What's in the Senate health care bill?

#151
#151
lawgator1 said:
That's pretty funny, but it exposes a terrible truth about what is going on. The bill was kept secret, not to keep it from the Senators, but to keep it from us. McConnell is timing this, and a vote before recess, to prevent people back home from having time to learn what this is going to do to them, and registering that with their Senators, especially in public. The fear is of a groundswell of opposition within the voters that will prevent its passage.

They've got to hurry. This is a boon for the wealthy, and hurts the elderly and the lower and middle classes. They need this out of the way as soon as possible, and the further away from the midterms, the better.

Big picture-wise, we once again see that the GOP voters have been led down the primrose patch. Told over and over again that the GOP is about the little guy, the hard working guy struggling to make it, when push comes to shove, the GOP shows its true colors -- just help the rich.

When will GOP party faithful learn that guys like McConnell do not give a crap about them if they can;t give him a big fat check?
Click to expand...

Will it hurt the elderly, lower and middle class more or less than the collapse of Obamacare?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#153
#153
There is no bill that could be created that will make both bases happy.

Any attempt at national healthcare will end in failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#154
#154
tumscalcium said:
Are they? Great, timely healthcare for all? California alone has claimed universal healthcare will cost 400b annually. That's the low estimate. How do we pay for all of this? Which countries are you talking about and what are their demographics?

You'll need to expound on these "healthy" lunches the evil conservatives don't want.
Click to expand...

Hmmm

$400 billion you say?

Then, with Californicatia's population -rounding fatly- at 40 million, each citizen gets $10,000 per annum medical costs taxed.
 
#159
#159
lawgator1 said:
I agree, short of single payor.

Time we stop fooling ourselves and just take the time to get it set up.
Click to expand...

That may be the only way they could actually fund everything the left wants, but I have no confidence that our govt could even get that right.

Single payer would be a hard sell. Instead of just creating a govt option, there'll be millions of Americans losing the insurance they do like.
 
#161
#161
lawgator1 said:
How about pay them under DRG rates, and cut out the 20 pct or so profit of the needless administration of insurance ?

It adds ZERO value to the system.
Click to expand...

You lost me on the Diagnosis Related Group angle.

Can you expound?
 
#162
#162
McDad said:
You lost me on the Diagnosis Related Group angle.

Can you expound?
Click to expand...


Medicare pays according to DRG code. Look at your paperwork next time. The doc circles or enters a code associated with what service he provided.

So just have a single payor, everyone is in, it's part of your taxes. No more premiums, and the doc submits a bill based on DRG codes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#163
#163
lawgator1 said:
Medicare pays according to DRG code. Look at your paperwork next time. The doc circles or enters a code associated with what service he provided.

So just have a single payor, everyone is in, it's part of your taxes. No more premiums, and the doc submits a bill based on DRG codes.
Click to expand...

I like how you casually want to significantly raise peoples taxes for ****ty healthcare.
 
Last edited:
#164
#164
lawgator1 said:
Medicare pays according to DRG code. Look at your paperwork next time. The doc circles or enters a code associated with what service he provided.

So just have a single payor, everyone is in, it's part of your taxes. No more premiums, and the doc submits a bill based on DRG codes.
Click to expand...

I was unclear. Sorry. I know what DRGs are and what they do. I was curious how a DRG raised things 20%

I am inferring the 20% is the administrative cost from the insurance company?
 
#165
#165
tumscalcium said:
I like how you casually want to significantly raise peoples taxes
Click to expand...

Sigh.

I don't know about you, but the money I pay in premiums is the same currency I use to pay taxes.

In the current configuration, premiums rise. And rise. And rise. Get rid of them. Pay no premiums but more taxes.

What do you think you are giving up? The insurance based system is just as easily defrauded as the government payor, in many ways more so. Government efficiency in managing Medicare and Medicaid is several times as efficient as private insurance.

All you do now is pay MORE money for a LESS efficient administration of the same system, and so insurance people can make a profit off of you.

THEY ADD NO VALUE to the dollars spent. They just process it and take their completely unnecessary cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#166
#166
McDad said:
I was unclear. Sorry. I know what DRGs are and what they do. I was curious how a DRG raised things 20%

I am inferring the 20% is the administrative cost from the insurance company?
Click to expand...

They admit to something of that order, yes. Its likely much more hidden in there.
 
#167
#167
Velo Vol said:
How is it possible to keep preexisting coverage the same without a mandate?
Click to expand...

