Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[JimBowie1958]

You left out the one that will actually happen -

As problems occur, make the necessary changes.

Or, we could just do what rw's are so good at - lie and refuse to learn about it.

You are one of the biggest liars and deluded fools on this message board, so who cares what you think? We can get it more easily from the Hard left talking points memo, lol.

BTW, problems ARE occurring, Dimwit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.

What would you want to be changed?

Repeal the ACA and implement a single payer system, expand Medicare for all Americans.

lol, yeah right, because socialized medicine works so well....NOT.

Basically you just said, 'Don't listen to me because I am a leftwing ideological sloganeer.'

 

[PMZ]

There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare. It covers over half of the medical costs in the country. An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.

Do you know why that will never happen?

Private insurance companies can't stand the competition.

 

[Care4all]

I keep hearing people talk about 'across State Lines" and how that can save money...

Somebody want to explain how that works?

After 25 years in the Business, I still have no idea how or why it would save anybody one cent.

Know why? Because it won't and it can't.

It's just more empty, bullshit, pie-in-the-sky ignorance from dimocraps

Not necessarily. Everything depends on how things get implemented, but the advantages of allowing insurance purchase across state lines are these, potentially:

1. It allows for states to compete with each other for more participation in their insurance pools, and this should improve efficiency and costs.

2. It gives control to a lower level of government that would be more responsive to the preferences of the local state population.

3. It allows for people to have more choice. We have the ability to choose across state lines for other services, why not health care insurance?

4. It creates an opportunity for state governments to experiment with variations that might add a surprisingly better way of doing things, the states being their own Guinea pigs, in effect.

Jim,

FYI- in the first quip....this is discussing employees that DO HAVE group insurance available from their employer but choose to forfeit going with their employer contributed plans offered off of the exchange, and decide to buy an independent insurance plan from the exchange....the gvt will not subsidize you, because your employer will subsidize you if you go with one of the Company plans offered.

Those people above and your 1st quote/image is not in any way related to the situation with the Congressional employees.

UNLIKE every other citizen in the USA, the congressional employees were being forced through Grassley's amendment to leave the multi choice healthcare plans that they had been able to choose from, and are being forced to choose from only the insurance companies and policies offered on the exchange....

NO WHERE in his amendment does it mention that they would take away the benefit and compensation package that they were promised upon hire...and yes, health care benefits such as the employer contribution is part of the employee's compensation, in both the private and public sectors....it wasn't even discussed in the senate when Grassley introduced the amendment....the point of issue was that grasley wanted Congress critters to have to have the same insurance policy choices as the people who choose to buy insurance through the exchange only, and not the gazillion billion premium choices they did have at their fingertips....it was NEVER about them losing their employee contribution benefit/compensation....never!

And I find it quite deceiving for you and many many others, to imply otherwise...so maybe you are just misinformed or are crying wolf again for no reason?

Setting that aside, congress critters are paid an awful lot of money, and I wouldn't shed a tear if they lost this benefit, or did the right thing and chose to give it up for themselves...they earn enough to buy their own healthcare...

BUT those that work for congress who don't make nearly what Congressmen and Senators make would be hurt tremendously, by this action...

 

[auditor0007]

OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.

What would you want to be changed?

A simple business tax on each employee who is not provided health insurance to help defray the cost of subsidies provided to lower income earners. I think 5% of the employee's salary would work well. In most cases that would be well below what it would cost to provide insurance but it would still mean employers would be paying something towards the nations healthcare system. This would actually be done with the idea of eventually getting employers out of the business of providing health insurance and allowing people to buy their own insurance, with a mandate that people must have health insurance.

Next up would be to allow more options for insurance coverage. In other words, those who do not need maternity coverage should not have to pay for it. Those who do not need coverage for birth control should not have to pay for it. Regular preventative care like colonoscopies and mammograms would remain required on all policies because everyone needs these tests. I would also want to see the catastrophic plan opened up to people over the age of 30.

 

[auditor0007]

There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare. It covers over half of the medical costs in the country. An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.

Do you know why that will never happen?

Private insurance companies can't stand the competition.

There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough. If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up. Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers. To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.

 

[PMZ]

There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare. It covers over half of the medical costs in the country. An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.

Do you know why that will never happen?

Private insurance companies can't stand the competition.

There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough. If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up. Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers. To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.

''If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up.''

I believe that I know doctors whose practice is very largely Medicare and they seem to be doing fine.

On the other hand, there certainly are many ways that our health care non system could be made more cost effective. I believe that Medicare already is the most compelling cost control force we have. Expanding it's scope, as an alternative to private insurance for folks under 65, would expand that influence.

