap is what I was hoping for when I heard "Healthcare reform".

 

And, BTW----Me and thousands of other GM, FORD and FCA (and UAW) retirees DIDN'T lose our already established healthcare coverage due to the Affordable Care Act.  That's just right-wing election year "scare tactic" rhetoric.  At least, others I know who AREN'T UAW retirees didn't lose the coverage they had before "Obamacare" either.  I don't know anyone who has.

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 the fact that egocentric obama rammed the aca down america's throat with or without a broad public concensus.

did he really do it for the american people or just to exalt his ego in his own mind? I think the latter. I really do...

 

when is he gonna get those hostages out of iran? :huh:

What a really STUPID statement. The ACA was legislation that went through both houses of Congress, it took over a year of debate and endless compromising  to create it (with the entire Republican membership offering up NO alternative  legislation, all they did was oppose anything being done).  There is NO such thing as "Obama Care".  Obama  did not create it,  he only signed the finished product into law.  The "Obama Care" term was created by the right wing  racists to create a back lash against any attempts  at reforming health care abuses by the private sectors that run the system.  The short comings of the Affordable Health Care Act are due to the endless amount of concessions made to Republicans during the legislative progress. Right from the beginning Republicans absolutely refused to even let a single payer system be part of the debate. Obama and Democrats should have insisted that single payer at least be discussed. What where Republicans  afraid of, an honest, open discussion?  Remember all of those planted stooges who went to the town hall meetings to shout down and intimidate everyone else?  As for  "ramming"  legislation  down the public's throat  all one has to do is remember the so called "Patriot Act" that Bush, Chaney, and their thugs forced upon us without anytime for examination or discussion. Gee, I wonder if Bin Laden would still be running  loose if Obama hadn't been elected President? Bush, Chaney and company had about seven years with no success. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a really STUPID statement. The ACA was legislation that went through both houses of Congress, it took over a year of debate and endless compromising  to create it (with the entire Republican membership offering up NO alternative  legislation, all they did was oppose anything being done).  There is NO such thing as "Obama Care".  Obama  did not create it,  he only signed the finished product into law.  The "Obama Care" term was created by the right wing  racists to create a back lash against any attempts  at reforming health care abuses by the private sectors that run the system.  The short comings of the Affordable Health Care Act are due to the endless amount of concessions made to Republicans during the legislative progress. Right from the beginning Republicans absolutely refused to even let a single payer system be part of the debate. Obama and Democrats should have insisted that single payer at least be discussed. What where Republicans  afraid of, an honest, open discussion?  Remember all of those planted stooges who went to the town hall meetings to shout down and intimidate everyone else?  As for  "ramming"  legislation  down the public's throat  all one has to do is remember the so called "Patriot Act" that Bush, Chaney, and their thugs forced upon us without anytime for examination or discussion. Gee, I wonder if Bin Laden would still be running  loose if Obama hadn't been elected President? Bush, Chaney and company had about seven years with no success. 

 

I agree.     The ACA was supported by a majority of the members in the House and Senate at the time of its passing,   just like additional gun control reform is NOT supported by a majority of the members today.      I link these two issues since they will both be key issues voters should consider in 2016.   e.g. do they now wish to repeal parts of the ACA?   Do they want additional gun control laws at the Fed level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scumbag Shkreli's appearance before Congress......

 

Shkreli: "On the advice of counsel, I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question."

 

"...he is also a self-made celebrity, thanks to a business plan that makes it harder for us to ignore the incoherence and inefficiency of our medical industry."

 

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/everyone-hates-martin-shkreli-everyone-is-missing-the-point?smid=fb-nytupshot&smtyp=cur

 

Martin-Shkreli.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A group of more than 2,000 physicians has released a paper calling for the establishment of a universal government-run healthcare system in the U.S.

 

The Guardian reports:

According to the proposal released Thursday, the Affordable Care Act did not go far enough in removing barriers to healthcare access. The physicians’ bold plan calls for implementing a single-payer system similar to Canada’s, called the National Health Program, that would guarantee all residents healthcare.

The new single-payer system would be funded mostly by existing US government funding....."

