jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (189 posts)

American Health Care Act

  1. Don W profile image80
    Don Wposted 6 months ago

    Donald Trump said he will deliver:

    - "good coverage at much less cost"
    - "a much better health care plan at much less money."

    He also said:

    - "I'm not going to leave the lower 20% that can't afford insurance."
    - "I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now."
    - "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us."

    The Congressional Budget Office says this about the American Health Care Act(1)(2):

    - ". . . in 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under the legislation than under current law"

    - ". . . the increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would rise to 21 million in 2020 and then to 24 million in 2026"

    - "In 2026, an estimated 52 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law".

    - "In 2018 and 2019, according to CBO and JCT’s estimates, average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market would be 15 percent to 20 percent higher than under current law, mainly because the individual mandate penalties would be eliminated, inducing fewer comparatively healthy people to sign up."

    - "Under the legislation, insurers would be allowed to generally charge five times more for older enrollees than younger ones rather than three times more as under current law, substantially reducing premiums for young adults and substantially raising premiums for older people."

    - "The largest costs would come from repealing . . . an increase in the Hospital Insurance payroll tax rate for high-income taxpayers, a surtax on those taxpayers’ net investment income, and annual
    fees imposed on health insurers"

    - budgetary effects will mostly come from provisions like a cap on "the growth in per-enrollee payments for most Medicaid beneficiaries to no more than the medical care component of the consumer price index starting in 2020".

    - "A reduction of $880 billion in federal outlays for Medicaid";

    It also says:

    - ". . . enacting the legislation would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the 2017-2026 period".

    - "By 2026, average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market under the legislation would be roughly 10 percent lower than under current law, CBO and JCT estimate".

    Outside of the CBO budgetary implications, the new legislation will:

    - maintain the requirement that people with existing conditions cannot be denied coverage, but only as long as they maintain continuous coverage more. If they don't and try to re-enter the market when they are sick, they can be denied coverage, or charged higher premiums.

    - continue to prohibit insurers having “lifetime limits” (a maximum on how much they will spend on a person's health care.

    - maintain dependent coverage provision

    So good news if you are a high-income taxpayer, but those tax cuts will be paid for by slashing Medicaid support. Not so good news if you are poor, an older person, or have an existing condition that causes you to lapse in your coverage. If you happen to be poor and an older person and have an existing condition etc., then I think it's bad news.

    So has Trump delivered on his promises above?

    (1) https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files … eact_0.pdf
    (2) http://docs.house.gov/meetings/WM/WM00/ … -SD005.pdf

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      My take on TrumpCare and ObamaCare:
      Neither Obamacare nor Trumpcare deal with the fundamental reasons for rising costs of health care, e.g, inefficiency of hospital and other medical care facilities; under-reliance on primary care doctors; and over-reliance on specialists who remind patients to continue making appointments as soon as they are eligible for insurance reimbursement whether needed or not or whether any issue could be dealt with by a primary care physician; for profit medicine and laboratories; over-prescribing of drugs; monopoly pricing by pharmaceutical companies and huge amounts spent on television drug advertising and lobbying; the ordering of unnecessary and sometimes harmful tests especially in cases where the testing facilities are owned by those ordering the tests. That is, in my opinion, greater emphasis is needed on the fundamental causes of excessive increases in health care costs which are much higher in the United States than in other industrialized countries and with poorer results. Single payer is the obvious best answer.

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Single payer without caps on the tax based on income is the only fair solution. Sure government inefficiencies and overages will be incurred but that will be more than made up by eliminating the corporate grab all you can see the lobbyists have made us endure in the current failures. They continue to cap SS and are now trying to eliminate it in order to get out from under their criminal mismanagement of it and rip off the rest of us who were required to pay our percentages that through our own meager incomes they made us do.

    3. Don W profile image80
      Don Wposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I don't think anyone can reasonably deny Trump has failed, so far, to deliver what he said he would on healthcare.

      Some might say Trump is not the first person to make promises while campaigning, then not deliver.

      Fair enough. But I thought Trump wasn't like other politicians. I thought he was the man who can make "deals" and get things done. If so, where's the healthcare deal that delivers "good coverage at much less cost" for "everyone"?

      And if he's such a great dealmaker, why wasn't he been able to get his own Bill through a Congress his party controls?

      Do you think there's a high possibility that it's because Trump was talking BS all along?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Perhaps he's taking a page from Obama's book and has decided it will take a second term to accomplish his goals.  At least he hasn't declared that it would in his first few days in office.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

          this may well be the best chance he will get, with a GOP dominated House and Senate. There is no guarantee that he will get a second term and even if he does, he can not be certain that he will have a GOP dominant legislature to support his agenda.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            With the amount of hate directed at one not of their own, republican OR democrat, it will remain with the people to force the issues.  We've started - do we as a nation have the fortitude to accept the inevitable consequences of a massive clean up of Congress?  Or do we want our goodies more?

            (ps - that post about a second term was supposed to be rather tongue-in-cheek)

        2. Don W profile image80
          Don Wposted 6 months ago in reply to this



          "And again, we're going to work quickly.  It’s a great bill.  We're going to have -- I really believe we're going to have tremendous support.  I’m already seeing the support -- not only in this room, I’m seeing it from everybody"(Donald Trump, March 7 2017)(1).

          "Now, we have to remember, Obamacare is collapsing and it's in bad shape.  And we're going to take action.  There's going to be no slowing down.  There's going to be no waiting and no more excuses by anybody.  We're all now, I can probably say I'm a politician.  Okay?  I am a politician. But we're going to get it done, and you're the leaders that really will get it done for all of us and for the American people"(Donald Trump, March 7 2017)(2).

          Wow, sounds like he's going to use his amazing deal-making skills to get things done. So how did it pan out?

          "Yeah, I don't know what else to say other than Obamacare's the law of the land. It's gonna remain the law of the land until it's replaced. We did not have quite the votes to replace this law. And so, yeah, we're gonna be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future"(Paul Ryan, March 25 2017)(3)

          So it was not supported by everybody, there will be slowing down, and waiting and excuses. In other words, the complete opposite of Trump's version of reality.

          I'm not sure it's funny to have a president who seems incapable of telling reality from his own fantasy land.

          (1)(2) https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of … meeting-us
          (3) http://time.com/4713114/paul-ryan-ahca- … ranscript/

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            "I'm not sure it's funny to have a president who seems incapable of telling reality from his own fantasy land."

            No more that it is a population that can't figure out he will never be able to keep all his promises; they aren't his to keep.  There really IS another faction involved here, one that lives in a swamp and desperately wants to stay there. 

            Truly, Don, it is almost comical to see the desperate straw-grabbing to find something to whine about.

            1. Don W profile image80
              Don Wposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              I didn't say these things about healthcare:

              "There's going to be no slowing down" 

              "There's going to be no waiting and no more excuses by anybody".

              "I’m already seeing the support -- not only in this room, I’m seeing it from everybody"

              And no one forced Trump to say them either. He said them because he is either a liar, or just plain incompetent, or (most likely) both.

              Do you think having a lying, incompetent president is a good thing? I don't.

              And do you think any Trump supporter who can't admit when Trump clearly fails at something, is a bit fanatical? I do.

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                "No more that it is a population that can't figure out he will never be able to keep all his promises; they aren't his to keep.  There really IS another faction involved here, one that lives in a swamp and desperately wants to stay there"
                ----------------------
                You should not make promises that you are unable to keep. Did you resign yourself in the same way when Obama made promises?

                What I seem to be hearing from you and Ken for example is that Trump is so much above the fray. Is that because he has a business background? I think that this 'swamp thing' is just so much semantics. You said that you wanted a more responsive Congress and Government, more accountable to the people. how do you think that Trump and his administration will bring that about?

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  "You should not make promises that you are unable to keep. Did you resign yourself in the same way when Obama made promises?"

                  Did you believe them?  Did anyone with half a brain believe them?  Did you believe Obama's wild promises?  Did anyone?

                  Seems to me that's the nature of American politics.  Lie your way into office, lie your way into keeping it.  Why should we expect other than that?

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    Then why should I believe Trump's promises, if this is the attitude you are taking on?

