DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... What is the alternative to Obamacare?

It seems that a lot more do agree however.

Much like how those "no go" zones exist? You failed to prove the existence of them, and I doubt you can prove many in the UK want to get rid of their health service.

Come with facts to the table to a majority of those in the UK want to abolish their healthcare system. Your sources must come from major news networks, a variety of sources, and well known publications.

---------------------------

40, I thought conservatives loved your uncle Vlad these days? How come your sudden fear mongering over the big red machine?

After work tonight I stopped to see my dad at the nursing home (the same nursing home we self payed about 160k before Medicaid) and the news was on and the republicans in congress are looking at covering the pre-existing conditions with a high risk pool (roughly 50-100% adder) and then setting aside 25 billion dollars over 10 years to subsidize some tax breaks.

Better not be high risk pools. Thats even worse than what we have now. We had that before and it was total crap.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/high-risk-pools-obamacare-replacement

If they dont get this crap straightened out post haste Im going to the dark side and voting democrat next election.

I wasn't joking when I said this issue could really hurt republicans. When people's grandmothers, spouses, and kids start to die because they can't afford health care, those people will switch their vote REAL quick.

Things is Bard, it's all subjective isn't it? To some on here an insurance plan that doesn't cover maternity leave or birth control even thought the customer is a man would be considered "weak". Being the man buying that plan, I personally would think it was a solid plan.

I agree the perceive haste to get rid of it doesn't help. But apparently there have been over a dozen different plans brought forth by Republicans over the last several years. I say 'apparently' out of full disclosure that I don't know any specifics of those plans. I do know however that other plans have been proposed despite Dem insistence Reps have no plan. The thing we have to keep in mind with Dems is that unless your idea is the exact same as theirs, it's a crap plan or it doesn't even exist.

Here's why I don't trust single payer and why I don't understand why so many people are giddy about it.

It's been theorized that Obamacare was purposefully a crap system precisely to create an environment where we would pretty much be forced in to single payer.

After several years of Obamacare and the devastating impact it has had on families, single payer is now a serious consideration.

And we're just supposed to be ok with that?

Even if you don't believe it was done on purpose, just look at the ineptitude of Obamacare. EVERY aspect of Obamacare has been proven to be a broken promise, outright lie, or severely underperformed. It has never held a majority favorability with the People. People say "well, it just needs tweaked". No, there is no tweaking.

Your concern about a replacement or repeal being pushed through in the dead of night in secret? That's how the ACA was born. Straight party line vote. And when the Dems nearly didn't have all the votes, they bought Senators off with tons of money for their districts. It was no secret. And almost none of the people who voted for it could actually tell you what was in it. I'm sure 40 or someone will chime in with Nancy Pelosi's famous quote.

Interestingly enough, those on the other side of the aisle who did read the bill predicted every facet of the ACA's failure: no, you can't keep your doctor, no, you can't keep your plan, no, 30 million uninsured people will become insured, no, premiums will not go down or controlled in the least bit, instead they'll sky rocket.

All this stuff was predicted but it was hidden under claims that anyone who didn't favor the ACA hated sick children and were racists.

Sorry man, the ACA mandated everyone be covered and it mandated what kind of coverage you had to pay for. It's been a disaster. At this point I see no reason why I should trust a single payer system, another program where I am mandated to pay for coverage and told what coverage I need.

Rankings of Healthcare Systems

All the countries in the top ten use some form of universal health care. Some go with a mixed option with public, and private if you want other things.

Spoiler Alert: The United States of America fails to even crack the top third in these rankings of healthcare serviices across the world!

But hey, keep on keeping on with that "open up insurance across state lines to cause great competition" theory. None of those in the top 10 utilize such an idea.

Interesting read:

The hidden reason Republicans are so eager to repeal Obamacare


http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2...hoo&ref=yfp


There is one fact that is both central to the debate over repealing the Affordable Care Act yet strangely absent from explicit discussion about it. One of the main ways the ACA makes health insurance affordable is by providing families earning less than 400 percent of the poverty line (i.e., less than $85,000 for a family of three or less than $47,550 for a single person) with tax credits to defray the cost of purchasing insurance. Giving people money helps make things more affordable. President Obama and the congressional Democrats who wrote the law didn’t find the money for those subsidies hidden in a banana stand — they did what Democrats like to do when paying for things and raised taxes on affluent families.

