U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-16-2018, 07:43 AM
 
4,835 posts, read 2,040,685 times
Reputation: 3450

Advertisements

Republicans don't care about people who are sick, elderly or disabled, or minority non whites, they don't care about "poor whites, except to use them to get elected, they will never speak of creating nationwide "mental health programs and facilities.

Anyone sick, disabled, elderly and children means nothing to the Republican system, "because they can't enlist them to work as indentured servants to the wealthy, and because they can't be made to be a worker in the new era slave pool of underpaid and overworked, which the wealthy who control the Republican system loves. (Republican idea is if you are too sick to work, or too old to work, and in some cases too young to work, too disabled to work, Republican would rather see the people die off, than to have programs to assist them!!!!

These Confederate's Types who "now" control and "fill" the Republican Party, have been trying a multitude of various new models of Slavery and Indenture every since the Civil War cessation of the bullets and cannon balls on open ground battle fields. They have been waging The Same War within the Congress for over 154+ yrs....

They have tried flipping from one party to the next, with hopes to confound the people yet with the exact same agenda; and today, they have settled in the Republican party, with the exact same agenda they always had. "Pushing Confederate Ideals, and seeking to promote and recreate a race and class divisive Antebellum society.

* You will NEVER hear Republican speak of building or promoting "Quality Health Care" that consider and respect "All" American people; we saw that after 6 yrs of their bickering and filing law suits, and then they came up with nothing but a plan to "kill off & let die millions of people" !!! and sell young people a hollow policy that was nothing but a money grab for the wealth as a sham upon the young people.
* You will NEVER hear Republican speak or talk about building "quality Senior Care Facilities, and certainly not to even think of building them to withstand storms, hurricanes and tornado's. America knows it has an aging population, but never; not once has Republican spoke about the need to build mass volumes of senior care facilities, or even to set up a massive training program to train people, to help the senior's who need those facilities and that care.
* You will NEVER hear the Republican speak or talk about "mass investment in public education, to advance and improve educations and educate people on new technology of the 21st Century.
* You will NEVER hear republican talk about "investing in improving the Electricity Grid", and Improving renewable energy sources and systems.
* You will NEVER hear Republican talk about making State Universities low cost for American young people.

You will hear them over and over talk about "giving themselves tax cuts"!!!, to ensure they create a means to avoid tax resources to go to anything that helps and benefit the American people.
They don't talk about "Infrastructure", EXCEPT to privatize it so the wealthy can fleece the nation with robber designed contracts, that could never come in at budget.

They now, don't care about clean water, or Natural Lands, and no concern about future generations, they only want to suck every drop of oil out of the ground today, with no thought of what it might do to generations 50 or 100 yrs from now. They contaminate the water table, and anything they can, for "greed today"... with no concern for generations that are not even born yet.

Last edited by Chance and Change; 09-16-2018 at 08:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-16-2018, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Barrington
41,855 posts, read 31,725,984 times
Reputation: 14078
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
I'm not a huge fan of single payer -- and I have little confidence in the government running it efficiently -- BUT - it would be better than what we have now.
I am ( obviously) passionate about Universal Healthcare. Single Payer is one of many strategies that can be used to implement it. No two countries do Universal Healthcare the same way. Some rely on Single Payer. Some rely entirely on Private ( Insurance) Payer. Most are a mix.

All mandate the population have basic healthcare insurance, either public or private.

All subsidize low/ no income premiums.

Some require employers to subsidize and some do not.

Some rely mostly on public hospitals and some rely mostly on private hospitals.

Supplimental Plans are increasingly common in some countries which help cover that which basic public or private insurance does not or enables the insured to upgrade to a private room.

Single Payer can mean different things in different countries. Not all countries with Single Payer have national healthcare systems.

Some countries have Single Payer but not a national healthcare system. It is managed and paid for at the equivalent of the state level which must meet national basic requirements.

What countries with Universal Healthcare do is make use of government to control costs, wages and profits. Pain pill addiction is not the challenge it is in the US because such meds are not routinely prescribed as they have been in the US. I am not aware of reports the masses are lying in the streets in extreme pain.

Medicare is the closest thing the US has to Single Payer. It relies primarily on private providers and hospitals. Medicare is the single largest payer of prescription medications. Yet, Congress has denied Medicare to use its muscle to negotiate the price of prescription medications.

Medicare does not cover everything which is why most people carry Supplimental Insurance to help pay for that which Medicare does not. Supplimental Plans are highly profitable for insurers. Then there’s Advantage, like an HMO for seniors.