                    Are Trumps lies any different from those that you accuse Obama of?

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                "Do you think having a lying, incompetent president is a good thing? I don't."

                When was the last time we didn't have a president that made promises that were patently impossible to keep?  Isn't that the definition of "lying, incompetent president" you're using here?  So I guess I have to say it is a good thing, because there is no other option and it's better than not having a president at all.  Or do you think we should leave the office vacant like we're doing with the SCOTUS?

                1. Don W profile image80
                  Don Wposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Trump is supposed to be the great outsider, not like all the others, the man who's going to change Washington. Now you're saying he probably won't do the things he promised, just like all the other politicians?

                  Sounds to me like you didn't vote for him because of the things he said he's going to do, which you apparently don't believe. You voted for him because you wanted to blow up the system.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness,  all presidential candidates support ideas during their campaigns many of which we all understand will be hard or impossible to keep. However, Trump carried this to a new level, several orders of magnitude beyond anything ever seen before in modern political history. Moreover, he continues to do so since being elected, causing many to doubt his ability to distinguish truth from fiction and even his sanity as well as his obvious character flaws.

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    That is mostly correct.  The current modus operandi of our government is unacceptable and will destroy our country; with nothing else being offered the only step left to avoid that is to blow it up.

                2. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  "What I seem to be hearing from you and Ken for example is that Trump is so much above the fray. Is that because he has a business background? I think that this 'swamp thing' is just so much semantics. You said that you wanted a more responsive Congress and Government, more accountable to the people. how do you think that Trump and his administration will bring that about?"

                  This was the part of the question that you did not answer, do you have an answer?

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    I can only speak for myself, but suspect there are a great many others that have the same view.

                    The purpose of putting Trump in the White House was not to run roughshod over liberals, or even shut down the socialistic plans that doing so much damage.  It was (hopefully) the first step in convincing lawmakers that the people demand (not want, not pray for, not wish for, but demand) leaders that are responsive to the needs of the nation rather than the wishes of a party.  Things like the holdup on SCOTUS are not acceptable; the people have said that with the election of Trump and will speak again as necessary.  Either work together for the good of the nation or get out of the way and allow those that WILL do the job to do it.

                    This SCOTUS thing is a prime example, IMHO.  When the GOP used political games to try and maintain power for their party it was inexcusable.  And the Dem's, doing nothing but posturing and throwing a tantrum without any hope for anything at all, is even worse.  This kind of activity MUST be curtailed if we are to survive.

    4. DICESI profile image76
      DICESIposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      I do not feel he has delivered on any promises.  Attempting to implement policies and they backfire is not delivering.  He stated that he alone could fix these things and nothing has changed.  The AHCA was the biggest failure of them all. He did not even know what was in the bill he was endorsing.  A bill that does not meet any of his promises.

    5. Misfit Chick profile image93
      Misfit Chickposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Well, Trump really has no choice but to work within the GOP party - and since they are so incredibly divided on the subject, themselves (those damn 'moderate' swing states!) - its no surprise that their first time around wasn't successful. How can you get the rest of the country or any other political party to agree if you can't get a few people within your own party to agree?

      However, I think this was a good first step - whether they decide to learn from it; or find a way to try and shove a new, similar policy down our throats is another question, entirely.

      If they would stop trying to do just that - continue to shove policies that they know 'the majority' of American's don't want onto us - and make the effort to actually WORK WITH each other to create something good, maybe they really can come up with a decent healthcare policy that is acceptible to them without the Obama name that they hate so much tacked onto it.

      We can hope & dream. They've been working & scrapping healthcare policies for decades. If so many people in this country weren't actually AFRAID of making something like healthcare available to everyone (mostly for religious reasons - I've actually been told that doing this would be EVIL in the eyes of God); then we might get somewhere. Its really hard to fight against erroneously-twisted & ingrained belief structures that cause FEAR of eternal damnation.

      Trump has suggested that we leave Obamacare alone and just let it destroy itself  - because it will supposedly implode on itself within MONTHS, its so bad. I'm glad the 1st round didn't pass for that reason: let's see how dangerous it is of imploding. If it doesn't implode - do you think that might be yet another 'alternative Trump fact'? LoL!

      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13471046_f1024.jpg

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 6 months ago

    Who knew it was so complicated!

    ObamaCare ain't looking so bad now, is it?

    It all proves one thing: You can;t deliver everything you promise.  Nobody can.

    1. Jean Bakula profile image93
      Jean Bakulaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      It is very complicated. But Trump isn't--he's a pathological liar. That mess will never pass, many R's are against it as well. They need more time to work on it.

      I would just see what Socialist country had the best system and do it that way. It's pathetic in such a rich country we have people dying because they have no ACCESS to healthcare. That one word changes a lot too, Paul Ryan just wants to try his economic plan which gives more to the rich and lets the poor die, or whatever, he doesn't care about people except in an abstract way.

      Don is correct, the current plan is a disaster, and it was all lies from the start. Perhaps Trump will reject that plan when he sees how much opposition there is to it--plus that's only part of the plan. I shudder to think what the rest is. Ralph has a lot of good ideas. And everyone pays into an insurance pool ahorseback, that's how your car insurance and other insurances work. Except here, poor people have no healthcare and the rich get richer.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        How wrong you are , The Perfect Plan , would be if government got out of what it always fails to do to begin with , RUNNING ANY KIND OF SOCIAL PROGRAM    ,  stop begging the entitlement from Uncle Sammy and let the industry handle health care like it always did before , regulated free completion between insurers and  doctors.   

        Everybody ,Buy your own entitlement !

        1. Jean Bakula profile image93
          Jean Bakulaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          ahorseback,
          When you are diagnosed with cancer, or another deadly disease, and need immediate treatment or will die, you need the money up front to get any medical care. A person can't even get to the first doctor to do that and have a recovery plan by getting money in tax cuts at the next season. It will be too late.

          Plus, your wonderful Trump promised everyone would be covered by "his" plan. I saw a town hall in WV this week, and many of those who voted for him have buyer's remorse.

          I guess you or anyone you cared about never had a catastrophic illness which they didn't bring onto themselves.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Why would you go to a failed economic/political system to see how to do anything at all?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          The democratic, mixed private enterprise/socialist economies are hardly failures. Nearly all of them have universal, single-payer health care which costs much less and produces demonstrably better results than our health care system. I live across the river faom Windsor, Ontario and every time I meet a Canadian I ask them whether they would trade their health care program for the U.S. system. Although some grumble a bit about having to wait for non-emergency care, I have yet to meet a single one who would trade their Canadian single payer system for our system.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            From the post I replied to: "I would just see what Socialist country had the best system and do it that way."  No mention of a mixed economy.  And many of those mixed systems are failing badly, with the stronger socialistic ones doing the worst.

            It's true that most socialistic society likes their "free" health care - most people, conditioned to being given something important to them will be unhappy if they suddenly have to provide it themselves.  Canadians - I continue to see where they come to the US to get their care because of the wait times in Canada, so not sure that is a good example of a "superior" system.  Generally, living with pain or a malfunctioning body is not particularly desirable.

            But the bottom line is responsibility of the citizen: are we as individuals responsible for our lives or is the great DC Nanny to blame for our failures as individuals.  It is important to me to feel independent, to be responsible for my own life (even if it's only perception); others want the guidance and support of Big Government to care for them, provide for them and make sure they live a "proper" life.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              "No mention of a mixed economy.  And many of those mixed systems are failing badly, with the stronger socialistic ones doing the worst."

              Just curious which are the many mixed systems that are failing badly, and which are the
              "stronger socialistic ones doing worst." The ones I'm familiar with are doing pretty well (the Scandinavian countries and most of the European countries--UK--Germany, France--except for Greece and Spain.) Nearly all of them rank higher than U.S. in public education, and social welfare, and their economies are quite productive. Some of them do suffer from over-regulation.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                "Just curious which are the many mixed systems that are failing badly"

                Start with Greece.  You take it from there.

                Ranking high in "social welfare" is hardly an indication of a "superior" economy or society - just the opposite as it is a strong indication that one or the other (or both) are failing the people.  That the US has very poor education in general is a result of Big Government interfering with teaching - a socialistic program even if not true socialism.

