Trumpcare makes things worse

[The Thriller]

Switzerland is hardly a big government anti-capitalist country. In the mid 90s they switched from our current health care system to their own version of the Bismarck. This article articulates well their system. If Switzerland can do this why can't we?

 

[The Thriller]

[MENTION=365]The Thriller[/MENTION]

Yeah I don't know what your fetish is, but you've been on my ignore list since the last trolling spree you went on several weeks ago. So I'll save you the time, I'm not responding to your nonsense. Go back to your trailer park and have a pissing contest there.

Stop trying to derail my threads.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Yeah I don't know what your fetish is, but you've been on my ignore list since the last trolling spree you went on several weeks ago. So I'll save you the time, I'm not responding to your nonsense. Go back to your trailer park and have a pissing contest there.

Stop trying to derail my threads.

Me asking a question about one of your posts is de-railing a thread?

Learn something new every day. Maybe you aren't such a bad teacher after all.

Fwiw, I have no clue what trolling spree I went on, unless you're referring to my mass disliking spree, but that was pretty minor.

 

[The Thriller]

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/5026892-155/megan-mcardle-the-republican-plan-is

Interesting article.

It's tempting to blame short-sighted Republican leadership, so focused on getting a point on the board that they're not considering whether the sacrifices they need to get that point might end up costing them the game. But it's not even clear that this scores any short-term political points.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Yes.

It's funny to see the far right tea baggers join the left in opposing Trumpcare. It appears now that repubs are merely passing something just to say that they repealed the black guy's thing and replaced it with the rich white guy's thing. The problem is, Trumpcare solves ZERO problems that Obamacare has. If anything, it will accelerate the death of our system as costs will continue to skyrocket and coverage will continue to evaporate.

Which could become very advantageous in 2018 and 2020. Every problem with health care can be blamed on the repubs. This is their ugly baby.

you dont understand far right tea party. they are against healthcare bills. they want repeal and not replace. so they never jouined the elft!

please eductae yourself

 

[DutchJazzer]

lets face it the right wants the government not to meddle in healthcare. the left wants the government to take over healthcare.

this will be a war. obamacare cannot be repealed because you will get left wing people mad.
but anything but a repeal will madden the right even more.


the government should just burn obamacare and step away from it!. no government run healthcare(except emdicaid and medicare aka a bismarck system) for 4 or 8 years.

if the dems win in 4 or 8 year they can make the left happy again!


one size fits all will always give problems

imagine if shoe company made shoes 1 size fits all

 

[DutchJazzer]

Maybe the government should make it a state matter. then you can vote with your feet!

 

[infection]

For good reason. What for profit insurance company will insure those 65+?

You mentioned free market doesn't work, to which I stated we don't have a free market. Asking who would insure people 65+ is a question loaded with many assumptions. In any case, Medicare isn't going anywhere.

/end of discussion

I think you meant "/discussion."

Yet for those still on insurance, the market has remained reasonably free from government regulation.

This is again simplistic. There are many government regulations that are transitioning in, such as how reimbursements to physicians and medical facilities will have an increasingly higher percentage of "outcomes-based" reimbursement that will favor cherry picking easier cases and make it harder for those who are sicker to get care because they don't look good in metrics. There are many other things.

The truth of the matter is that you cannot have a free market (winners and losers) for something like health care. How to you haggle while suffering from a heart attack? How much is chemo worth to you? Why should MRIs change prices from hospital to hospital?

I think you're missing my point. People think everyone should have access to life-saving and preserving measures. Sure. That's not most of healthcare, though. And the things most people think are essential and life saving really aren't. It's a romanticized version of medicine that's true in movies. So when we talk about people having access to healthcare, we're talking about the whole kit and caboodle of the expanded definition of insurance and healthcare.

This article hits quite a few of these issues that I'd recommend a read. https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2011/11/30/how-doctors-die/ideas/nexus/

Not only are a lot of the high-cost end-of-life interventions not too terribly helpful but a huge amount of the care, doctor visits and medications given to the elderly are not improving their quality of life, are not making them live longer and, in many circumstances, actually harming them. Nobody talks about the reality of medicine because portraying the romanticized view is much better for political purposes. People can't get care? People will die! People are getting care? Look at how much we've improved everyone's well-being!!