Republicans do not like this idea. They dislike the idea of raising taxes on wealthy households so much that back in 2011, they pushed the country to the brink of defaulting on the national debt rather than agree to rescind George W. Bush’s high-end tax cuts. In December 2012, they tried to insist that they wouldn’t let Obama extend the portion of the Bush tax cuts that everyone (including rich people) got unless he also extended the tax cuts that only rich people got.

All of which is to say that despite Democrats’ occasional protestations of bafflement as to why the GOP would so uniformly oppose a market-based approach to universal health care that Mitt Romney happily adopted in the mid-aughts in Massachusetts, there’s no real mystery here. Subsidizing the health care costs of working-class people is expensive, and while Democrats want rich people to pay the freight for doing it, Republicans do not.

That’s an important reason why they opposed the Affordable Care Act, it’s an important reason why they want to repeal it, it’s an important reason why they can’t replace it with something better, and it’s also an important reason why they may end up just dropping the whole thing.

Repealing Obamacare is a huge tax cut for the rich
This did not play a major overt public role in the 2009-’10 debate about the law, but the Affordable Care Act’s financing rests on a remarkably progressive base. That means that, as the Tax Policy Center has shown, repealing it would shower money on a remarkably small number of remarkably wealthy Americans.

The two big relevant taxes, according to the TPC’s Howard Gleckman, are “a 0.9 percent payroll surtax on earnings and a 3.8 percent tax on net investment income for individuals with incomes exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 for couples).” That payroll tax hike hits a reasonably broad swath of affluent individuals, but in a relatively minor way. The 3.8 percent tax on net investment income (money made from owning or selling stocks and other financial instruments rather than working), by contrast, is a pretty hefty tax, but one that falls overwhelmingly on the small number of people who have hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in investment income.


Tax Policy Center
For the bottom 60 percent of the population — that is, households earning less than about $67,000 a year — repeal of the ACA would end up meaning an increase in taxes due to the loss of ACA tax credits.

But people in the top 1 percent of the income distribution — those with incomes of over about $430,000 — would see their taxes fall by an average of $25,000 a year.

And for the true elite in the top 0.1 percent — people like designated White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and many major campaign donors — the tax cut is truly enormous. Households with incomes of more than $1.9 million would get an extra $165,000 a year in take-home pay. That’s obviously more than enough money to make these hyper-elite families come out ahead regardless of what happens to health insurance markets.

By contrast, upper-middle-class families would get an extra $110 a year in after-tax income. That’s nice, but it isn’t going to replace a health insurance plan.

This is why Republicans can’t make a better replacement
Republicans have made a lot of political hay out of pointing out that the plans available under the Affordable Care Act are, in many ways, disappointing. Unsubsidized premiums are higher than people would like. Deductibles and copayments are higher than people would like. The networks of available doctors are narrower than people would like.

These problems are all very real, and they all could be fixed.

They are not, however, problems that any of the GOP replacement plans fix. Instead, while Republican alternatives vary in many important ways, they all fundamentally offer stingier insurance to a narrower group of people.

This is because the Republican plans all envision rolling back these ACA taxes. But under those circumstances, it’s simply not possible for the GOP to offer people the superior insurance coverage that it is promising.

Phil Klein, a top conservative health policy journalist, has urged Republicans to solve their overpromising problem by “stating a simple truth, which goes something like this: ‘We don't believe that it is the job of the federal government to guarantee that everybody has health insurance.’”

This is also why Republicans might drop repeal
While mania for tax cuts is an important driver of the GOP push to repeal the Affordable Care Act, it might also ultimately be what leads them to abandon it. If Republicans end up scrapping their “repeal and delay” plan, in which they immediately start destroying insurance markets while only vaguely gesturing at some unknown possible alternative, they will find themselves getting bogged down in a discussion of exactly what a replacement plan should look like. At that point, Republicans will find that the next item on their agenda is tax reform.

Republicans have a bunch of different tax plans floating around, but they all feature enormous tax cuts for wealthy households. Democrats will object, but they won’t be able to stop the GOP from enacting a big tax cut. The only issue will be how large of an increase in the budget deficit do Republicans consider economically viable. Once that’s decided, however, the tight linkage between the ACA and tax policy will be broken, since the entire rate structure will have already been rewritten in a way that makes the ACA’s specific financing mechanism irrelevant.