                And yes, they ALL suffer from over-regulation.  Even worse that the US does.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  Greece and Spain are not typical. Nearly all the others are doing fine. Inequality of wealth and income is much less of an issue in European democracies than here. We are becoming more and more like a banana republic or a middle eastern country where wealth is concentrated among a tiny number of individuals who use their control over the government to enrich themselves, as Trump and his family are currently doing here.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    Great Britain is not doing "fine".  Neither is France.  Mostly it is the tiny Scandinavian countries that are and they are hardly a suitable role model for something like the US.

                    Of course the socialistic countries have less inequality of wealth - that's what they are all about!  Making sure everyone gets the same, regardless of contribution!  But I'm still struggling with those "problems" with that inequality; given the massive disparity between lifestyle, possessions, etc. between today and 60 years ago it's difficult to see any real "problems"  Greed, of course, is always there, and increasing entitlements coupled with baseless attacks on wealth will easily convince the gullible that because one person has more, they should too.  It's what causes socialism and the loss of productivity, responsibility and motivation that comes with it.

                2. Jean Bakula profile image93
                  Jean Bakulaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  Wilderness,

                  If it would save innocent people's lives I would study any country's system which was working and copy the parts of it that worked. It doesn't have to be Socialist, it could be anything. But it has to cover all people in the richest part of the world. Our health care, infant mortality rate and other rates of recovery are terrible for a country who claims to be "exceptional."

                  The pharmaceutical companies are part of the issue, a big problem. But there are many factors.

                  But I'm sure we can do better, it's the crazy people like Paul Ryan who want to try out other economic systems as an experiment. It won't change his life at all if other families lose loved ones while he's playing God. I think Congress and the House should have their Cadillac healthcare plans taken away, and have to live like other Americans. See how hard it is and how either one illness can wipe out a family, or at least get some idea we don't all work a few days a month for what we have in health care and benefits. Many people work 3 jobs and get very little. Of course, R's don't like minimum wage increases or anything that helps another person.

                  1. ahorseback profile image47
                    ahorsebackposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    Every person that I know who has had a catastrophic  health care issue  has either lost most of their  personal "assets "  because of under or no insurance ,    OR   they have been fully covered by a legitimate   and viable insurance company that THEY themselves paid for,  for whatever period of time that they did .       
                    The system  already has a built in uninsured  cost " write off " for those who don't have insurance . Thus all hospital  systems being  viable , taxable business' ,  most people that "Die In the streets " do NOT do so because of the lack of  insurance coverage .

                    What most liberals want ?     A British system that is all inclusive -paid for by taxation . To hell with  what said taxation  costs ALL others , to hell with  whatever else has to be cut or eliminated for that entitlement ,   the military , the  infrastructure , the  environment ,whatever ,wherever  the federal government service . Cut it too pay for my aspirin !

                    Question --Is mandatory free  health care by the feds  provided for  in the original US.constitution ?

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    There are a few problems with this approach.  You talk as if there is a one-solution-fits-all, but there isn't.  What works in one country may well not work in another.

                    You are certainly correct in that there are other factors, too.  Americans are obese.  Their diet is atrocious.  They use drugs.  They smoke.  Things like this very definitely affect lifespan and health, and to blame a poor health care system for the problems stemming directly from bad habits doesn't make a lot of sense. 

                    Nor is it Ryan playing God - it is the liberal community that declares "You have too much - I'll take it and give it to someone else I think deserves it more than you do."  THAT'S playing God - not forcing or allowing a person to be responsible for themselves.

                    It's always really comical to hear a socialist moan that conservatives don't want to "help" someone...as they take, at gunpoint, what someone has rightfully earned for themselves.

                  3. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    Little tale that happened to me just last year:  My wife had had abdominal pain for some months, centered, we thought, around the bowel.  Constipation, etc.

                    When her yearly checkup came around (required by Obamacare) she talked to the doctor about it and as a colonoscopy was due, she was set up with a specialist and a clinic to get that done in the hopes it would find something that would help. 

                    It was scheduled for Wednesday morning, and the preparation was all done properly (quite uncomfortable and unpleasant if you've never had one), but when she went in they found there was a blockage and it could not be performed.  The specialist called the hospital and, because of the nasty prep work that would have had to be repeated, set her up with an immediate special CAT scan and an office visit with a surgeon.  Within an hour we had transferred to the hospital, had the CAT scan and were headed to the surgeon's office.  Remember, this is NOT an emergency situation yet the CAT scan (some kind of specialized one requiring a special machine) AND a surgeon's office visit were scheduled in less than an hour.  The CAT scan was performed, read and transmitted to the surgeon with less than an hour's notice.

                    The surgeon indicated major surgery was needed - a bowel resection - and tried to schedule it for that Friday, two days away.  Again, it was NOT an emergency, and as we had a trip planned for Saturday (I was to officiate at a wedding in another state) we asked to put it off until the following Friday, a week away.

                    The surgery was performed in a pleasant, clean hospital decorated with patient's mental attitudes in mind.  She had a private room with WIFI, TV and phone service.  They helped her set up chargers for her computer and cell phone.

                    So when you talk about how atrocious our health care is, think about that.  We could have had a specialized CAT scan, surgeon's office visit AND surgery done in just two days...for a non-emergency situation.  This is not something you will find hardly anywhere else, and is not something that happens with nationalized health care.

  3. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 6 months ago

    The great numbers being thrown around are always  so far off ,  Obama Care is said to have  added  as little as   9 million newbies on health care rolls ,     far cry from the twenty five or whatever dream numbers Obama -Care claim  , for one thing !

    Kathleen  , are liberals willing to pay double  in premiums to pick up one more uninsured ?

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      How are you doing, Ahorseback? It is nice to have a chance to greet you again.

      I’ve read the CBO report on the AHCA and I have verified that Don W’s statements are accurate.  What is the source of your claim "Obama Care is said to have  added  as little as  9 million newbies on health care rolls?"
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    2. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
      Kathleen Cochranposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      It always amazed me that people raved about how wonderful healthcare was in the military.  What a wonderful benefit it was.  Well, it was - and is- socialized medicine.  It had its failings, but generally it met your needs and cost you nothing.  I always wondered why it was so great for the military family but not good enough for everybody else?  And yes, I would pay more to help somebody else.  No apologies.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Kathleen , To earn a service is one thing , as in the military  , they were compensated in wages  less than the mainstream  population of work forces -- and earned a package of  other bennies  honorably , I came from a military family I know .          To compare THAT with entitlements for  everyone else  is ludicrous.    Conservatives  lead the fifties , sixties , seventies by  owning media , government and did it all by lies and deception .   Liberal ideologies however are   so phony today  - While saying "It's the right thing to do for the needy  " as to entitlements ,what they are really saying is "I want Free Stuff "
        Admit it Kathleen !

        I truly wish liberals would  wage this entitlement war with HONESTY though ,  If they , you ,did that  you would admit  simply that "-I want My Free Stuff  and  I Don't care where it comes from -" 





        https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13448713.jpg

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        "It (military health care) had its failings, but generally it met your needs and cost you nothing."

        Sounds exactly what one might expect to hear from employer provided insurance, doesn't it?  Except for the "socialized" part; that an employer (the military) pays for it does not indicate socialism.

        Of course the problem is that it DOES cost - that the beneficiary isn't paying that cost does not mean it is free.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

    ACA punishes success.

  5. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 6 months ago

    It's not "free stuff" when in the long run it saves everybody the rising costs of healthcare.  People with no insurance can't get treated for treatable conditions, so when they are dying they go to an ER and every possible effort is made, at tremendous cost, to save their life.  By then it is too late.  It would save all of us a great deal of money to treat people in the most inexpensive manner: early and preventative.  (And you can leave off the !. Thanks)

    And the military provides health care because it saves them the cost of providing insurance for its members.  As in many other matters, it has led the way in testing social changes in our country and found the best solution to a problem.

    1. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Yeaaa ,......, until you actually visit a VA hospital to see the reality !

