The Trump Administration Bigotry Strikes Again With New ACA Regulations

Discussion in 'ObamaCare' started by TheProgressivePatriot, May 29, 2019.

  1. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    30,748
    Thanks Received:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +8,675
    If you want control over your own health care, over your own life, you have to pay your own way. The more you do that, the more you're in control. To the extent that someone else is paying your bills, they will be in control.

    You seem to be coming at this from the conviction that no one can pay for their own health care, and I'd ask you to really pause and consider that premise. Imagine if this were the situation with food. Let's say we regulated food to the point that the average person could no longer afford to feed themselves. In that case, should we spend our time debating whether government, or corporations, should feed people? Or should you question how we got to a place where something as fundamental as food is too expensive for the average consumer?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. TheProgressivePatriot
    Online

    TheProgressivePatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    13,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,750
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
    Ratings:
    +7,503
    Sure, pay your own way. Of course. Now all you have to do is explain how you would get doctor, hospital and drug costs down to the point where most people can afford them out of packet. I don't suppose that you would support socialized medicine?
     
  3. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    30,748
    Thanks Received:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +8,675
    If most of us start paying for most of our health care ourselves, prices will come down. There will be real demand for affordable health care. As it is, there is there's very little reason for health care providers to offer low cost care because they're successfully selling the high-cost variety.

    Last century, doctors and hospitals worked hard to arrange things so that patients never have to ask "how much?". They think of that as a good thing, but it's created spiraling costs and a dysfunctional health care market. It may be a good thing for hospitals and doctors, but has betrayed health care consumers and left them holding the bag. We now have health care that no one can afford without corporate or government "sponsorship". The game is not sustainable and it's time we pulled the plug.
     
  4. TheProgressivePatriot
    Online

    TheProgressivePatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    13,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,750
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
    Ratings:
    +7,503
    The first problem that I see is that few if any will start paying their own way unless prices come down first-so you have a chicken and egg problem.

    Secondly, the simple fact is that this is not the last century. It is the here and now. They sold snake oil back then too. The health care system is infinitely more complex now Even if health care providers wanted to lower prices, they would be severely constrained by the costs of medical equipment and supplies and drugs which the end user may have little control over since we are talking about a global market. If manufacturers can’t get their price here, they will find a place where they can get it.

    In addition, it is likely to exacerbate the already short supply of doctors in some specialties. Many will go elsewhere, or not become doctors at all. I am hard pressed to believe that the quality and availability of care would not suffer greatly, or that prices would be sufficiently reduced so that everyone could afford the care that they need- and for what? For fear and loathing of government regulations.? Even now, we don't have the best health care outcomes indicating to me that we need even more regulation and costly research, coordination and availability of care. That will not be achieved by going back to the days of Dr. Kildare or Doc Holiday.

    And do you really believe that government regulations of the industry would be unnecessary. There may no longer be insurance regulations because there is no insurance- but a whole host of other regulations would still be need from the manufacture of medical devices to the training of professionals.

    I think that you may well find that you have less-not more control over your care in terms of availability and quality. Insurers are a necessary evil, and the regulation of them is just necessary.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2019
  5. Leo123
    Offline

    Leo123 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2017
    Messages:
    5,503
    Thanks Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +4,511
    What special 'rights' do LGBT people have that other's don't?
     
  6. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    30,748
    Thanks Received:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +8,675
    Under the current setup, they don't want to. Or, rather, they have no incentive to solve these problems. And these problems can be solved. There's no sane reason why health care should be unaffordable. It's bad policy that makes it so.

    If we repeal the laws propping up the current, corrupt system - (get rid of the tax deduction for health insurance, drop laws forcing employers to provide health insurance, get rid of regulations prohibiting low cost health insurance, and, most importantly, get rid of regulations prohibiting low cost health care, etc...) and let people decide for themselves how to finance their health care, we'd find a reasonable balance.

    As it is, every vested interest has an army of lobbyists to protect their slice of the pie. Anything government tries to do with health care will be manipulated by these groups to funnel even more money in their direction. The only way to break their stranglehold is to remove their ability to control their market via the regulatory regime.

    Sadly, Republicans like the rigged system we have, and Democrats could never - ever - bring themselves to reduce regulation.
     
  7. TheProgressivePatriot
    Online

    TheProgressivePatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    13,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,750
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
    Ratings:
    +7,503
    Still sounds like a pipe dream to me. It seems that your answer is to deregulate everything and have everyone fend for themselves. Good luck with that. We all know how the free market economy works so well. I still maintain that quality and quantity of health care will suffer and it will still not be affordable.

