Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone who doesn't know that the ACA is an expanded version of RomneyCare, which was originally the right wing think tank Heritage Foundation's plan in response to Hillary Clinton's attempt to bring universal healthcare to the U.S. back in the 1990s. Period.
No its not.. repeating the lie doesnt make it the truth.
The Heritage Foundation plan was to allow individuals to save money in the bank to cover healthcare costs tax free. it then allowed individuals to increase their catastrophic policies as this balance grew, which allowed them to reduce insurance costs.
Seems to me that most of the critiques of the ACA have to do with the horrific complexity of demanding people buy insurance, when some of us get it through our work, etc. What not just develop a single payer system like all the rest of the first world? That would be better for our citizens and would help our businesses compete. People could add to a public system, if they had the means, just like people do with private education.
I know the insurance lobby would fight this ferociously, but I have a hard time believing the needs of the general population could not prevail. The ACA is basically the GOP-designed approach for working through insurance companies, and it seems pretty inefficient. Single payer just seems much less complex and more just. The health of our citizens should not be meted out by insurance adjusters.
Yes, the health insurance has fought this tooth and nail, as well as the drug companies. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, United Health Care, Harvard Pilgrim, etc are among the most powerful companies in this country. In reality, these companies are nothing more than an unnecessary middle man demanding big payouts, and not giving very good health coverage in return. Don't believe for a second the needs of the general public would come first. The only way the drug companies agreed to go along with the ACA, is because they basically black mailed the president into insisting Americans not be able to get their drugs from overseas to be allowed or covered.
Does the needs of the general public come first when it comes to oil production? No, it's the ultra wealthy oil executives who not only enjoy the highest profit margin of any other company on earth, but also get government kick backs to boot.
USAGeorge so do you think vets want to get rid of the VA? What do you think the reaction would be if that was proposed? Do you think seniors want to get rid of Medicare? What would the reaction be to that?
The VA is what the UK has. Medicare is what Canada has. Other countries have other national systems. You can have a national system and still have an overall free economy. Just check CATO which lists 10-12 countries as having a freer economy than the US all have a national HC system
No its not.. repeating the lie doesnt make it the truth.
The Heritage Foundation plan was to allow individuals to save money in the bank to cover healthcare costs tax free. it then allowed individuals to increase their catastrophic policies as this balance grew, which allowed them to reduce insurance costs.
ACA does NOT do anything like this..
Funny that the plan you are describing isn't outlined in the 1989 Heritage plan or the 1993 HR & Senate bills.
You are coming to conclusions you are unable to make based off this. Yes we consume a lot of care but in part that is because a doctor is going to call for every test under the sun to cover his butt.
I meant that we have a higher burden of obesity and chronic disease and we use more care, but not that 100% of the latter was driven by the former, because you're very much correct that a lot of it isn't (although I would argue that FFS reimbursement methodologies have more to do with it than a desire to preempt lawsuits). I can see in retrospect how my post could be interpreted that way though so my bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom1944
Lackof creativity- I know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid and yes I meant what I wrote expand Medicare to all age groups as the primary HC option and allow the purchase of gap poliices for those who want to purchase them.
IMHO Medicare is the only way to ultimately control the costs. No matter what side of the political argument you take until we control HC costs we cannot get our financial situation under control.
Medicare FFS is one of the worst cost-controlled ways healthcare is delivered in America. The MA organizations do a much better job, but I generally don't think that's what liberals mean when they talk about expanding Medicare/Medicaid, and a majority of the savings go to even richer benefits for beneficiaries, and only a smaller fraction to government (payer) savings [which is fine, that's the point of participating for people].
I meant that we have a higher burden of obesity and chronic disease and we use more care, but not that 100% of the latter was driven by the former, because you're very much correct that a lot of it isn't (although I would argue that FFS reimbursement methodologies have more to do with it than a desire to preempt lawsuits). I can see in retrospect how my post could be interpreted that way though so my bad.
Medicare FFS is one of the worst cost-controlled ways healthcare is delivered in America. The MA organizations do a much better job, but I generally don't think that's what liberals mean when they talk about expanding Medicare/Medicaid, and a majority of the savings go to even richer benefits for beneficiaries, and only a smaller fraction to government (payer) savings [which is fine, that's the point of participating for people].
Here we go again-- referring to "Medicare/Medicaid" as if they're comparable; they're not.
BTW, that "expansion" of Medicaid, taxpayer-funded program for the poor, has already occurred with Obamacare. That's a fact.
The "Medicare for all" mantra we're hearing increasingly reflects a lack of knowledge about this insurance plan, to which workers contributed. The last thing we need is to decimate it by allowing everyone in. It's bad enough that millions were diverted to implement the ACA, negatively impacting seniors.
I meant that we have a higher burden of obesity and chronic disease and we use more care, but not that 100% of the latter was driven by the former, because you're very much correct that a lot of it isn't (although I would argue that FFS reimbursement methodologies have more to do with it than a desire to preempt lawsuits). I can see in retrospect how my post could be interpreted that way though so my bad.
Yes, I would agree both contribute. Both have to be a part of a solution.
The first link isn't a Heritage plan and doesn't claim or propose what you originally said it did.
The second link is an exact copy of the first link I provided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
In fact they specifically say that employer mandate and neither will a government funded system.
Thats exactly what ACA is..
I have no idea what that is supposed to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
They say that we need to provide TAX CREDITS.. which isnt Obamacare
We need to bring down costs, again not Obamacare
And while they do support a mandate (the only similarity), they fund it again through TAX CREDITS
Actually, no funding mechanism was mentioned outside of Medicare and there are more similarities than just the mandate and subsidies. The funding proposal for Medicare was to increase the deductible and then use that savings to provide subsidies for poor Medicare recipients.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
And allowing people to use their 401k's and various medical plans to purchase insurance.
Claiming ACA and the Heritage plan is similar is an outright LIE.
At this point I have no choice but to assume you either did not actually read the link or you don't understand that LTC insurance is not health insurance.
The first link isn't a Heritage plan and doesn't claim or propose what you originally said it did.
The second link is an exact copy of the first link I provided.
Then you didnt read the link because thats exactly what the link says
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
I have no idea what that is supposed to say.
It means exactly what it says, which is the Heritage report says that an employer mandate, nor a government funded system is the way to go.. Again, didnt you look at the report?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
Actually, no funding mechanism was mentioned outside of Medicare and there are more similarities than just the mandate and subsidies.
There was no government funding mechanism included, I already acknowledged that..
And no, there really isnt any such similarities because as you already acknowledged, the Heritage proposal doesnt say to tax individuals to fund others..
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
The funding proposal for Medicare was to increase the deductible and then use that savings to provide subsidies for poor Medicare recipients.
But that doesnt really cut costs, does it? Simply changing who pays for a plan doesnt make it cheaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
At this point I have no choice but to assume you either did not actually read the link or you don't understand that LTC insurance is not health insurance.
Oh I very well read the report 20+ years ago..
Its YOU trying to compare the two and claiming they are the same..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
