Passage of the ACHA Lays Bare The Hatred and Contempt in The Hearts of GOP Voters

[brycejones]

To the public a "cut" means something.
Yeah, I don't consider not spending as much as you originally planned to "a cut" and I don't think the average person does either.

Interesting, because the GOP kept going on about cuts to medicare that as one of their concerns about the ACA that were nothing more than changes in the rate of growth. So by your definition the GOP was being dishonest then?

 

[Geekbabe]

If the hospital is charging 30k for something that they could charge 10k don't you see that as a huge problem?

I am treated at what many around the world consider the greatest hospital. Mass General Cancer Center. Besides excellent patient care they do a mega ton of Oncology research, leading to cures, better treatments, excellence isn't cheap.

 

[buckshot24]

I am treated at what many around the world consider the greatest hospital. Mass General Cancer Center. Besides excellent patient care they do a mega ton of Oncology research, leading to cures, better treatments, excellence isn't cheap.

I'm just saying that if a hospital can charge 30k for something that they could do for 10k then there aren't enough market constraints on pricing. And who would be eligible to get that treatment at that hospital if we go single payer?

 

[Geekbabe]

I think you should not have to go without insurance. Under the Republican plan, coverage with pre existing conditions are preserved



http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...eserves-pre-existing-conditions-coverage.html

As for Medicaid the only cuts are in the growth of the program



So you're not going to be thrown off the program. I on the other hand as of today, will have no one that'll even sell me a policy next yr, let alone give me a gov't paid for program

Unless my employer decides to base their insurance in a state that seeks a waiver, lifetime limits could be back in a heartbeat then no more cancer care as I will be uninsurable under any plan.. My only hope is that such an action would be against my company's public corporation values.

Also, the government isn't handing me anything, I pay for my insurance, have for decades

 

[Geekbabe]

I'm just saying that if a hospital can charge 30k for something that they could do for 10k then there aren't enough market constraints on pricing. And who would be eligible to get that treatment at that hospital if we go single payer?

That 10K just covers the actual cost of the drug I receive,just the drug! the only profit made is what they get for labs. Oncologist visits etc & even those fees are discounted

 

[jackstar7]

To the public a "cut" means something.
Yeah, I don't consider not spending as much as you originally planned to "a cut" and I don't think the average person does either.

It's one thing if you spend less than plan...it's another thing to change the law to force the plan to lower levels. Seems that factcheck.org, a GOP senator or two and even Paul Ryan agree with this. I don't know what the average person thinks and neither do you.

I don't, I'd like to see polling on that.

Geez, you can't even keep your own story straight.

 

[jackstar7]

I'm just saying that if a hospital can charge 30k for something that they could do for 10k then there aren't enough market constraints on pricing. And who would be eligible to get that treatment at that hospital if we go single payer?

You're being educated, but refusing to understand.

Do better.

 

[Geekbabe]

I'm just saying that if a hospital can charge 30k for something that they could do for 10k then there aren't enough market constraints on pricing. And who would be eligible to get that treatment at that hospital if we go single payer?

Under a single payer system, the US Government would negotiate prices.The hospital could of course bill foreigners the full freight. Very wealthy people from around the world receive care here. Also, many generous people have made substantial gifts to fund research. Heck even the Yawkey building housing the cancer center & the research chemo center happened because of generous donors

 

[Geekbabe]

In considering health care also factor in proposed cuts to NIH. Cancer research, clinical trials, all these things could basically go away

 

[zinfamous]

I don't, I'd like to see polling on that.

you don't trust polling.

do your homework.

 

[buckshot24]

Geez, you can't even keep your own story straight.

Think vs know. Story is perfectly straight.

 

[JMC2000]

Funny how Canada and other countries with universal govt. medical insurance manage to treat both 60 year old folks (like myself at diagnosis) with cancer *and* pregnant women *and* sick kids *and* all at the same time. Is your stance that the United States is incapable of doing the same?

I wouldn't say that the US is incapable, it's just that too many mindless 'FYGM' and 'income redistribution rabble rabble' people that don't truly care about the well being of fellow Americans are afraid of America becoming some kind of Communo-Socialist Autocratic Welfare State, or some other BS.

 

[jackstar7]

Think vs know. Story is perfectly straight.

I know, pedant. I know.

 

[zinfamous]

I wouldn't say that the US is incapable, it's just that too many mindless 'FYGM' and 'income redistribution rabble rabble' people that don't truly care about the well being of fellow Americans are afraid of America becoming some kind of Communo-Socialist Autocratic Welfare State, or some other BS.

It's funny how many of them are all ra-ra gung-ho about having their wealth redistributed to a handful of billionaires (that in turn increase their savings even further by dumping poisons into their drinking water), but balk at the thought of having their wealth put to better use for their own health and the health of their actual peer group. It's fascinating, how thoroughly conned the minds of GOP voters have become over recent decades.

truly, inextricably, fascinating. "Haha, I keep getting poorer and poorer and sicker and deader by voting GOP...but the liberal tears! hahahaha!"