When people say they favor Single Payer, I don’t know what they mean. In some cases, I am not sure they know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 08:32 AM
 
4,835 posts, read 2,040,685 times
Reputation: 3450
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
I am ( obviously) passionate about Universal Healthcare. Single Payer is one of many strategies that can be used to implement it. No two countries do Universal Healthcare the same way. Some rely on Single Payer. Some rely entirely on Private ( Insurance) Payer. Most are a mix.

All mandate the population have basic healthcare insurance, either public or private.

All subsidize low/ no income premiums.

Some require employers to subsidize and some do not.

Some rely mostly on public hospitals and some rely mostly on private hospitals.

Supplimental Plans are increasingly common in some countries which help cover that which basic public or private insurance does not or enables the insured to upgrade to a private room.

Single Payer can mean different things in different countries. Not all countries with Single Payer have national healthcare systems.

Some countries have Single Payer but not a national healthcare system. It is managed and paid for at the equivalent of the state level which must meet national basic requirements.

What countries with Universal Healthcare do is make use of government to control costs, wages and profits. Pain pill addiction is not the challenge it is in the US because such meds are not routinely prescribed as they have been in the US. I am not aware of reports the masses are lying in the streets in extreme pain.

Medicare is the closest thing the US has to Single Payer. It relies primarily on private providers and hospitals. Medicare is the single largest payer of prescription medications. Yet, Congress has denied Medicare to use its muscle to negotiate the price of prescription medications.

Medicare does not cover everything which is why most people carry Supplimental Insurance to help pay for that which Medicare does not. Supplimental Plans are highly profitable for insurers. Then thereís Advantage, like an HMO for seniors.

When people say they favor Single Payer, I donít know what they mean. In some cases, I am not sure they know.
We can create a "Single Payer System", where payments are sent to a central organizations, for example "HUD", and HUD then dispense the payments to the various service providers.
this way, service and procedural cost are universal and pricing is standardized...
HUD would have the ability to coordinate with IRS and with the Census Bureau, therefore, any subsidizes are managed through HUD's payment to providers. How can it work?
We build upon the Data System that ACA created, and improve it !!! Obama said, ACA was a first step, therefore the Data system it created was a first step too. Thus so, We improve upon the data system and continue with the process Obama started to "digitize peoples medical records".... And WE AS AMERICA, have "SuperComputers", which can handle the complex calculations of every person in America's medical calculations in a matter of seconds. They can not only help medical professionals with more "exacting data" computations, based on "each individuals" uniqueness, it an also commutate payments and match subsides with IRS data, while at the same time, keep track of the Census number of people within the care system. It can send signals to people when check up is needed, or if they need to see a doctor for Prescription modifications. WE HAVE THIS TECHNOLOGY, "TODAY".... between smart watches and smart phones, this data can be tansmitted in miliseconds to a Supercomputer.
We spent $$ Trillions of Pointless Wars, but won't spend some 100's of $Billions to put such systems in place. We gave a $ Trillion Plus Tax Cuts to the Wealthy, but we won't Spend 100's of $Billions to push such a system in place.

ACA was on the pathway to advancing us, and every step of the process, Republican Attack and Fought like wild beast against it, and in doing so, they fought against the health and well being of American Citizens.

People need to know the truth... not the sham madness of Republican talking about cost, when they don't give a damn about Cost, when they give themselves $1.x Trillion in tax cuts and are trying to give themselves additional tax cuts. They simply don't want anything to be spent to help and care for American people.

Health Care IS a National Security Concern, because an Unhealthy Nation's People is a weak nation.

People should remember!!!! The Confederate System provided "NOTHING" to or for the well being of poor whites and slaves, all Confederate's had for poor whites and slaves was back breaking labor!!! For the sake of the wealthy getting more wealth. That is the direct example of what is the Republican Ideology of Today.

When American people wakes up and realize, we are not going to let the Confederate use Congress to promote Confederate Ideals and Agenda, then we will make the turn to support the United States of America and what it stands for. Which IS NOT Confederate ideals and Confederate Agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 09:00 AM
 
21,381 posts, read 10,656,450 times
Reputation: 8687
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
The health insurance executives did instead.
I donít have health insurance. You lose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Barrington
41,855 posts, read 31,725,984 times
Reputation: 14078
No such thing as universal pricing in Medicare.

Each state is divided into independent geographically rated areas. Florida, for example, has 67 such areas.

Medicare reimburses hospitals and services based on the average cost in the area. That cost includes overhead. When cots rise in an area, the average rises as does the reimbursement.

Readdmissions and patient survey responses can impact reimbursement rates.