I think perhaps maybe you agree with much of this but see the solution from the other end -- that a government task force would create guidelines for treatment that would solve these financial woes, whereas I'd argue it's our responsibility as a society to understand what it is we're getting from healthcare, to stop listening to the politicians, and to be able to engage in better, more informed decision making with a physician without bringing the baggage of unrealistic societal expectation to that encounter.

Yeah, man, this isn't the best example.

I'd be interested in your thoughts as to why it's not.

 

[babe]

I don't get aN outrageous bill from the FD if my house catches on fire. I probably don't need to get one if I crash a bicycle.

It's a service that we can be reasonably sure that state and local government can provide as well as and likely better than a private company can. It's not going to take a radical overhaul. It won't be ungodly expensive. While it's an unpredictable expense for an individual the everyday needs of a population 4 ambulances services are very predictable . It would be a fairly painless transition.

Further the one thing people need to think about when they think about health insurance is that it's not really the insurance companies that ultimately pay for the services, it's their customers that do. By largely removing this cost from the private markwt we can make Insurance a little more affordable while at the same time making sure that the uninsured aren't overly burdened by an emergency trip to the hospital.

This little thing to me is a no-brainer.

Please don't peddle good sense and then call it a no-brainer. yah, I get it that sometimes it means clear enough it can be understood without impressive intelligence.
But you need to sell this to legislators, and it does take brains to understand it. And you need to flatter the politicians and say nice stuff like, if you do this, everyone will vote for you, again.

The problem is the rhetorical question "Cui bono?", the response of the British foreign secretary to Madison at his request for fair trade practices from the British.... "Whose benefit?" The British weren't going to help the rebel colonies even after the treaty was signed.... The British, in effect, forced the states to form a stronger Federal government that could assert real power in a cohesive, American, economic trade union.

having ambulance providers charging thousands of dollars per carry just cries out for open competition..... the "private" providers you are seeing are government-sanctioned monopolists.

You know, as in owned and operated by the big donors/contributors to your local politicians......

 

[green]

The reason why healthcare includes preventative care is the same reason we have public schooling.

If you can have regular checkups, the overall cost of healthcare goes down for everyone. If you only show up for emergencies, or ignore a small, cheap problem until it becomes a big expensive problem, the cost goes up.

Same with education. If you can educate the masses, everything gets better.

It's pretty simple stuff, yet the right is extremely against that. Why?

They have all the reasons why government sucks at what they do, but no ways to fix it, other than "The Free Market"...which we've been doing since the 1980's and everything has gotten worse.

Look at Utah and the education vouchers. Most of the voucher schools are terrible. For profit, does exactly that...creates a profit. Educating kids is secondary to making money. Same with healthcare.

I've worked in large corps and their goal is not to provide good healthcare. It is to make a profit.

 

[babe]

The reason why healthcare includes preventative care is the same reason we have public schooling.

If you can have regular checkups, the overall cost of healthcare goes down for everyone. If you only show up for emergencies, or ignore a small, cheap problem until it becomes a big expensive problem, the cost goes up.

Same with education. If you can educate the masses, everything gets better.

It's pretty simple stuff, yet the right is extremely against that. Why?

They have all the reasons why government sucks at what they do, but no ways to fix it, other than "The Free Market"...which we've been doing since the 1980's and everything has gotten worse.

Look at Utah and the education vouchers. Most of the voucher schools are terrible. For profit, does exactly that...creates a profit. Educating kids is secondary to making money. Same with healthcare.

I've worked in large corps and their goal is not to provide good healthcare. It is to make a profit.

look at how rich congressmen, senators, lobbyists, presidents are, then try to tell me with a straight face that guvmint is "not for profit".

Pretty strong colored lenses on you educational views. For those who have accepted guvmint education, the key thing is they come out brainwashed into loving that system, mistaking it for all it pretends to be, strutting about town with the little virtue badge that marks you as acceptable, justified, "right". Critical thinking is a different skill set than conformance to a pattern.

I look at our education system as outdated, ineffective, producing an undesirable result.... thank God many Americans really resent the stupidity of public education, and decide to actually follow good sense. And the cost.... can you seriously believe public money spent on social agenda conditioning is cost-effective? All that money spent, and what you get is graduates who hate the Thrillers and vote for Trump.

 

[infection]

The reason why healthcare includes preventative care is the same reason we have public schooling.