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
        Kathleen Cochranposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        I have and it's no worse than any other hospital.  What we need to do to help veterans is give them the option of going out on the economy for treatment when there is an unreasonable wait time for appointments.  There is insurance for that, with a co-pay.

        1. cheaptrick profile image74
          cheaptrickposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          That option Dose exist!
          In its usual approach to 'To much bureaucracy' the VA added another layer of (you guessed it!) Bureaucracy!
          So Now if you cant get in at the VA you call a number where they take incompetence to a Whole New Level!...Nearly redefining the word!
          I had an urgent (noted on the order) heart stress test ordered and ended up waiting 60 days (after multiple attempts) just to get scheduled for the test a month after that!The unbelievable horror stories you hear Vets tell about their experiences at the VA are not only true,they're Understated!...and That IS What Govt health care Looks Like!...It's NOT something you want if you can help it!...though it Will fix the overpopulation problem in fairly short order (google the Phoenix VA scandal if you don't believe me)

          1. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
            Kathleen Cochranposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Did they give you the option to use TriCare insurance and go to a private cardiologist?  That is what I did for my heart problem.  I hope you get the care you deserve for your service.

  6. Sharniquewa profile image59
    Sharniquewaposted 6 months ago

    you just get better god will see that you have tried your hardest and you know what keep going on you will get better

  7. MichaelHJL profile image60
    MichaelHJLposted 6 months ago

    Thank you, useful to me

  8. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 6 months ago

    Jean:  Good for you.  There are some hubbers whose names drive me away from a discussion because I know it is going to dissolve into name-calling and personal insults.  They lower the level of debate if not bringing it entirely to a halt.  Good for you for standing up for yourself (and the rest of us.)

    1. Nathanville profile image92
      Nathanvilleposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I fully agree with you Kathleen; yes Jean, good on you for standing up for yourself and the rest of us.

    2. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Yes I agree , After all , its only fair that those professing the  ideology of the right be  called to the carpet on questioning the moral and ethical standards allowed in  political discussions .   That , would never be something those on the left do constantly !..............NOT!

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
        Kathleen Cochranposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        I think after the 3rd reading I got the drift of your comment, a horseback.  Either side can state their opinion without being called on the carpet without insulting the other side.  It's possible.

    3. Jean Bakula profile image93
      Jean Bakulaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Thank you for the support, Kathleen and Nathanville. I am not that thin skinned, but am sick of being bullied. The person knows how far he can go without being kicked off the forum. He is derogatory and insulting, but doesn't come out and call anyone a name--he implies it all.

      I'd stand up for you anytime!

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
        Kathleen Cochranposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Seems like nobody gets kicked off forums anymore.  Is HP doing its job?

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

          A standard of name calling will get you in trouble the soonest.

          Unless attacks are directed to you personally and not your ideas, making a case is difficult.

          That's ok, advocating from my side of the political spectrum is going to attract opposition. I expect it and challenge them all to come out from the shadows. Your thoughts and ideas are appreciated, and I certainly don't want you to be 'run off'.

          Sorry, Kathleen, this was addressed to Jean.

        2. GA Anderson profile image83
          GA Andersonposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Hello Kathleen, I hope you remember my comment that I always enjoy the opportunity to engage your comments. Boy, unless I misread the inference of your comment, I want to run through this door.

          Following this thread, I can only see this comment - tagged to Jean's  exchanges, as relative to Wilderness' replies.

          Refusing to acquiesce  to emotional but inaccurate declarations is not bullying. Repeatedly pointing out that philosophical and moral beliefs are not universal, (or reality-based), truths is not an action of insult.

          I think HP is doing a good job of policing the forums. Personal insults, purposely insulting name-calling, (in the name of tolerance, I don't think of partisan labels like; snowflake, or Rightwingers,  are personally insulting either - although, for me, "Libtard" might be a bit over the line), are a fair reason to be banned. And I can remember a participant or two that did suffer 'time-outs' for such violations.

          But... I don't see anything in this thread's exchanges that pass that bar. It sounds to me like you are upset that there are non-choir members in the room.

          GA

          1. Jean Bakula profile image93
            Jean Bakulaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            GA,
            I live my life through personal emotional perceptions, I'm a psychic. But I think a lot of what I say is factual, and what I see happening. I may be looking at it from a different perspective. That's not against the law.

            But that doesn't mean every time I post, what I say is not based on what I've read or researched. And who decided that a certain person has to comment on everything I say? He's just towing the R line. You probably know the old expression, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." I have freedom to speak just as everyone else does.

            I am not a scientist, and never claimed to be. I don't have to be right all the time. But I also don't deserve to be criticized every single time I post. That is inappropriate behavior from someone who feels superior to me, and I'm sick of it. I am a liberal Democrat on many issues, and know many people who agree with me on a lot of what I say. Donald Trump is a fool to be trying to dismantle NATO and saying Obama wiretapped him. Tillotson sp? is skipping a NATO meeting to go straight to China. Trump said he would try to get everyone covered in a health plan. His family has no reason to be in the White House. The list of what a mess he's made so far is long. The man is a liar.

            I don't mind you butting in, you are generally polite and well mannered. But I don't really see why you had to involve yourself in this. I watch and listen to enough news and don't take hours each day to fact check each post on here, I come on during breaks in my freelance writing.

            I had no intention of reporting anyone, I would gain no satisfaction from that.

            Kathleen, HP doesn't monitor the forums anymore. If someone insults you by calling you a name, you can get them kicked off for 3 days. I'll just stay off because a certain person is making anyone on a thread who disagrees with his ideas miserable. He doesn't need to argue with EVERYONE who doesn't have his belief system (Whoops, forgive me, love of facts) or watch Fox News.

            I have enough writing to do that pays well and doesn't subject me to aggravation or contradiction all the time.

            1. GA Anderson profile image83
              GA Andersonposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              Hello again Jean,

              I think we should just let things lay where they are. We are not going to make any progress. And I can't see any profit from restating wilderness' points to validate my point.

              I don't presume any authority to condemn your philosophies or perspectives, but when you post them publicly, you certainly shouldn't presume them to be unchallengeable(sp?) Particularly the inaccurate factual parts, and the wildly inaccurate generalizations too.

              GA.  .

              1. Jean Bakula profile image93
                Jean Bakulaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                GM
                I don't see any "wildly inaccurate" statements. I based what I said on the people I see around me, the real problems they have with this administration, knowledge of current events I get from each news station (all are biased in their way) and magazines. The nature of forums is to express opinions. Of course, we don't all agree.

                But it still remains the rich have more tax loopholes to help them save their hidden money, and don't declare all their income. I can't do that. I still think they don't need to be pampered in that way, and should own up to what they make. The government can use it to make a better health care system. Or do what it wants. But it's money hidden from the government, the reason many wealthy people don't admit they have cash hidden all over the world. It's just an idea, not even an opinion. But as a rich country with bad health care, it's not a bad idea. There are wealthy people who don't take SS because they don't need it; wealthy people.

                But I feel you both have crossed a line of assuming everything you say is infallible, when its not.. Everything the two of you say isn't correct, it's your opinion. You just have one perspective and don't want to look at any other ones.

                I'm happy to drop it.

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                +1

  9. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 6 months ago

    It would be perfectly fine with  most Americans believing in the free market system  IF , One , the whole Trump - Ryan Health Care did NOT pass through the legislative channels -  Two , If Trump ultimately  completely repeals  the past Obama -American  Health Care Act  and let the brilliance of the free market resume the insuring of the insurable in America .   Plus ,  add  the regulating and even hyper regulating of said insurance companies for both reasonable profitability and coverage optimization .

    It amazes me that any American wants the federal government to intervene and that the same government Can't run anything efficiently or  profitably !

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
      Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      When I broke my foot, my doctor was appalled I did not have insurance. So, to make him happy, I got insurance. Then he was happy. Then he retired. That was before Obama Care. Then I gave up my insurance because it doubled. I signed up Obama care to avoid paying the fine. I have had this forced insurance for a full year and I have never used it, as it covers only catastrophic. I wish I knew what my doctor's opinion of Obama care would have been.
      Are (were) doctors happy with Obama care?