 

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/we_need_fundamental_changes_thousands_of_us_20160506

 

& http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/05/us-doctors-calling-universal-healthcare-system-affordable-care-act

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doctors’ Single-Payer Prescription for Health Care Reform--

 

"The alternative we and our colleagues developed (which has now been endorsed by 2,227 other physician colleagues) appears in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health. It calls for radical change: a single-payer national health program, essentially an expanded and improved version of Medicare for all, much along the lines that Bernie Sanders has advocated.

 

The single-payer plan we propose would cover everyone for all medically necessary care — including dental care, prescription drugs and long-term care — without copayments or deductibles. In contrast to private insurers’ narrow networks that restrict patients’ choice of doctors and hospitals, the single payer would cover care from any doctor or hospital...."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steffie-woolhandler/doctors-singlepayer-presc_b_10023842.html

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that people don't really care about their health or they wouldn't smoke, drink, take drugs or do high risk stuff like.....

 

tommycaldwellfacebook_1420930794582_1234

 

(unless he thinks Spock with rocket boots will catch him) :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A group of more than 2,000 physicians has released a paper calling for the establishment of a universal government-run healthcare system in the U.S.

 

The Guardian reports:

According to the proposal released Thursday, the Affordable Care Act did not go far enough in removing barriers to healthcare access. The physicians’ bold plan calls for implementing a single-payer system similar to Canada’s, called the National Health Program, that would guarantee all residents healthcare.

The new single-payer system would be funded mostly by existing US government funding....."

 

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/we_need_fundamental_changes_thousands_of_us_20160506

 

& http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/05/us-doctors-calling-universal-healthcare-system-affordable-care-act

 

Our PM Justin Trudeau is highlighting this while in Japan trying to encourage their auto industry to set up in Canada instead of the Untied States.  It seems that costs are significantly less for employers because of the health system we enjoy.

Someone parroted the media hype to me and called Sanders health program "radical."  I then reminded them that this "radical" proposal is no different from what we have had in Canada and Britain for over 50 years now.  My flat rate Provincial health tax for the year is just over $300 Canadian.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our PM Justin Trudeau is highlighting this while in Japan trying to encourage their auto industry to set up in Canada instead of the Untied States.  It seems that costs are significantly less for employers because of the health system we enjoy.

Someone parroted the media hype to me and called Sanders health program "radical."  I then reminded to them that this "radical" proposal is no different from what we have had in Canada and Britain for over 50 years now.  My flat rate Provincial health tax for the year is just over $300 Canadian.  

For auto industry, the attraction in US is mainly in the South where we have anti-union/anti-worker governments and super low taxes.  Not to mention millions in development funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For auto industry, the attraction in US is mainly in the South where we have anti-union/anti-worker governments and super low taxes.  Not to mention millions in development funding.

 

The point that I was trying to make is that the single payer health system that Sanders is proposing is not a drain on business but a boost to it.

And let's face it.  How many employers are even going to have health insurance going forward?  That is a thing of the past.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point that I was trying to make is that the single payer health system that Sanders is proposing is not a drain on business but a boost to it.

And let's face it.  How many employers are even going to have health insurance going forward?  That is a thing of the past.

The problem with Sanders' proposal is that it is totally unfundable with the plan he proposed.

I agree that more and more businesses and governments will eliminate health care in the future.  Sort of makes you wonder why businesses aren't more supportive of Affordable Care Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Sanders' proposal is that it is totally unfundable with the plan he proposed.

I agree that more and more businesses and governments will eliminate health care in the future.  Sort of makes you wonder why businesses aren't more supportive of Affordable Care Act.

 

I doubt Sanders would agree that it is unfundable.  But it may be a moot point anyway.  Just like arguing for national gun control laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The new single-payer system would be funded mostly by existing US government funding. The physicians point out that the US government already pays for two-thirds of all healthcare spending in the US, and a single-payer system would cut down on administrative costs, so a transition to a single-payer system would not require significant additional spending...."

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/05/us-doctors-calling-universal-healthcare-system-affordable-care-act

 

Could Universal Health Care Save U.S. Taxpayers Money?
Despite popular perceptions, countries with universal health coverage spend less....