 

[Sea Ray]

I'll just leave my opinion here.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/gop-medicaid-spin/





You guys can spin it any way you want.

We it does entail less spending than current law. This is what's so tough about this politically. Once you get a goodie from the gov't it's awfully tough politically to take it away. I'll go so far as to say it's impossible which is why the bill won't get the 50 votes it needs

 

[Sea Ray]

The debt goes down by significant amounts?



Looks like you've been duped again!

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/ahca-senate-bill-preexisting-conditions/531375/



Its a potential backdoor to lifetime caps as well.

I haven't been duped at all. You're just not getting it. A consumer should have the right to buy any plan he wants. If he wants those benefits, the insurance co should be required to offer them. But if he does not want those benefits, the ins co should be allowed to sell him that lesser policy. This decision should be between the ins co and the individual. The gov't should stay out of it

 

[jackstar7]

We it does entail less spending than current law. This is what's so tough about this politically. Once you get a goodie from the gov't it's awfully tough politically to take it away. I'll go so far as to say it's impossible which is why the bill won't get the 50 votes it needs

"get a goodie"? Are you fucking kidding me?

 

[jackstar7]

I haven't been duped at all. You're just not getting it. A consumer should have the right to buy any plan he wants. If he wants those benefits, the insurance co should be required to offer them. But if he does not want those benefits, the ins co should be allowed to sell him that lesser policy. This decision should be between the ins co and the individual. The gov't should stay out of it

Who enforces those rules you want? The free market? No. Government.

What do the companies get for being forced to cater to your whims? Why would they do it?

 

[Engineer]

We it does entail less spending than current law. This is what's so tough about this politically. Once you get a goodie from the gov't it's awfully tough politically to take it away. I'll go so far as to say it's impossible which is why the bill won't get the 50 votes it needs

Healthcare isn't a goodie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zzyzxroad]

I haven't been duped at all. You're just not getting it. A consumer should have the right to buy any plan he wants. If he wants those benefits, the insurance co should be required to offer them. But if he does not want those benefits, the ins co should be allowed to sell him that lesser policy. This decision should be between the ins co and the individual. The gov't should stay out of it

Isn't the real issue out of control health care cost? Are you proposing we go back to the broken system we had before the ACA(not saying this is the solution)? How does that address the real issue?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

We it does entail less spending than current law. This is what's so tough about this politically. Once you get a goodie from the gov't it's awfully tough politically to take it away. I'll go so far as to say it's impossible which is why the bill won't get the 50 votes it needs

Get a goodie... Clearly this is someone who's never actually had a circumstance in which they've needed to be on any kind of public assistance (at least insofar as they know, how are those public roads working out for you?)

 

[Engineer]

Isn't the real issue out of control health care cost? Are you proposing we go back to the broken system we had before the ACA(not saying this is the solution)? How does that address the real issue?

They want to go to a system with fewer people on it. Less demand, they feel, will lead to lower prices for them. They want lower prices yet can't see that the rest of the world pays a fraction to cover everyone and everyone has skin in the game. Here, you cut people off of insurance but still give them service. Not sharp enough to realize that they are still paying (much more) for those people now. People not paying for services is a part of the huge inefficiency leading to higher costs. Providers don't just erase the charges. They pay bill collectors and if that fails, they pass it on to the paying customer. They employee extra people to try to get their money. Very inefficient system.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Engineer]

Get a goodie... Clearly this is someone who's never actually had a circumstance in which they've needed to be on any kind of public assistance (at least insofar as they know, how are those public roads working out for you?)

Don't worry about public roads. T-Rumps private infrastructure plan will take care of that. Tolls for all. Remember, private vs government is always better. Just ask New Jersey about their privatized lottery system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zzyzxroad]

They want to go to a system with fewer people on it. Less demand, they feel, will lead to lower prices for them. They want lower prices yet can't see that the rest of the world pays a fraction to cover everyone and everyone has skin in the game. Here, you cut people off of insurance but still give them service. Not sharp enough to realize that they are still paying (much more) for those people now. People not paying for services is a part of the huge inefficiency leading to higher costs. Providers don't just erase the charges. They pay bill collectors and if that fails, they pass it on to the paying customer. They employee extra people to try to get their money. Very inefficient system.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know trump loves to shit on his own parties political points. Id love for him tweet something like "we will never solve the healthcare issue because we refuse to discuss the real issue of cost. Sad"

 

[Jaskalas]

I haven't been duped at all. You're just not getting it. A consumer should have the right to buy any plan he wants. If he wants those benefits, the insurance co should be required to offer them. But if he does not want those benefits, the ins co should be allowed to sell him that lesser policy. This decision should be between the ins co and the individual. The gov't should stay out of it

What decision? They cannot afford anyone who actually needs medical care so they drop coverage, raise your costs, and do everything in their power to deny care. How do you think Medicare reduces consumer costs? Hint... NOT by staying out of it. That you would rather attack the institution rather than let them help you is incredibly telling just how religiously dogmatic things have become.

You think some mythical "free market" is going to save you from some evil government conspiracy to deprive you of your rights?
If you want health care, individuals soaking costs is not the answer.