      <  Those who believe in the free market, (generally republicans/conservatives):
      1. Do not require the Trump/Ryan Care Act to pass through legislative channels.
      2. Want President Trump to repeal the Obama Care Act and restore the free market of private insurance companies.
      3. Want (private) insurance companies to be REGULATED in order to:
            a. Prevent them from obtaining unfair financial gain.
            b. Optimize adequate/fair insurance coverage. >

      Thank s  ahorseback.

      Q. Who will regulate insuance companies and and how will they be regulated?
      We need to make some (new) laws?

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Kathryn ,   The importance of  a good healthcare  for all ,  is paramount but  needs only to be  regulated like  the military or  workplace safety , or for  water quality .   If a doctor or hospital can only charge a fixed or  regulated cost for an X-ray or a broken toe  then  the overcharging ,over-insuring , over pricing of an entire system , is then controlled .

        Not the subsidization of an over charging , underserving ,  incredible enriching  system for an industry.
        The system is  a highly profiting system , it only needs regulating.

  10. Angel Guzman profile image85
    Angel Guzmanposted 6 months ago

    The Affordable Care Act did set a minimum standard of protections that very badly needed in this country. The issues I take with the law myself are there were no public option and that it did not go far enough especially in destroying the for profit model system in heathcare. The healthcare industry needs to be subsidized so it is available to all who need it. This new proposed legislation will only make things worse for the average person. This isn't about destroying Obama's legacy but rather protecting those vulnerable that are much better off with the law.

    1. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      How does it help anything or anyone when the extreme profiteering is allowed to continue , in fact  to continue  -subsidized and unregulated ,    Obama care helps no one when all it does is raise the costs of healthcare overall .   Cutting more and more  people out of care  .

      Repeal  ,  ditch Obama care with a highly regulated government oversight on existing health care .

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Obama Care is going to be fixed, not ditched.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/upsh … f=business



          Republicans are in a bind. They’ve been promising to repeal Obamacare for seven years, and now, having won control of the White House and Congress, they must try to deliver. But while their bitter denunciations of the Affordable Care Act may have depressed its approval numbers, they haven’t made replacing it any easier.

          On the contrary, the repeal-and-replace bill designed by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan has drawn withering criticism from the left and the right. Liberals condemn its use of reductions in health coverage for the poor to pay for large tax cuts for the wealthy, while conservatives bemoan its retention of many subsidies adopted under Obamacare.

          In the end, the repeal effort’s biggest hurdle may be loss aversion, one of the most robust findings in behavioral science. As numerous studies have shown, the pain of losing something you already have is much greater than the pleasure of having gained it in the first place. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that Mr. Ryan’s American Health Care Act (A.H.C.A.) would cause more than 14 million people to lose coverage in the first year alone, with total losses rising to 24 million over the next decade. Many Republicans in Congress appear nervous about the political firestorm already provoked by the mere prospect of such losses.

          Loss aversion actually threatens the repeal effort on two fronts: voters’ fear of losing their coverage, and lawmakers’ fear of losing their seats. Like the first fear, the second appears well grounded. Republican voters won’t be the only ones losing coverage, of course, but early studies suggest that losses may be concentrated among people who voted for President Trump. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated, for example, that the A.H.C.A. would cause premiums to rise more than sevenfold in 2026 for 64-year-olds making $26,500.
          Continue reading the main story
          Economic View
          A column that explores life through an economic lens with leading economists and writers.

              What if Sociologists Had as Much Influence as Economists?
              MAR 17
              What the President Could Learn From Professional Economists
              MAR 10
              State I.R.A. Plans Are Ready, if Congress Doesn’t Interfere
              MAR 3
              Economists Have Been Demoted in Washington. That’s a Bad Idea.
              FEB 24
              Why Trump’s 2-for-1 Rule on Regulations Is No Quick Fix
              FEB 17

          See More »
          Recent Comments
          S.Murphy 33 minutes ago

          Although Medicare for all or Universal Care sound great, the reality under this administration is that it won't happen.Let's start then with...
          Michael Treleaven 46 minutes ago

          To my knowledge, no member of Congress has proposed that all House and Senate members should be denied access to the health care insurance...
          KalamaMike 1 hour ago

          Thank you for clearly defining why "free market enterprise" doesn't work with health care provision and purchases. My gripe for over thirty...

              See All Comments Write a comment

          If the repeal effort stalls, attention will shift to what comes next. In an earlier column, I suggested that Mr. Trump has the political leverage, which President Obama did not, to jettison the traditional Republican approach in favor of a form of the single-payer health care that most other countries use. According to Physicians for a National Health Program, an advocacy group, “Single-payer national health insurance, also known as ‘Medicare for all,’ is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.” Christopher Ruddy, a friend and adviser of the president, recently urged him to consider this option.

          Many Republicans who want to diminish government’s role in health care view the single-payer approach with disdain. But Mr. Trump often seems to take pleasure in being unpredictable, and since he will offend people no matter which way he turns, he may want to consider why liberals and conservatives in many other countries have embraced the single-payer approach.

          Part of the appeal of Medicare for all is that single-payer systems reduce financial incentives that generate waste and abuse. Mr. Ryan says that by relegating health care to private insurers, competition will lead to lower prices and higher quality. Economic theory tells us that this is a reasonable expectation when certain conditions are met. A crucial one is that buyers must be able to compare the quality of offerings of different sellers. In practice, however, people have little knowledge of the treatment options for the various maladies they might suffer, and policy language describing insurance coverage is notoriously complex and technical. Consumers simply cannot make informed quality comparisons in this industry.
          Photo
          Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, at a news conference this month. His bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act has drawn criticism from the right and the left. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

          In contrast, they can easily compare the prices charged by competing insurance companies. This asymmetry induces companies to compete for customers by highlighting the lower prices they’re able to offer if they cut costs by degrading the quality of their offerings. For example, it’s common for insurance companies to deny payment for procedures that their policies seem to cover. If policy holders complain loudly enough, they may eventually get reimbursed, but the money companies save by not paying others confers a decisive competitive advantage over rivals that don’t employ this tactic. Such haggling is uncommon under single-payer systems like Medicare (though it is sometimes employed by private insurers that supplement Medicare).

          Consider, too, the mutually offsetting expenditures on competitive advertising and other promotional efforts of private insurers, which can exceed 15 percent of total revenue. Single-payer plans like Medicare spend nothing on competitive advertising (although here, also, we see such expenditures by supplemental insurers).

          According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of total operating expenditures, less than one-sixth of the rate estimated for the private insurance industry. This difference does not mean that private insurers are evil. It’s a simple consequence of a difference in the relevant economic incentives.
          The Upshot

          Get the best of The Upshot’s news, analysis and graphics about politics, policy and everyday life.
          Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

              See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy

          American health care outlays per capita in 2015 were more than twice the average of those in the 35 advanced countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Yet despite that spending difference, the system in the United States delivers significantly less favorable outcomes on measures like longevity and the incidence of chronic illness.

          But advertising expenses and administrative costs are not the most important reason the United States spends so much more. The main difference is that prices for medical services are so much lower in other countries. In France, for example, a magnetic resonance imaging exam costs $363, on average, compared with $1,121 in the United States; an appendectomy is $4,463 in France, versus $13,851 in America. These differences stem largely from the fact that single payers — which is to say, governments — are typically able to negotiate more favorable terms with service providers.

          In short, Medicare for all could deliver quality care at much lower cost than private insurers do now. People would of course be free to supplement their public coverage with private insurance, as they now do in most other countries with single-payer systems, and as many older Americans do with Medicare.

          As a candidate, Mr. Trump repeatedly promised that everyone in the country would be covered at reasonable cost under an amazing new health plan. But it’s now clear that the A.H.C.A. cannot deliver on that promise. The president, who has not always had a close relationship with Mr. Ryan, might consider breaking with him and working across party lines to develop support for universal access to Medicare.

          Then again, he might fear that abandoning his public pledge to support Mr. Ryan’s bill would be seen as a sign of weakness or defeat. But the research findings on loss aversion make one thing clear: Any setback from abandoning the bill will pale in comparison to the outrage that will come if the A.H.C.A. actually becomes law.