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/22/could-universal-health-care-save-us-taxpayers-money

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"The new single-payer system would be funded mostly by existing US government funding. The physicians point out that the US government already pays for two-thirds of all healthcare spending in the US, and a single-payer system would cut down on administrative costs, so a transition to a single-payer system would not require significant additional spending...."

 

 

Could Universal Health Care Save U.S. Taxpayers Money?
Despite popular perceptions, countries with universal health coverage spend less....

 

 

 

Not a fan of a single-payer government run system.   The government does a poor job running Medicare; e.g.  they are way behind private insurance carriers when it comes to fraud detection.    

 

Instead I support a Swiss type system;  NON profit private insurance companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of a single-payer government run system.   The government does a poor job running Medicare; e.g.  they are way behind private insurance carriers when it comes to fraud detection.    

 

Instead I support a Swiss type system;  NON profit private insurance companies.

I've come to believe there are very few non-profits.  While hospitals and charities may not make a "profit," the people who run them and manage them make enormous salaries and benefits.  Of course there are a few that really are non-profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've come to believe there are very few non-profits.  While hospitals and charities may not make a "profit," the people who run them and manage them make enormous salaries and benefits.  Of course there are a few that really are non-profit.

 

The government can cap the salaries and benefits for these non-profit insurance carriers as part of the requirements for joining the underwriting pool.     There should also be periodic audits by third party accounting firms. 

 

Also,  while government salaries tend to be lower for the highest paid employees (management) many government run organizations o over hire or have many more mid-level management staff then 'required'.   Therefore in the aggregate the salary cost are just as high if not higher.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government can cap the salaries and benefits for these non-profit insurance carriers as part of the requirements for joining the underwriting pool.     There should also be periodic audits by third party accounting firms. 

 

Also,  while government salaries tend to be lower for the highest paid employees (management) many government run organizations o over hire or have many more mid-level management staff then 'required'.   Therefore in the aggregate the salary cost are just as high if not higher.   

Not speaking of staffing costs per se, but rather the attitude of senior management of some non-profits.  If they receive very lucrative salaries, benefits and bonuses, do they become more focused on making money for the organization than serving the people?  

Caping salaries for non-profit insurance carriers would be impractical.  The basis is that the private insurance industry is going to create the non-profit carriers (or become non-profits?).  Would the actual insurance company cap the salaries of its CEO and vast army of managers?  No.   How many companies would then participate?  Very few.

Don't have a lot of reliance in third party accounting firms either.  They know who hires them - not the government, but the companies they audit.  The government also has a poor track record of hiring "independent" auditors and evaluators.

The trend in government now is to privatize by contracting with private, for-profit companies.  I don't see that changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not speaking of staffing costs per se, but rather the attitude of senior management of some non-profits.  If they receive very lucrative salaries, benefits and bonuses, do they become more focused on making money for the organization than serving the people?  

Caping salaries for non-profit insurance carriers would be impractical.  The basis is that the private insurance industry is going to create the non-profit carriers (or become non-profits?).  Would the actual insurance company cap the salaries of its CEO and vast army of managers?  No.   How many companies would then participate?  Very few.

Don't have a lot of reliance in third party accounting firms either.  They know who hires them - not the government, but the companies they audit.  The government also has a poor track record of hiring "independent" auditors and evaluators.

The trend in government now is to privatize by contracting with private, for-profit companies.  I don't see that changing.

 

Being a cynic I can't disagree with your overall POV that appears to be either way we (the public) are screwed,  but based on your last sentence are you saying you like the ACA 'as is' as it relates to multiple for-profit insurance companies instead of moving to a single payer government run administrator? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a cynic I can't disagree with your overall POV that appears to be either way we (the public) are screwed,  but based on your last sentence are you saying you like the ACA 'as is' as it relates to multiple for-profit insurance companies instead of moving to a single payer government run administrator? 

In all honesty not sure.  I think the ACA serves a purpose and would be successful if the GOPers gave it a chance and the providers were properly regulated, but that is not likely.

It may be a starting point for a single payer system, but that will require a lot of objective study and America is not ready for that.  Heck, we can't even decide how to determine if kids are learning anything in school anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us