In addition, now that private health care insurance companies will have to go head to head on the exchanges, they may well add to Medicare's influence in health care cost control. Especially if they will ever have to compete with Medicare head to head.

All in all, ACA, even without improvement, will be regarded by history as the first and most comprehensive step in the ultimate path to health care that is competitive with the rest of the world.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I keep hearing people talk about 'across State Lines" and how that can save money...

Somebody want to explain how that works?

After 25 years in the Business, I still have no idea how or why it would save anybody one cent.

Know why? Because it won't and it can't.

It's just more empty, bullshit, pie-in-the-sky ignorance from dimocraps

Not necessarily. Everything depends on how things get implemented, but the advantages of allowing insurance purchase across state lines are these, potentially:

1. It allows for states to compete with each other for more participation in their insurance pools, and this should improve efficiency and costs.

2. It gives control to a lower level of government that would be more responsive to the preferences of the local state population.

3. It allows for people to have more choice. We have the ability to choose across state lines for other services, why not health care insurance?

4. It creates an opportunity for state governments to experiment with variations that might add a surprisingly better way of doing things, the states being their own Guinea pigs, in effect.

Jim,

FYI- in the first quip....this is discussing employees that DO HAVE group insurance available from their employer but choose to forfeit going with their employer contributed plans offered off of the exchange, and decide to buy an independent insurance plan from the exchange....the gvt will not subsidize you, because your employer will subsidize you if you go with one of the Company plans offered.

If any person, call him Bob Smith, takes insurance from the exchange, the government will NOT subsidize them, correct? That would appear to be your assertion here unless I am misreading you.

Many people will drop their employer insurance and many employers will drop their insurance giving their employees no choice EXCEPT to go to the exchanges for their insurance. So the government will not contribute to said purchases, fine, it is harsh but at least people have a choice among the plans and the istuation can be improved with revision and amendment.

Congresscritters are being forced to get their insurance from the exchanges just like employees who are being dropped from their employers insurance.

So WHY should Congresscritters and their employees be treated any differently than Bob Smith? If this part of Obamacare is so draconian for them, why is it thought to be just fine for everyone else that isnt a major contributer to the DNC or a Congresscritter?

Those people above and your 1st quote/image is not in any way related to the situation with the Congressional employees.

UNLIKE every other citizen in the USA, the congressional employees were being forced through Grassley's amendment to leave the multi choice healthcare plans that they had been able to choose from, and are being forced to choose from only the insurance companies and policies offered on the exchange....

NO WHERE in his amendment does it mention that they would take away the benefit and compensation package that they were promised upon hire...

If Bob Smith Worked at Bumpkin Incorporated, and they decided that the insurance packages were too expensive, even if that was part of Bob's hiring package, Bob would have no choice but to go to the exchanges. Why should that be any different for Congresscritters?

...and yes, health care benefits such as the employer contribution is part of the employee's compensation, in both the private and public sectors....it wasn't even discussed in the senate when Grassley introduced the amendment....the point of issue was that grasley wanted Congress critters to have to have the same insurance policy choices as the people who choose to buy insurance through the exchange only, and not the gazillion billion premium choices they did have at their fingertips....it was NEVER about them losing their employee contribution benefit/compensation....never!

Getting their own insurance off the exchanges WITHOUT government contribution *IS* what average tax payers will have to do if their employers drop health care insurance...so what makes Congresscritters so exceptional?

And I find it quite deceiving for you and many many others, to imply otherwise...so maybe you are just misinformed or are crying wolf again for no reason?

No, I think I understand it just fine, thank you for your concern.

Setting that aside, congress critters are paid an awful lot of money, and I wouldn't shed a tear if they lost this benefit, or did the right thing and chose to give it up for themselves...they earn enough to buy their own healthcare...

BUT those that work for congress who don't make nearly what Congressmen and Senators make would be hurt tremendously, by this action...

AS will a good deal of the REST OF THE COUNTRY, Einstein.

But leftists not living under the conditions that their policies and laws have created for everyone else has long been a hall mark of leftist government from the Jacobins of France, to the Leninists, the Stalinists, the Maoists, Khmer Rougue, etc.

So why should anyone be surprized that leftists in this country dont want to either?

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare. It covers over half of the medical costs in the country. An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.

Do you know why that will never happen?

Private insurance companies can't stand the competition.

There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough. If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up. Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers. To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.

Some doctors make up for the low compensation of Medicare by doing phony or unnecessary tests and treatments to rack up the bill with as few assets involved as possible. They are geared to exploit Medicare from the ground up, milking Uncle Sucker and US tax payers for every dime.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Moved to the proper forum. HEALTHCARE folks, HEALTHCARE.....

As you were...

Yep, you killed the thread pretty much dead as a door knob.