          Robert H. Frank is an economics professor at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University. Twitter: @econnaturalist.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’

            ‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”  Robert Heinlein,

            Along with that concept is your own message: "In the end, the repeal effort’s biggest hurdle may be loss aversion, one of the most robust findings in behavioral science. "  This is very true, and goes right along with Heinlein's thought.  Even though most of those 14 million that will lose their insurance will lose it by choice and likely be happy about it, the fact remains that there are millions of voices from people that are now getting yet another "freebie" that they didn't have.  And they don't want to lose it - that it would be a tough fight was inevitable, and more so after the ridiculous financial statement that were made about ObamaCare.  Mostly false, and no one will believe any such forecasts again.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              Extending Medicare to the entire population in stages over five years or so beginning with children, the indigent and so forth is the best solution. This has been demonstrated in many other countries. Allowing medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies would be a helpful change. Also, hospitals badly need to become more efficient by applying modern management methods. Most of them are in the dark ages on cost controls. They simply pass their failures to control costs on to Medicare and private insurance companies. They would be well advised to study Toyota's lean production techniques.

              https://hubpages.com/autos/The-Challeng … ld-Economy

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                I don't disagree about one payer.  IF we are to provide for 320 million people...always remembering that Heinlein's statement is all too true.

                Generic drugs are not the problem - patented drugs are.  And it's kind of hard to negotiate for a life saving drug when there is only one supplier.

                Sure, follow Toyota's lean production techniques.  Arrange to have the quantity of blood on hand that will be needed, without knowing what will be needed.  While I don't disagree that there are cost savings in hospitals, they won't be found by following techniques of manufacturing plants, and most of them will put patients at risk.

            2. Don W profile image80
              Don Wposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              Suggesting that universal healthcare will bring about the fall of civilization is probably a bit of an exaggeration.

              That's one of those ideological arguments I mentioned, and it's not very helpful in solving real problems.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

    <Health care should have certain regulations like military operations, workplace safety or water quality. 
    Doctors OR hospitals (both? or which?) should charge a fixed or regulated cost for, say, an X-ray, to prevent overcharging / over insuring individuals and over-pricing the entire system.>

    How are doctors faring in all this today?

    Does anyone care about the doctors who we rely so much on?
    Are they crooks?
    Are the hospitals crooks? 
    Are the insurance companies crooks?

    Are the poor who can't afford to pay their share crooks?
    Are the rich who gladly pay for their insurance and their health care crooks?

    And who gets punished the most, as far as universal health care?
    yes,  the rich… who we hate so much.
    well, the doctors don't hate the rich. lol

  12. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

    In the past, were doctors and hospitals over charging? If we universally regulate the amounts they charge would this be a better solution than universal health insurance?
    And is this solution do-able? Maybe we wouldn't need insurance at all.

    If we believed in survival of the fittest, we wouldn't have any issues or disagreements at all.
    Rich vs Poor.


      Here is the actual solution:

    Pay as you go and if you can't pay, die, or find alternative/preventative, (truly healthy/natural,) health care.

    - what is causing cancer?
    - what is causing autism?
    - what is causing thyroid problems, multiple sclerosis, etc. etc. etc.?

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Pay as you go and if you can't pay, die, or find alternative/preventative, (truly healthy/natural,) health care.
      ------

      Is this truly your best recommendation?

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Fee Market Competition now !     I am glad that the Bill wasn't voted on   Why let Trump assume the Failures and Blame of Clinton --Obama- Care program ,...............so he can take the BLAME for the failure of the last eight years ? No.....

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Well, AH, what do you think?

          Maybe it is just the 'fake news' but looks like Trump has got his first official pie in the face.

          But, in all fairness to him, I have to give him credit for fighting to retain aspects of Obamacare like accepting patients with preconditions and the 26 year olds being allowed to remain under their parents policy. He would not compromise this, and I give him credit for at least that.

          But with all the GOP party infighting and promised retribution by Ryan and Trump on the 'traitors' in the party, we Dems will take advantage of the carnage to raise our standard high above the fray.
          .

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        As every other recommendation involves our (often unborn) children paying for our care, then dying themselves when the system crashes around their heads, what else is there?  A single payer system, with lower expectations for care, doesn't seem in the works, after all.

        1. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          So far , No western nation that has ever adopted  government funded healthcare - has dropped it ! Or so I read the other day in some news program ,    I think Trump will now do it [ save it ] by tax reform - One more freebie  of health care  by subsidizing of  other tax payers for the entitled  !

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            I could see that - once the millions have a new entitlement paid for by someone else it's really hard to get it out of their greedy hands.  Witness the "workfare" programs that were tried - they've nearly all died out by now.  Taking the welfare entitlements away doesn't work when millions vote for them.

        2. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Perhaps, I just have difficulty believing that we cannot do better. Was the system that we were operating under prior to Obamacare so much more desirable? Are the Europeans really so barbaric (ineffective) and behind the United States because of their ideas of socialized medicine?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            "Are the Europeans really so barbaric (ineffective) and behind the United States because of their ideas of socialized medicine?"

            I don't see it as either "behind" OR "ahead" of the US.  Just different.  Of course, if one operates under the misbegotten idea that socialism is the perfect (or worst) social/financial structure one could claim either way, depending on the underlying assumptions.

  13. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 6 months ago

    Obama -Care increased  uncovered Americans by provided insurance by about Nine million people  , At the cost of  underwriters leaving the system  in many states    What was so great about that ?

    Remember  ; When Obama -Care dies ............its still called Obama -Care !

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I pay Congressmen the big bucks to work out a compromise. That is what I expect them to do, find the third alternative.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13462683.jpg

        The man who gave you Obama --CARE is actually  a guy named Obama . Blame him for its obvious implosion .

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

          You have had 8 years to repeal ACA and the best that your people offer is a soggy condom?

    2. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      I was surprised by the glaring gap between my long-time colleague’s statement and the well documented, widely accepted numbers published by many credible sources that are qualified to arrive at a realistic estimate. This led me to ask for a source for this dubious assertion.I was disappointed by the lack of a response. Disappointed but not surprise!

      Now this totally unsupported claim appears again in this thread: So, my forum mate who claims to know how many Americans became newly insured following the enactment of the ACA has tacitly declined to show us why the claim of 9 million should be believed. In fact, in the absence of a reliable source, it should not be considered reliable at all.

      For those readers unwilling to believe the unsupported 9 million newly insured claim without insisting on a verifiable source, here are a few reliable and fully documented sources that put the number around 20 million as of a year ago.
      “This issue brief reviews the most recent survey and administrative information available about
      gains in health insurance coverage since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010. We estimate that the provisions of the ACA have resulted in gains in health insurance coverage for 20.0 million adults through early 2016 (through February 22, 2016), a 2.4 million
      increase since our previous estimate in September 2015.”
      {1}
      ~ Department of Health and Human Services, March 3, 2016

      In addition, Forbes Magazine, hardly a staunch supporter of the ACA, spoke about the numbers of newly insured going back to several months earlier:
      “Goldman Sachs estimates that total coverage under the ACA increased by 13 to 14 million last year and may have increased by another 4 million during the first five months of 2015, for a total coverage increase of 17 to 18 million combined. At a top line, this coincides with the figure from RAND, which estimated that there were 22.8 million newly insured people since the launch of the ACA."{2}

      Do you have a source for “9 million newbies?”
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/1 … 0-2016.pdf
      {2} https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottl … 25ca1c788a

  14. profile image60
    MariRogersposted 5 months ago

    In reforming health care in the US, we need to make sure that reimbursement rates for physicians, hospitals, and outpatient testing facilities are HIGHER than they are now. Otherwise, quality of care suffers greatly and wait times for diagnosis and treatment increase. It's true. I've seen it myself while living in Canada, the UK, Sweden, and Switzerland.
      Access to health care means nothing if a person can't get the quality of care they need to get well!

    1. Nathanville profile image92
      Nathanvilleposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      MarieRogers, you obviously didn’t live in the UK long if your impression of our NHS is that it’s “Quality of Care Suffers Greatly”.