That's the interesting thing about the preexisting condition problem. Libs want to claim preexisting conditions solely as discriminatory and predatory practices by insurors. They choose to ignore the people who chose not to be covered because they'd rather have the money for their own use - fine, but one day you have to pay the piper - one day you won't be young dumb and twenty-one and the vices will have caught up.

I think you are on the right track; it would be cost prohibitive to cover everybody - especially including the including the previously uninsured without a mandate to expand the payer pool. You don't have to watch much news coverage to see interviews with someone covered in tats and piercings who can't afford food and medical care for the kids. There's definitely an element of lacking personal responsibility in the health payment "crisis".
 
#169
#169
lawgator1 said:
What do you think you are giving up? The insurance based system is just as easily defrauded as the government payor, in many ways more so. Government efficiency in managing Medicare and Medicaid is several times as efficient as private insurance.
Click to expand...
Mindblowing how willing you are to hand over control to the government. You have zero clue whether that last sentence is true or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#170
#170
GAVol said:
Mindblowing how willing you are to hand over control to the government. You have zero clue whether that last sentence is true or not.
Click to expand...

I would bet money on "not as efficient", and would raise him "the VA". I would also say that the vast majority of private insurance inefficiencies are there as mandated gov't bureaucracies.

The difference between private insurance and the gov't is at the least 2-fold. Private insurance companies want a profit while providing customer service to attract customers. i.e They will seek efficiency while serving their customers. Do you guys really want health care to resemble the VA and DMV? Geez.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#171
#171
lawgator1 said:
Sigh.

I don't know about you, but the money I pay in premiums is the same currency I use to pay taxes.

In the current configuration, premiums rise. And rise. And rise. Get rid of them. Pay no premiums but more taxes.

What do you think you are giving up? The insurance based system is just as easily defrauded as the government payor, in many ways more so. Government efficiency in managing Medicare and Medicaid is several times as efficient as private insurance.

All you do now is pay MORE money for a LESS efficient administration of the same system, and so insurance people can make a profit off of you.

THEY ADD NO VALUE to the dollars spent. They just process it and take their completely unnecessary cut.
Click to expand...

What's next car insurance - homeowner's insurance. We just decide that everybody is a walking calamity and finish trashing what remains of personal responsibility in this country? Are you gonna cover the "necessary" changes for people who are incapable of looking in their own pants and understanding what sex they are?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#172
#172
lawgator1 said:
They admit to something of that order, yes. Its likely much more hidden in there.
Click to expand...

This is non-sensical. Youre simply offering to trade one administrative cost for another; insurance companies for federal system. Thee is no cost savings to health care consumer, healthc care practitioner or health care facility in that model.

The ONLY way to decrease cost and increase pt rssults is less involvement from Big Insurance and Big Government.

You recently had LASIK. that's a prime example of what I'm saying.
 
#173
#173
lawgator1 said:
In the current configuration, premiums rise. And rise. And rise. Get rid of them. Pay no premiums but more taxes.
Click to expand...

Who pays what % in taxes in your single payer world? There's going to be an annual cost associated in place of premiums. Will all those greedy rich people subsidize "the poor". Will they realize that subsidies can't be funded just by "the rich" and the middle class will end up carrying the burden?

Flat rate? Progressive rate? It's a hard enough sell to get people to buy in to a single payer system. If you introduce progressive rates based on income I think you'll kill it dead before it gets going.
 
#174
#174
lawgator1 said:
They admit to something of that order, yes. Its likely much more hidden in there.
Click to expand...

You think 20% insuror administrative cost is exorbitant? What do you think government administrative cost/waste runs? You think it's cheaper to have government own and then contract out the insurance business to insurance companies? Then you get two sets of administrative cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#175
#175
lawgator1 said:
Set to be released here shortly. Initial reports are that it cuts hundreds of millions in benefits to the sick and the poor, and reduces taxes on the wealthiest. In particular, cuts benefits to the elderly in nursing homes.

Wonder how that will go over with the Trump working class base.
Click to expand...

hog88 said:
I'm sure your post has some exaggeration and hysteria in it but if 1/2 is true, good.
Click to expand...

There are 3 examples in the top post, I understand people liking tax cuts, but what is the upside to cutting benefits to the sick, poor, and elderly in nursing homes? Can you expound as to why this is a good thing? Wouldn't these be the people who need insurance help the most?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top