Taking away people’s health insurance is one way to create more budgetary space for additional tax cuts. But the same would be true of cutting spending on any program. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail Trump promised a $1 trillion infrastructure surge, an increase in military spending, no cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, and a balanced budget. Something will need to give, but it’s by no means clear that zeroing in on the health care law will be the way to go. It will end up being one of many programs on which the government spends money to provide social services that Democrats generally want to make more generous and Republicans generally want to make stingier.

No matter how the budget crunch gets resolved, however, the tax issue is the $500 billion elephant in the room. It’s a key reason GOP leaders want repeal, a key reason GOP leaders have trouble agreeing on a replacement, and potentially a key reason they’ll ultimately decide to move on to other matters. Talking about health care politics without talking about the revenue side misses an enormous part of the story.

High taxes are not the answer. Passing regulations on these greedy ass healthcare companies to lower costs is the answer.

I feel you.

i just agree with the idea that we just need to tweak the ACA. not repeal it.

we can lower the tax requirements if we passed regulations, such as price caps.

but unfortunately i don't hear any top republican leadership talking about price caps, which is a major factor in the cost of healthcare.

before the ACA, big pharma was running wild. with the ACA, they are still out of control, but at least we managed to put some sort of leash on it.

but if we go back to big pharma setting all the requirements, such as not allowing people with preexisting conditions to get coverage unless they fall under a high risk pool, then what?

at some point, we as Americans need to understand that the health of our nation overrides the profit margins. big pharma is gonna get paid regardless, but that doesn't mean we can't put some freaking restrictions on it.

That wasn't big pharma, that was big insurance...

The reps have stated they want to keep some of the key components of ACA.. if they keep them, they are going to have to keep taxes up or understand that the debt will climb that much faster... Those are your two choices, the money has to come from somewhere.

Side note on taxes.. I had to print out my 2015 taxes because of an issue with the IRS.. Keep in mind, I'm not a billionaire with houses and boats and 100 different kinds of investments and trusts.. I'm a middle class dude with 1 house, 2 cars, 2 kids, some investments, a 401K, and some charitable donations... my taxes, when I printed them out, was 120 pages...

one could make the extremely viable argument that big pharma and big insurance go hand and hand. attached at the hip. remember, big pharma goes to big insurance to help them market their products.

the taxes can be lowered if we put some restrictions on these guys. again, like price caps. it ain't the end all, be all, but it's certainly a start.

as far as the taxes goes, i don't know about that kind of life just yet that you have to fill out. my wife and my stuff is simple so we just use Turbo tax and call it a day.

I think this is the answer I agree with the most. Definitely opposed to anything single payer, as that's even FURTHER in the direction we're currently going.

Why is it that you leave out the rest of the health care industry?

You go one place for an MRI and they charge 7,000 buck. Go to another place and they charge 6,000, while yet another place charged 4,500. Now if you don't have health insurance they charge you those high prices, BUT if you have insurance and your insurance company only pays 2,000 for the MRI then the hospital takes that amount and has no problem. Why can't the government step in and say hey you can only charge 2,000 foran mri SINCE THE COMPANIES ARE FINE ACCEPTING THAT FROM MANY PEOPLE.

Oh wait that's common sense, which I told y'all had gone out the window years ago.

That wont work when hospitals charge 200 bucks for a fifty cent bag of iv saline solution, 10 bucks for a bandaid, etc

The whole entire system is rigged to rape consumer wallets. It needs a total tear down and rebuild.

When I say big pharma, I mean the entire thing.

I literally mentioned the insurance guys going to hospitals and marketing their products to doctors.

The entire game needs to have a choke collar on it. I didn't leave anything out bro.

I kinda agree with you. But, an mri in high falooting NYC is going to cost more than one here in n.w. ohio.

Same as minimum wage can't be a natonwide thing. Imagine if min. wage here in n.w. Ohio was the same as SAn Diego.

Everything varies.

Sis in law needed an mri on her shoulder not terrible long ago. She got it done at a clinic in Toledo for $1500, as opposed to the local hospital (and boy, you don't know how much I love and respect the local hospital), for $2500.


Back in october, I finally decided to go to urgent care for my foot problem. I crutched in and said "how much is it for a foot x ray? I either bruised, or broke my calcaneus."

Reply: "Well, do you have insurance, or are you self pay?"

Me: Why does that matter?
Reply: Well, I can't answer that because it all depends on if the doctor thinks you need an x ray.

Me: I need an x ray or else I wouldn't be here. How much will it cost?

Reply: Do you have insurance?