      As a Brit, who enjoys the benefits of the NHS, which is free at the point of use for all UK residents: -

      •    If I woke up one morning and thought I had tonsillitis I could see my GP the same day, have it confirmed on the spot whether it’s a virus or a bacterial infection, and if it did turn out to be tonsillitis be given a prescription for penicillin; which would cost me nothing because I’m over 60.  If I was younger and in employment the prescription would only be £8.40 (about $10).

      •    If I sprained an ankle I go to one of the walk in centres and get it immediately seen to (a free service to all UK residents).

      •    If I didn’t feel well, grazed my knee, got a splinter in my finger or broke my arm I could take myself to ‘A&E’ (Accident and Emergency) and be checked over and treated within 4 hours (a free service to all UK residents).

      •    If I didn’t feel well or just wanted advice I could make a free phone call to 111 (free non-emergency medical service); who would give me whatever advice I wanted, or make diagnosis over the phone by asking me specific questions; and then give me advice and who I should see for further help if required e.g. GP.  If during the course of the phone conversation they determine it’s a medical emergency they will call an ambulance on your behalf.

      •    If I (like any other UK citizen, regardless to how rich or poor, or young or old, they are) end up with a chronic or long term illness, then I will get full and free medical care for the rest of my like.

      According to the World Health Organisation (you can check figures on Wikipedia) the average life expectancy in 2015, in the UK is 81.2 years; compared to 79.3 years in the USA; which of course the quality of healthcare will play a major role.

      The only point you are correct on is that wait times for a proper diagnosis and full treatment is longer; if it’s a medical condition that a GP can’t deal with e.g. if you need an operation, or need to see a Consultant or Specialist; provided it’s not urgent or life threatening.  In an emergency you will be rushed to hospital and treated immediately.  Currently, the waiting list in the UK to see a Consultant or Specialist is 18 weeks; but as your treatment is completely free I think it’s a worthwhile compromise.

      •    To have a baby on the NHS is completely free.

      •    Cancer treatment and any drugs you need to take to treat the cancer are all completely free on the NHS.

      The NHS may not be perfect; but its comprehensive and because it cuts out the costs of ‘private money grabbing insurance companies’, and it’s GPs, doctors and nurses are Government Employees and over half of Consultants work for the government part time, and the hospitals and Ambulance service are owned by the government, it’s a lot cheaper to the tax payer than the system in the USA e.g. $3,000 per head of population, compared to $7,500 per head of population in America.

      We Brits love our NHS, it’s the nearest thing we have to a religion; as this video clearly explains: - https://youtu.be/bDdZCv5v2Rg

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        "Currently, the waiting list in the UK to see a Consultant or Specialist is 18 weeks"

        I tend to think this would be a complete deal breaker to Americans.  Few will wait even 4 weeks, let alone 4 months.

        1. Nathanville profile image92
          Nathanvilleposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Hi wilderness, I guess that’s the difference between British and American attitudes.   

          I for one would rather wait a few months for major non-urgent treatment that requires seeing a Consultant, when it’s FREE; and use the $10,000s saved on luxury items such as holidays, latest home entertainment equipment for the home, or home improvement etc.

          When my wife went to her GP with severe back pain she had to wait over 4 months to get the course of treatment she needed from a physiotherapist; although while waiting for the appointment her GP prescribed a course of painkillers.

          It was a worthwhile wait because physiotherapy on the NHS takes a holistic approach to the treatment e.g. as well as the six months physiotherapy treatment she needed, as part of the course she was given a check list of 5 areas where she could help herself for the future; including comprehensive training on the specific exercises she needs to do to help with her back condition, and a comprehensive diet sheet highlighting the foods that are beneficial to her condition and those foods that are unhelpful.

          And of course the whole treatment (and advice) was completely FREE; the $1,000s we saved by not having to pay anything for the treatment (and not having to pay any medical insurance) because it’s all paid for by taxes, meant that we had the money (which we wouldn’t otherwise have had) for me to spend about $7,000 on building materials to build the conservatory she always wanted.

          Since then, because she now has a back condition (which is now relatively pain free since the physiotherapy), as well as her income (she now works part time) she now qualifies for PIP (Personal Independence Payment), which is where the government pays her £2,886 ($3,582) per year; and because she gets PIP, and as I’m now the househusband who looks after her for more than 35 hours per week, on top of my works pension I now get the ‘Carers Allowance’ from the government, which is £3,255 ($4,040) per year.

          A close friend of mine went to his GP in January with a bad foot, he was put on a course of pain killers and referred to a Specialist who he saw last month, and following that consultation an operation has been arranged for the end of April to operate on the blood flow behind his knee (which is where the problem is).  He’s not on a high income, so he wouldn’t be able to afford any medical insurance (if we had that system in the UK), and he certainly couldn’t afford to pay for the treatment himself.  So again, he’s more than grateful that the whole service is FREE.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Perhaps the worst part of the whole thing is that it is not FREE.  There are no doctors working for FREE, no FREE nurses and even the janitor in the hospital is not FREE.  The drugs you take are not FREE, and the equipment used by the hospital or injured isn't either; somebody is being paid to produce the drugs, the CAT scanner and the artificial leg.  You and your fellow Brits pay a high sum for the service, whether you like to pretend it is FREE or not.

            It's indeed all about attitudes.

            1. Nathanville profile image92
              Nathanvilleposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Wilderness, before I address your points; first some comparative costings.   From various sources on the web I’ve seen figures banded around stating the healthcare in the USA is over 2.5 times more expensive per person than the cost of the NHS in the UK.

              Being the nerd and geek I am, I gathered my own data from reliable sources, and done my own calculations (as shown below).  My calculations are broadly in line with figures I've seen quoted on line, albeit mine seem to be a bit higher e.g. I make it 3.8 rather than 2.5; either way the message is similar.

              UK population 2015 = 64,715,810
              USA Population 2015 = 321,773,631
              [source: worldometers]

              UK Health Care Budget:-
              2015 £134.1 billion: -
              UK Healthcare Budget (NHS) for 2015 divided by UK population as at 2015 (£134.1 billion divided by 64,715,810 people) = £2,072 ($2,578) per person.

              USA Health Care:-
              According to the CMS the National Healthcare Expenditure (NHE) was projected to hit $3.207 trillion in 2015.  The U.S. Population at that time was (according to the CMS) hovering at around 320 million, so 2015 looked to be the first year healthcare spending would reach $10,000 per person.

              USA population is just a little under 5 times larger than the UK population, so if the USA had the same efficiency in Healthcare costs as the UK then the NHE should be nearer to 5 x £134.1 billion = £670.5 billion ($834 billion) and not the $3.207 trillion quoted above by the CMS for NHE in 2015; which is 3.8 times per person than it was for the whole of the NHS budget per person for the same year.

              Alternative calculation, using the same above figures;  take the $10,000 per person that it costs in the USA in 2015 (according to the CMS figures) and divide that by the $2,578 per person the NHS costs in the UK in 2015 = 3.8 more expensive for health care in the USA in comparison to the NHS budget for the same year.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                Yes, Americans pay more for their health care.  Of course, they get more for it, too, although I would not argue that the better care is equal to the higher cost. 

                None of which has a thing to do with trying to put over that the NHS is FREE, for it certainly is not.  Nor am I positive even the figures you give are actually accurate; in talking to an Aussie a while back (with the equivalent of NHS) it came up that doctors salaries are much lower than in the US...but that they don't pay for their years of schooling, their clinics, their malpractice insurance, or much of anything else, either.  All that is paid for by govt...but not included in such figures as you are giving.  Haven't a clue if that is similar to the UK, but would bet my bottom dollar there is more cost than what you are including.  On the other hand, what Americans pay in doctor fees, clinic fees, hospital fees, emergency transportation fees and drugs just about covers all of it.  Easy enough to put together.  It really is quite difficult to accurately compare costs when govt. sticks it's hand into the matter and many of those costs simply "disappear".

                1. Nathanville profile image92
                  Nathanvilleposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Wilderness, you are missing the point:  The NHS is free AT THE POINT of USE e.g. there are no co-pays or other additional expenses to use the NHS (it’s all paid for through the taxes).