Patient surveys tend to read like something a resort would use to follow-up a stay.

The more competitive a geographic area is in terms of healthcare the more likely the costs are less than areas without substantial populations to enable competition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 10:04 AM
 
2,573 posts, read 1,043,259 times
Reputation: 1709
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
My brother in law had a preexisting condition ( DVT) years prior and was denied insurance at any cost, so he did without.

He was unaware the ACA was guaranteed issue and believed what he saw on prime time Fox News. Obamacare was bad, bad news, death panels, blah,blah,blah.

He did not seek medical attention for significant unexplained weight loss and pain, figuring he could wait till he was eligible for Medicare.

One morning he could not get out of bed. Off to the ER in an ambulance. He was diagnosed with multiple organ failures attributed to stage 4 Cancer. He died a few days later.

The preexisting condition was unrelated to the Cancer.

Weíll never know if he might have had a fighting chance had he been able to buy insurance and sought medical attention and age appropriate Cancer screening.

In absence of wage/ price and profit controls, the only way to meaningfully reduce the cost of healthcare premiums:

Enable insurers to deny to insure people with preexisting conditions, and

Increase co- insurance, and

Enable insurers to deny renewal to those who develop a condition, and

Reimpose annual / lifetime caps

Sooner or later nearly everyone develops a condition insurers would prefer to not cover.
He didnít have any money to go to the doctor for an appointment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 10:13 AM
Status: "Busy being triggered by pumpkins" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
17,367 posts, read 8,548,684 times
Reputation: 18100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chance and Change View Post
Republicans don't care about people who are sick, elderly or disabled, or minority non whites, they don't care about "poor whites, except to use them to get elected, they will never speak of creating nationwide "mental health programs and facilities.

Anyone sick, disabled, elderly and children means nothing to the Republican system, "because they can't enlist them to work as indentured servants to the wealthy, and because they can't be made to be a worker in the new era slave pool of underpaid and overworked, which the wealthy who control the Republican system loves. (Republican idea is if you are too sick to work, or too old to work, and in some cases too young to work, too disabled to work, Republican would rather see the people die off, than to have programs to assist them!!!!

These Confederate's Types who "now" control and "fill" the Republican Party, have been trying a multitude of various new models of Slavery and Indenture every since the Civil War cessation of the bullets and cannon balls on open ground battle fields. They have been waging The Same War within the Congress for over 154+ yrs....

They have tried flipping from one party to the next, with hopes to confound the people yet with the exact same agenda; and today, they have settled in the Republican party, with the exact same agenda they always had. "Pushing Confederate Ideals, and seeking to promote and recreate a race and class divisive Antebellum society.

* You will NEVER hear Republican speak of building or promoting "Quality Health Care" that consider and respect "All" American people; we saw that after 6 yrs of their bickering and filing law suits, and then they came up with nothing but a plan to "kill off & let die millions of people" !!! and sell young people a hollow policy that was nothing but a money grab for the wealth as a sham upon the young people.
* You will NEVER hear Republican speak or talk about building "quality Senior Care Facilities, and certainly not to even think of building them to withstand storms, hurricanes and tornado's. America knows it has an aging population, but never; not once has Republican spoke about the need to build mass volumes of senior care facilities, or even to set up a massive training program to train people, to help the senior's who need those facilities and that care.
* You will NEVER hear the Republican speak or talk about "mass investment in public education, to advance and improve educations and educate people on new technology of the 21st Century.
* You will NEVER hear republican talk about "investing in improving the Electricity Grid", and Improving renewable energy sources and systems.
* You will NEVER hear Republican talk about making State Universities low cost for American young people.

You will hear them over and over talk about "giving themselves tax cuts"!!!, to ensure they create a means to avoid tax resources to go to anything that helps and benefit the American people.
They don't talk about "Infrastructure", EXCEPT to privatize it so the wealthy can fleece the nation with robber designed contracts, that could never come in at budget.

They now, don't care about clean water, or Natural Lands, and no concern about future generations, they only want to suck every drop of oil out of the ground today, with no thought of what it might do to generations 50 or 100 yrs from now. They contaminate the water table, and anything they can, for "greed today"... with no concern for generations that are not even born yet.

Please explain how life has gotten so much better in all of the above areas when Democrats were in charge.