On and on.

This is essentially correct. I had to write a final paper for my economics class and I chose the topic of socialized medicine and why it doesn't work and the many problems that exist. That was probably one of the funnest papers I've ever done, some people will probably think that's weird, but using economic theories and tying them back to real world examples over time, and across countries was the result.

After doing that paper I was 100% against anything socialized medicine\single payer. I don't trust the government one iota to manage and spend my money well. You've got to be kidding me, and I'm going to give them more of it through taxes, I don't think so.

Well we can agree withmost of that

I agree, HOWEVER remember that hospitals are forced to eat the bills for so many people who don't have insurance.

AMEN and I agree bro.

They should have to list their prices for all to see, and it should be the same price for everyone.

I think that is fewer people than they complain about. Used to be when I went to the er it was busy as Hell. These day insurance covers nothing and an er trip will cost you a couple thousand dollars out of pocket easy. Nobody goes to the er any more. When I was there for kidney stones last october it was empty. I had zero wait time and a 2.5k bill.

Most definitely. If you need a kidney operation it should be the same price no matter who you are, pre-existing condition or whatever. I am relatively healthy so I haven't had to make that many trips to the hospital and such but my mom has M.S so she has multiple trips to diff. places.

Depending on your pre-existing condition, when you apply for health insurance, does it cost more, is your deductible high. Is it similar to if you've had a lot of car accidents and apply for car insurance where the company considers it a "risk" to take you on?

If you have pre existing conditions they either flat out deny you, or they charge you double for insurance that does not cover your condition. I paid 650 for coverage that does not cover my crohns. If I needed crohns surgery I would be totally screwed.

And by the same token, speaking car insurance here, if you have a speeding ticket, or a 16 year driver on your insurance, or a dui on your record, you pay more for insurance.

Want to buy a house? That house that has a flooded basement 2 or 3 times over the past 10 years or so, it'll cost you a lot more in insurance.

Health insurance bought by you? If you smoke, or have smoked, you're paying more. Same with life insurance.

Its not really comparable. You can choose to not drive, but you frequently cant choose bad health. And health problems are a hell of a lot more expensive than a fender bender. which is why we have medicare. So all the sick elderly people can afford insurance.

This doesn't make any sense.

You can choose not to drive drunk or get a speeding ticket if you drive safe.

But due to family history like genetics, you can't choose to have preexisting conditions.

But you're saying they should pay more for something completely out of their control? Huh?

Also, there was an article posted a while back that said that 70% of Americans are currently taking at least 1 prescription medication. When 70 percent of Americans are in a fender bender every month, let me know what your car ins premiums cost.

Trumps new plan has got me catching up on herbs and potuses.

I hear we each get a blood letting kit from the government.

Everybody is covered.

Years ago I did an internship at a dr office where the dr practiced both western medicine and homeopathic medicine. The homeopathic medicine was some serious voodoo.

Can somebody explain to me how Aflac works?

I see the commercials all the time, and the idea just seems shady for some reason.

I can understand that However take the Boardman/youngstown area. Within a 20 mile area (small county are witch means about 20 min drive in any direction) and not a single damn place charges the same damn price. It's not even close.

Why Canadian drug prices are MUCH cheaper than American prices for the same med.
Some very simple regulations.

Mainly this:



http://www.canadadrugcenter.com/why-are-meds-cheaper-in-canada.asp

Other countries don't have the FDA, and they don't help us to cover the cost of what it takes to put a drug through all that testing.

But they buy it from American drug companies at the prices their countries set.

"High Drug Development" costs is a BS argument. Pharmaceutical companies have higher profit margins than most other industries of every type. They crap money.

I don't know that it's an argument, more than an excuse. Don't they get a lot of 'grant' money from the government through us, for research?

I dont know if they get grants or not. I hope they dont. All I know is these companies are incredibly wealthy and greedy. Research is part of the cost to do business. Every business has costs. Most businesses dont have profit margins as large as they do.

You're welcome to come to the darkside, Eve.

Healthcare is my hot button. Thats for sure.

Tomorrow I have to go get a scan that will cost me 1500 to test for a condition I most likely dont have. If I have this condition then I need surgery and I need it before Trump gets my insurance cancelled. I am so sick of it already.

I just find it silly how many other nations do a national health service, and you rarely hear complaints. Many of their citizens give high ranks to the health systems, too.

People must get too duped into the statements not based in factual data.