                  The NHS in England deals with over 1 million patients every 36 hours.  It employs more than 1.5 million people; of those, the clinically qualified staff include 150,273 doctors, 40,584 general practitioners (GPs), 314,966 nurses and health visitors, 18,862 ambulance staff, and 111,127 hospital and community health service (HCHS) medical and dental staff.

                  In answer to your question about doctor training; in the UK if you want to become a doctor:-

                  •    In the first instance you need to study medicine at university for five or six years to get your Degrees, obviously at your own expense.
                  •    Then you need to do two years foundation training in hospitals (these are called junior doctors); and their wages are paid for out of the NHS Budget.
                  •    Then you need to spend a further three years training to become a GP, or five to eight years training if you want to become a Consultant or Specialist.  At this point all the training costs and wages come from the NHS budget.

                  Once you’ve completed your training and you’re a fully qualified GP, the NHS expects you to work for them for at least four years because of the investment costs the NHS has put into you.

                  Yes, in fact all NHS costs are actually included in the NHS Budget; because the Government doesn’t manage any of the running of the NHS directly, it has an hands off approach e.g. the Government gives the budget to the NHS for the NHS to cover all their costs in running the organisation; just like any private business would need to budget to cover all its costs.

                  The website for further information is: - http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/abo … rview.aspx

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    But that's the point - it isn't "obvious" that students pay their own college.  But something else occurs to me - have you included the cost of those private hospitals, and the doctors that work there?  Who pays ambulance fees, whether air or ground?  Is drug research subsidized, and who pays for those drugs when used (are pharmacies NHS, private or both)?  Are hospital utility costs included, or is it free from the government?  Who builds the hospitals? 

                    Point is that there are an enormous number of costs, not all of which are paid for by the NHS.

            2. Nathanville profile image92
              Nathanvilleposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Hi wilderness, if you read my other posts in this forum, you will have noted that frequently quality my statement by stressing that:-

              “The NHS is free (to all) AT THE POINT OF USE” e.g. paid for through the taxes (and with few minor exceptions), no ‘co-pays’.  The main exceptions being nominal dental charges and prescriptions being only about $10 (and even then most UK residents are exempt from paying the prescription charges anyway).

              The big advantages from the British point of view of paying for the NHS through our taxes are that:-

              •    Everyone is automatically entitled to full healthcare regardless,
              •    We don’t have to worry about whether we can afford medical insurance; because the costs of the NHS is paid for through the taxes, and
              •    No one has to worry about whether they can afford medical treatment, because it’s free at the point of use.

              All in all, it takes the worry and stress away from people on how they are going to cover their medical bills because it’s all paid for by the Government.  Albeit the Government doesn’t pay direly; they allocate a budget to the NHS, and the NHS administers the spending, which includes the wages for doctors and nurses, and the janitor and cleaning staff, and the costs of running the hospitals, getting equipment, supplies and buying the drugs etc.

              As regards costs; I don’t think we ‘Brits pay a high sum for the services’ as you quoted; when the NHS costs are compared to the National Healthcare Expenditure in the USA (according to figures published by the CSM) e.g. $2,578 per person in the UK compared to $10,000 per person in the USA (based on 2015 figures).

              If you want further information, then this video has some useful comparisons: - https://youtu.be/qMNuxPByEW0

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                I agree - the British would rather put the responsibility for their health care on the govt. (termed the "nanny state" in the US) rather than shoulder the responsibility for themselves.  No argument there - I even pointed it out.  It's a difference in attitude, just as I said, and it is one becoming ever more prominent and common in the US as well.  Perhaps a lot of it is the newness of this country; when one climbs into a covered wagon to cross 2,000 miles of open country and then sets up a home without any help from anyone else, it tends to hang on for a few generations.  Those times ended in the UK a thousand years ago or more, but my grandmother was one of the pioneers building a life for herself over here.  Only 2 generations ago.

                1. Nathanville profile image92
                  Nathanvilleposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Yep, I agree with you wilderness, Britain is a bit of a ‘nanny state’ (a term that is commonly used in the UK as well).  It can be a bit of a pain at times when the government appears to be over-protective; but then on the other hand it is for our own good, it can enhance the quality of our life and it does save lives.

                  I think it all started mainly in the latter part of the Victorian period, when more Liberal minded people started pushing for social reforms, which were dramatically enhanced after the Socialist Labour party had their landslide victory in 1945; and within just three years had set up the NHS and the welfare state.  So today, on the plus side, we have generous working conditions e.g. legal minimum of 5.6 weeks paid annual leave a year (although most large companies make it up to six weeks), the National Minimum Wage (for under 25s) and the National Living Wage (legal minimum wage for over 25s).  For pregnancy, a mother is entitled to 52 week maternity leave with full pay, and the father is entitled to up to two weeks Paternity leave with pay.

                  On the more irritating side are the strict health and safety laws; but then again they do save lives, so we can’t really complain too much e.g. in comparison to France (where we go for two weeks holiday each year) public events are always fenced or roped off so you can only watch from a distance (for your safety), whereas in France they don’t often bother fencing off events so you can get really close to the action.

                  Also, food is heavily regulated for safety in the UK, so many toxins that are commonly found in American foods are banned in Britain; which I feel is a good thing, as this video demonstrates:- https://youtu.be/oEh1IbOKRBo

                  Although one area where Britain is relaxed is in the drinking age; in the UK the minimum age you can buy alcohol is 18, but you can drink wine, beer or cider from the age of 16 in public if it’s with a meal and someone 18 or over buys the drink for you.  Also, under English law, children from the age of 5 can legally drink at home; which stems from the tradition of children sitting at the dining table during special occasions e.g. Christmas, Easter, and having a small glass of wine in celebration with the adults.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    "it is for our own good"

                    Now that's a term that has been used more than a few times throughout history! 

                    Yes, we saw that drinking thing when we visited.  The amount of alcohol apparently consumed on a day to day basis was staggering to us.  We visited mostly pubs for our meals and just weren't prepared for that - we seemed real odd balls not to have a bottle at dinner in the motels.

                    But overall, I'm a proponent of as little regulation as possible - something that just doesn't fit into European life.  Some things seem obvious to me - clean restaurants for instance - but a good deal of what is regulated even in the US is not the business of government but instead personal choice.

        2. Nathanville profile image92
          Nathanvilleposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Hi wilderness, although attitudes in Britain is different to American attitudes e.g. we like the FREE NHS, there are private hospitals in the UK if anyone wanted to use them; but the vast bulk of people, including most wealthy people, prefer to use the NHS.

          Private hospitals make up about 10% of medical care in the UK.  Half of Consultants and Specialists work fulltime for the NHS, and the other half work part time for the NHS and part time for the private hospitals.

          The biggest customer of private hospitals in the UK is the NHS.  If the NHS has a patient that they don’t currently have the ‘Resources’ to treat then the NHS will commission those resources from the private hospitals (using tax payers money). 

          This arrangement stems back to the foundation of the NHS back in 1948.  At the time there was fierce opposition from doctors and Consultants.  Few were willing to sign up to the new NHS.  To resolve the opposition, the Socialist Labour Government made a deal with the Consultants that if they agreed to work for the NHS part time they would be allowed to also continue with their private practice part-time; a compromise for the Government but a win-win for the Consultants. 

          Once the Consultants were on-board a few of the doctor practices started to sign-up to the NHS.  The other doctors then quickly realised that they would lose their patients to any NHS doctor practice in their area.  In order to keep from losing their patients to NHS practices (which would offer a free service) all the other doctor practices started to sign-up to the NHS; a domino effect; and within less than a month the Government had the whole medical practice throughout the whole of the UK on-board for the new NHS. 

          And 70 years on; the rest is history.

  15. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 5 months ago

    "The Trump administration will face an early test in how it handles a lawsuit the House filed against the Obama administration, which the new president’s team inherited. If Congress refuses to back down or the Justice Department fails to continue fighting the suit, the result would be the loss of subsidies that help millions of low-income people pay out-of-pocket health costs. Withdrawing this support would cause insurers to flee Obamacare markets, leading to massive coverage losses. Cooperation between Congress and the White House could easily solve this problem, but Republicans would have to agree to bolster an element of a law they have for years hysterically condemned."  Washington Post Editorial Board

 
working