    Let me tell you a story. I had major back surgury last year. I never saw a bill but I saw statements as to what the insurer was shelling out. Well over $1ook. Lucky for me, I had a highly skilled neuro surgeon because I might otherwise be in a wheelchair today. What do you think he would work for in your Marcus Welby fantasy land? Hell, I'm willing to be he would not even exist as a surgeon. He would have become an airline pilot or something like that. Who is going to train for 10 years at great expense and then not make good money? So feel free to pay your own way and to see who you can get to go along with you. I like my arrangement just fine.
     
  8. Dogmaphobe
    Offline

    Dogmaphobe Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Messages:
    11,964
    Thanks Received:
    2,746
    Trophy Points:
    1,095
    Location:
    Or uh gun
    Ratings:
    +16,007
    I resent paying thousands upon thousands of dollars a year for a policy that doesn't pay a thing for me so that others can have elective surgery performed on them.

    and I would say that for ANY form of elective surgery.
     
  9. emilynghiem
    Online

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,560
    Thanks Received:
    2,975
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,221
    martybegan
    SpiritualIy I think it's a karmic reaction and phase.
    There was so much discrimination, harassment and trauma against gays by Christian fundamentalists,
    since this injustice was never fully FORGIVEN (but held AGAINST Christians still blamed for it today)
    then it comes back and BOOMERANGS the other way until it is resolved.

    Instead of the LGBT forgiving the past abuses against them collectively,
    which hasn't happen because of rejection of Christianity,
    All that bad karma comes back and gets projected "onto the other side"
    in a vicious cycle of retribution from the past.

    Now the burden of Forgiveness is being pushed back on Christians.
    So the Christians are being treated the way LGBT were in the past
    so the burden is back on THAT SIDE to forgive and resolve.

    When both sides agree to forgive and stop the negative backlash
    back and forth, then this cycle will stop. Till then martybegan
    whatever backlash is still going on seems to be proportional
    to the bad karma that went down in the past. If we don't learn
    from history, we repeat it. Until we do learn to forgive and
    resolve it instead of seeking retribution back and forth.
     
  10. emilynghiem
    Online

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,560
    Thanks Received:
    2,975
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,221
    Dear TheProgressivePatriot

    The most cost effective solutions, that also bypass any political conflicts,
    are NONPROFIT cooperative structure and direct care associations. These
    empower people to own and manage their own health care programs,
    including enlisting and hiring their own doctors as one advantage of
    organizing local providers in a cost effective network. www.medcoops.net

    By creating member owned, democratically managed local coops,
    people retain free choice of which benefits to manage through
    either govt or paid retainer or indemnity/catastrophic insurance.
    So there is no need to "compete" between conflicting ideologies;
    it only takes groups of 1500 to get the same discount rates
    as nationalizing health care. So people can form their own
    groups and build in the terms they want to pay for without
    interference from other groups that can select their own terms.

    Unlike high-profit insurance or govt controlled programs that waste
    2-3 times the money on bureaucratic admin, claims and payment systems,
    organizing in local community based coops (at 6% admin with the rest paying for services)
    cuts the costs in half, including eliminating deductibles with minimum or zero copays.
    Because the money saved from paying insurance profits and marketing can go
    instead toward paying for medical care. Because this is not based on profits,
    there are no exclusions, and member owned coops mean no
    discrimination by citizenship status or by pre-existing conditions.
    Members pay for their own costs of care, not for other people's costs.

    The costs are predicted and reduced by averaging out discounts over
    pools of 1500 people concentrated by geographic region, so this
    eliminates the problems of carrying excess burdens, conditions or costs.

    SEE www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com
    This structure is what I will be proposing to Democrat and Republican
    Congress reps in Houston, to stop wasting money on political campaigns
    fighting over govt terms and conditions, set up Coops in every district
    so each party's members can organize by their own precincts to support
    2-3 coops each; and after the majority of programs are organized
    cost-effectively through local providers in each district, then the rest
    that is managed cheapest through govt can still be managed that way.
    So we can map out what venues work best for what level of services,
    and quit fighting to push "everything" into federal govt. That only works
    for some of the GENERAL levels that don't require individual choices.
    The local care is best covered by direct contracts with providers who
    agree to take medicare pricing at cost (because the coops handle direct monthly
    payments and cut out costs and losses to providers from govt bureaucracy,
    insurance claims, and nonpayment that normally jacks up prices to compensate)
    And the hospital indemnity and catastrophic insurance that covers higher expenses
    can be managed through group discounts, also without requiring legislative hassles.

    The one thing I would add through legislation is tax breaks where people
    who pay for, invest or donate to cover medical and health care "at cost"
    would get 100% tax deduction. So this would reward people and help
    create jobs managing health care development through cooperatives.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2019

Share This Page