And remember - speaking about something doesn't result in changing it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 10:21 AM
Status: "I used to have a lead foot, but now it's aluminum." (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Lancaster, SC
5,327 posts, read 3,679,995 times
Reputation: 6760
Quote:
Get Sick, Go Bankrupt and Die
Two out of three so far for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Barrington
41,855 posts, read 31,725,984 times
Reputation: 14078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeyore1954 View Post
He didnít have any money to go to the doctor for an appointment?
He was covered by his employerís healthcare plan and never hesitated to seek medical attention. His employer closed his branch and he lost his job. He paid huge premiums to sustain COBRA coverage as long as it lasted while he operated as an independent contractor. When COBRA ran out, he was unable to buy insurance at any price due to his prexsisting condition. He became increasingly bitter about insurance and what he referred to as the healthcare racket. His choice of prime time cable news seemed to validate his perceptions.

He had money and would not have qualified for a subsidy had he been aware he could no longer be denied for a preexisting condition.

He was looking forward to Medicare, just a year away.

No one outside his wife was aware he was uninsured.

Doctors were stunned that he had been able to function, despite the advanced stage of his Cancer. It was only when his organs were in the process of failing and was unable to get out of bed that he was willing to seek medical attention. There may have been an element of denial, too.

My point here is that he stopped going to doctors once it became clear he was uninsurable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Ohio
18,012 posts, read 13,243,316 times
Reputation: 13796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cida View Post
Well, we already knew most of this.


Get Sick, Go Bankrupt and Die

In the case of health care, however, thereís an even deeper problem: The G.O.P. canít come up with an alternative to the Affordable Care Act because no such alternative exists.
That's a false premise.

The GOP is not obligated to present any healthcare plan or an alternative to Obamacare.

Both healthcare and health plan coverage are intra-State commerce, and the federal government has no authority to regulate or involve itself in intra-State commerce.

Your State legislature has the power to ban the practice of "Out-of-Network."

The real issues are why you aren't addressing that with your State legislature; why you aren't communicating that to your State legislators; why you aren't willing to back or support a candidate of any Party who will make it their mission to abolish the "Out-of-Network" nonsense; and why you are totally incapable of gathering like-minded people together to create a State-wide ballot initiative to abolish the practice, if it should be the case that your State legislators are bought and owned by the American Hospital Association and refuse to take action on the issue.

Initially, private insurance companies did not offer health plans. The first pre-paid health plan was offered by Baylor University Medical Center in 1929. Within a few years, every hospital was offering pre-paid health plans.

At that time, hospitals fell into one of two camps: they were either members of the American Hospital Association (AHA), or they were members of the American Medical Association (AMA), and the split was roughly 80% of hospitals were AHA member-hospitals and 20% AMA hospitals.

There were then, as now, major ideological differences between the AHA and AMA.

The AHA wanted total control over doctors, including how doctors billed patients, and the AHA used flat-fee billing.

The AMA wanted doctors to be independent and not under the control of hospitals, and to be able to continue the practice of sliding-scale fees, meaning doctors billed patients based on their ability to pay, instead of using flat fees.

Around 1934, the AHA started taking control of these pre-paid health plans offered by its member hospitals, and to drive the AMA hospitals out of business, implemented the "Out-of-Network" policy.

If you had a pre-paid plan at an AHA member hospital, you could use it at any AHA member hospital, but not at an AMA member hospital.

If you had a pre-paid plan at an AMA member hospital, you could use it at any hospital, whether it was an AMA or AHA member hospital.

At around the same time, States were looking to increase their revenues because of the Great Depression, and they started examining these pre-paid hospital plans, and having determined they were insurance, the States wanted the hospitals to comply with all State insurance regulations.

To get around that, the AHA started lobbying the State legislatures for what would come to be known as "enabling laws."

These enabling laws did two things, first it exempted the hospitals from State insurance regulations, and second, it allowed the hospitals to operate as either monopolies in small cities, or as monopolistic cartels in larger cities.

The AHA argued that the negative effects of a monopoly were outweighed by the positive effects, which was the free healthcare provided to low-income families.

Unfortunately, these enabling laws either don't address monopoly power, and where they do expressly or implicitly grant monopoly power, the laws are so vague that there is no standard.

In other words, none of the enabling laws state that a hospital monopoly must serve N-number of low-income families per year, or a N-percent of low-income families, or N-percent of hospital revenues must be spent on free healthcare to low-income families or anything remotely similar.

So, how much money are these hospital monopolies spending on free healthcare for low-income families?

We don't know, and we have never known, because the States do not collect any data, nor do the States require these monopoly hospitals to publish any data, and the hospital monopolies have refused to publish any such data.

And, if the hospitals are jacking up the prices for everyone else to pay for free healthcare for low-income families, then these monopoly hospitals are not providing free healthcare.

So, why should they continue as monopolies and illegally collude to illegally fix prices above market rates?