Good job.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Illustrative of the lefties attempts to evade the actual facts, and kind of funy since Hannity loses his cool, lol.

?YOU?RE LYING!?: A FIRED-UP SEAN HANNITY OFFERS DEM CONGRESSMAN A $10K OBAMACARE BET FOR CHARITY ? HERE?S HIS RESPONSE |

 

[Bern80]

There were a couple things on there that I think would help overall, like insurance being able to be purchased across state lines, but overall the whole general idea is just plain bad. An insurance based solution that doesn't allow the concept of insurance to work the way insurance is supposed to work is doomed to make things worse not better. We're already seeing it. Everyone else; those that can afford it, those that already have coverage, hospitals, medical device manufacturer's, they all lose on Obamacare for the sake of insuring a few millions people. Don't get me wrong, getting those people medical care is a worthy goal, but Obamacare might the dumbest way of accomplshing that goal that could possibly have been dreamt up.

 

[PMZ]

There were a couple things on there that I think would help overall, like insurance being able to be purchased across state lines, but overall the whole general idea is just plain bad. An insurance based solution that doesn't allow the concept of insurance to work the way insurance is supposed to work is doomed to make things worse not better. We're already seeing it. Everyone else; those that can afford it, those that already have coverage, hospitals, medical device manufacturer's, they all lose on Obamacare for the sake of insuring a few millions people. Don't get me wrong, getting those people medical care is a worthy goal, but Obamacare might the dumbest way of accomplshing that goal that could possibly have been dreamt up.

Your opinion offers no evidence that supports your claims. A common problem with Republican politics. We get that Republicans don't like solutions that they (deservedly) get no credit for. Until they drop that tone and adopt one of evidence based improvements, they will continue to be considered irrelevant to health care.

 

[Bern80]

There were a couple things on there that I think would help overall, like insurance being able to be purchased across state lines, but overall the whole general idea is just plain bad. An insurance based solution that doesn't allow the concept of insurance to work the way insurance is supposed to work is doomed to make things worse not better. We're already seeing it. Everyone else; those that can afford it, those that already have coverage, hospitals, medical device manufacturer's, they all lose on Obamacare for the sake of insuring a few millions people. Don't get me wrong, getting those people medical care is a worthy goal, but Obamacare might the dumbest way of accomplshing that goal that could possibly have been dreamt up.

Your opinion offers no evidence that supports your claims. A common problem with Republican politics. We get that Republicans don't like solutions that they (deservedly) get no credit for. Until they drop that tone and adopt one of evidence based improvements, they will continue to be considered irrelevant to health care.

Take your own advice. Not agreeing with Obamacare does not make me a Republican. And yes there is plenty of evidence already that this isn't going to work. Obama flat out lied. He said if you like your policy you will get to keep it. That simply isn't the case.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare. It covers over half of the medical costs in the country. An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.

Do you know why that will never happen?

Private insurance companies can't stand the competition.

There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough. If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up. Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers. To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.

Some doctors make up for the low compensation of Medicare by doing phony or unnecessary tests and treatments to rack up the bill with as few assets involved as possible. They are geared to exploit Medicare from the ground up, milking Uncle Sucker and US tax payers for every dime.

They have to do this. If the doctor orders a mammogram because he found a lump, it costs $150.00 for the test, and he gets reimbursed at $45.00, of course he's going to find some other way to make up the difference. No one could continue to support a medical practice if it costs them more than twice what they actually get. The patient doesn't have it. They pad the bill. If we had honest reimbursement doctors wouldn't have to take this kind of reckless action.

While there are many reasons for high costs, there are a couple of major ones. Continual advances in very expensive equipment. The outrageously high cost of litigation. If the government really wanted to bring down the cost of healthcare, we would have tort reform and subsidized medical equipment. The government could buy thousands of MRI machines at a substantial discount and rent them to doctors. Instead, the idiots in the white house decided to tax medical devices.

It's not about providing good medical care. It's about providing substandard medical care to as many people as possible.

 

[Bern80]

There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough. If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up. Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers. To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.

Some doctors make up for the low compensation of Medicare by doing phony or unnecessary tests and treatments to rack up the bill with as few assets involved as possible. They are geared to exploit Medicare from the ground up, milking Uncle Sucker and US tax payers for every dime.

They have to do this. If the doctor orders a mammogram because he found a lump, it costs $150.00 for the test, and he gets reimbursed at $45.00, of course he's going to find some other way to make up the difference. No one could continue to support a medical practice if it costs them more than twice what they actually get. The patient doesn't have it. They pad the bill. If we had honest reimbursement doctors wouldn't have to take this kind of reckless action.