Strange thing: if oil companies illegally colluded to illegal fix oil prices above market rates, everyone would throw a hissy fit and start ranting until the fell over backwards frothing at the mouth.

But, when hospitals do it, no one even blinks.

Wage Inflation starts creeping into the economy in late 1938, and is rampant by 1941. FDR implements Wage & Price controls via the National Labor Board (which becomes the National War Labor Board in 1942).

Employers can't give pay raises without first obtaining written authorization from the National Labor Board, which typically denied all wage increases, and in the few cases they did, they only gave authority for a smaller wage increase, generally only 10%-20% of what the employer was asking.

To get around that, employers started offering to pay for these pre-paid hospital plans in lieu of wages.

You chose the plan, then you took the paperwork to your employer who would pay all or part of it as compensation instead of wages.

That worked well for the most part.

In 1946, the AHA created the first health insurance company, the Blue Cross, and converted all of the pre-paid hospital plans from its member hospitals. The AMA followed suit a few months later with the Blue Shield health insurance company, converting all of the pre-paid plans from its member hospitals.

The Blue Cross retained its "Out-of-Network" policy.

There were a few private insurance companies offering health plan coverage, but the Blue Cross had about 80% of the market, the Blue Shield about 17% and private insurance 3%.

In 1949, the Supreme Court rendered its In Re: Inland Steel decision, and private insurance companies jumped into the market.

Within a couple of years, the Blue Shield had lost most of its market share. Why?

Private insurance companies coupled life insurance with catastrophic health plan coverage, which was basically the only coverage there was, because States had not yet begun to interfere with health plan coverage.

How did it work?

You paid a premium for 10 years, then you never paid another dime for the rest of your life, but you and your spouse were covered, as were your minor children.

Suppose your policy was $100,000. If you were healthy and didn't use your benefits, your named beneficiaries got $100,000 when you died, which today would be more than $1 Million.

Suppose you or your spouse or minor children used a total of $25,000 in healthcare coverage. Then, your named beneficiaries got $75,000 when you died, which would be more than $750,000 today.

What a great way to build wealth for all Americans.

If the 10-year premium was more than your budget allowed, you could pay a lower premium for 20-years, and get the same benefits.

If the 20-year premium was still too rich for your budget, you could pay an even smaller amount over 30-years and get the same benefits.

Blue Shield couldn't offer those plans, because Blue Shield was not a true insurance company, and again, had lobbied the State legislatures to be exempted from scrutiny by State insurance regulators.

So, the AHA lobbied the US Congress, and got Congress to change the tax code, so that the 1954 IRS Tax Code banned tying life insurance to catastrophic health plan coverage.

Americans are now cut-off from one method of building wealth and passing it on to succeeding generations.

By the late 1950s, some States now required health plan providers to cover pregnancy, and by the early 1960s, all States had followed suit.

From that point on, States have enacted laws requiring health plan providers to cover this or that.

It wasn't until the 1990s that States started requiring doctor office visits be covered.

Each time a State does that, it drives up the cost of health plan coverage.

Some States now require autism to be covered, but some States do not, and for those States that do, you pay an higher premium than those States that do not.

If you had Free Market healthcare, States would not mandate coverage. You'd buy a basic catastrophic plan and then add-on other coverage as needed.

There's something manifestly unjust making people in their 50s, 60s and 70s buy a product or service they neither want nor can use. A plain language reading of the Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act makes that illegal, and other States have similar laws, so I'm wondering why no one has mounted a legal challenge to it.

The true cost of open-heart surgery where I live is only $13,000 -- and because of dramatic variances in Cost-of-Living it will be a few $1,000 less where you live or a few $1,000 more, or even double that, yet the hospital monopoly cartels here charge $26,000 to $42,000.

$13,000 is all that is necessary to pay for the cost of the operating room, use of the heart-lung machine, use of other diagnostic and monitoring equipment, the hourly fees of the surgeons, the anesthesiologist, the nurses and technicians involved in the surgery, the cost of all disposable supplies, and the cost to disinfect and sterilize surgical equipment, devices and the operating room, plus all administrative, clerical and operating costs, and provide a profit, so that a new heart-lung machine can be purchased if that one breaks, or to allow for additional surgeries, or purchase a newer model, or anything else businesses typically use profits for.

The hospital monopolies charge double to triple that, because they can.

So, it's in your best interest to lobby your State legislature to rescind the enabling laws and pursue anti-trust actions against the hospital monopolies and cartels, because of the detriment they cause you, and because they have never lived up to their promise of providing free healthcare to low-income families.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top