While there are many reasons for high costs, there are a couple of major ones. Continual advances in very expensive equipment. The outrageously high cost of litigation. If the government really wanted to bring down the cost of healthcare, we would have tort reform and subsidized medical equipment. The government could buy thousands of MRI machines at a substantial discount and rent them to doctors. Instead, the idiots in the white house decided to tax medical devices.

It's not about providing good medical care. It's about providing substandard medical care to as many people as possible.

That's a pretty interesting idea actually. Instead Obama did the opposite. He's taxing medical decice manufacturer's. Raising the costs to the service providers, which will get passed on to paitents. It's so ass backwards from the stated goal.

 

[PMZ]

There were a couple things on there that I think would help overall, like insurance being able to be purchased across state lines, but overall the whole general idea is just plain bad. An insurance based solution that doesn't allow the concept of insurance to work the way insurance is supposed to work is doomed to make things worse not better. We're already seeing it. Everyone else; those that can afford it, those that already have coverage, hospitals, medical device manufacturer's, they all lose on Obamacare for the sake of insuring a few millions people. Don't get me wrong, getting those people medical care is a worthy goal, but Obamacare might the dumbest way of accomplshing that goal that could possibly have been dreamt up.

Your opinion offers no evidence that supports your claims. A common problem with Republican politics. We get that Republicans don't like solutions that they (deservedly) get no credit for. Until they drop that tone and adopt one of evidence based improvements, they will continue to be considered irrelevant to health care.

Take your own advice. Not agreeing with Obamacare does not make me a Republican. And yes there is plenty of evidence already that this isn't going to work. Obama flat out lied. He said if you like your policy you will get to keep it. That simply isn't the case.

Please don't deny that you are a Republican. Hopefully, that would be beneath you.

Where is the evidence? Claiming that there's evidence isn't evidence. It's conspiracy theory.

 

[PMZ]

There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough. If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up. Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers. To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.

Some doctors make up for the low compensation of Medicare by doing phony or unnecessary tests and treatments to rack up the bill with as few assets involved as possible. They are geared to exploit Medicare from the ground up, milking Uncle Sucker and US tax payers for every dime.

They have to do this. If the doctor orders a mammogram because he found a lump, it costs $150.00 for the test, and he gets reimbursed at $45.00, of course he's going to find some other way to make up the difference. No one could continue to support a medical practice if it costs them more than twice what they actually get. The patient doesn't have it. They pad the bill. If we had honest reimbursement doctors wouldn't have to take this kind of reckless action.

While there are many reasons for high costs, there are a couple of major ones. Continual advances in very expensive equipment. The outrageously high cost of litigation. If the government really wanted to bring down the cost of healthcare, we would have tort reform and subsidized medical equipment. The government could buy thousands of MRI machines at a substantial discount and rent them to doctors. Instead, the idiots in the white house decided to tax medical devices.

It's not about providing good medical care. It's about providing substandard medical care to as many people as possible.

You make it sound like the health care insurance non system that ACA replaced was world class. Not even close. Nearly the worst in the developed world.

The only functional health care insurance that we have is Medicare. And it's up against nearly the most inefficient health care system imaginable.

 

[PMZ]

There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough. If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up. Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers. To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.

Some doctors make up for the low compensation of Medicare by doing phony or unnecessary tests and treatments to rack up the bill with as few assets involved as possible. They are geared to exploit Medicare from the ground up, milking Uncle Sucker and US tax payers for every dime.

They have to do this. If the doctor orders a mammogram because he found a lump, it costs $150.00 for the test, and he gets reimbursed at $45.00, of course he's going to find some other way to make up the difference. No one could continue to support a medical practice if it costs them more than twice what they actually get. The patient doesn't have it. They pad the bill. If we had honest reimbursement doctors wouldn't have to take this kind of reckless action.

While there are many reasons for high costs, there are a couple of major ones. Continual advances in very expensive equipment. The outrageously high cost of litigation. If the government really wanted to bring down the cost of healthcare, we would have tort reform and subsidized medical equipment. The government could buy thousands of MRI machines at a substantial discount and rent them to doctors. Instead, the idiots in the white house decided to tax medical devices.

It's not about providing good medical care. It's about providing substandard medical care to as many people as possible.

I agree about tort reform but have seen no evidence that a realistic improvement in it would have a significant impact on health care costs.

 

[PMZ]

All insurance is only shared risk of catastrophic losses. Our health care system ran off the track when companies, desperate for top employees, promised that they'd cover all medical costs. Not insurance at all. Merely compensation with an accounting advantage.

Now that corporate America has solved the problem of competition for good employees, by off shoring, they are running away as fast as possible from their promises.

That is effectively a cut in pay for most workers that will make our problems bigger until the government is in a position to deliver on the former promises of corporate America.