If you can have regular checkups, the overall cost of healthcare goes down for everyone. If you only show up for emergencies, or ignore a small, cheap problem until it becomes a big expensive problem, the cost goes up.

I'm not talking about preventive healthcare.

I've worked in large corps and their goal is not to provide good healthcare. It is to make a profit.

I've worked for state hospitals and VAs. Their goal is also not to provide good healthcare but rather check boxes -- quite literally -- so that they can be reported as meaningless statistics that politicians and bureaucrats -- far removed from clinical care -- can reference to show and feel good about how good of care is being provided. In the VA I was completely handcuffed from providing good healthcare because every public outcry resulted in more administrative and bureaucratic BS that didn't help patients.

 

[green]

look at how rich congressmen, senators, lobbyists, presidents are, then try to tell me with a straight face that guvmint is "not for profit".

Two separate issues here. We are getting off topic.

We are talking about free market vs socialism. The answer is somewhere in the middle. That means you have to use government as a tool and in healthcare, a great way government can be used is to negotiate prices.

Now, yeah, our elected officials are crooks and the way they profit off their jobs is disgusting. BUT, to walk away from using them in a way that would help society because they make some money off it, that is just foolish.

 

[green]

I'm not talking about preventive healthcare.



I've worked for state hospitals and VAs. Their goal is also not to provide good healthcare but rather check boxes -- quite literally -- so that they can be reported as meaningless statistics that politicians and bureaucrats -- far removed from clinical care -- can reference to show and feel good about how good of care is being provided. In the VA I was completely handcuffed from providing good healthcare because every public outcry resulted in more administrative and bureaucratic BS that didn't help patients.

Again, separate issues here. I agree with you. BUT, my reply above is relevant to your post as well.

To walk away from government because the VA doesn't work well, or politicians make money off lobbyists...that would be like throwing your hammer away when you hit your thumb. It's just not smart.

 

[infection]

Again, separate issues here. I agree with you. BUT, my reply above is relevant to your post as well.

To walk away from government because the VA doesn't work well, or politicians make money off lobbyists...that would be like throwing your hammer away when you hit your thumb. It's just not smart.

My point with the VA isn't about complete government care. My point is that our romanticized view of medicine plays out with public (clinically ignorant) opinion drives regulation. The scope of what we believe insurance should encompass is large and grotesque. Likewise, what we believe healthcare actually does to improve quality and length of life is massively oversold. Thinking everyone needs an expanded version of health insurance for an overpaid expectation of healthcare plays right in to that. We need to cut a lot of the fat off of that before we move forward on a terrible foundation.

 

[♪alt13]

Please don't peddle good sense and then call it a no-brainer. yah, I get it that sometimes it means clear enough it can be understood without impressive intelligence.
But you need to sell this to legislators, and it does take brains to understand it. And you need to flatter the politicians and say nice stuff like, if you do this, everyone will vote for you, again.

The problem is the rhetorical question "Cui bono?", the response of the British foreign secretary to Madison at his request for fair trade practices from the British.... "Whose benefit?" The British weren't going to help the rebel colonies even after the treaty was signed.... The British, in effect, forced the states to form a stronger Federal government that could assert real power in a cohesive, American, economic trade union.

having ambulance providers charging thousands of dollars per carry just cries out for open competition..... the "private" providers you are seeing are government-sanctioned monopolists.

You know, as in owned and operated by the big donors/contributors to your local politicians......

There are a lot of Health Care Services that would be susceptible to price competition. Ambulances are not one of them. If I need a new hip I have time to research and price compare. If I need an ambulance I do not.

I agree that it won't happen for the reason you mentioned. There's an interested party that will do a lot to block it and it's not an issue that voters are likely to Rally round.

 

[green]

My point with the VA isn't about complete government care. My point is that our romanticized view of medicine plays out with public (clinically ignorant) opinion drives regulation. The scope of what we believe insurance should encompass is large and grotesque. Likewise, what we believe healthcare actually does to improve quality and length of life is massively oversold. Thinking everyone needs an expanded version of health insurance for an overpaid expectation of healthcare plays right in to that. We need to cut a lot of the fat off of that before we move forward on a terrible foundation.

Yup. I agree. And a lot of the fat is administration and non-doctor owned hospitals, clinics, etc.

If you have a single payer system, you can then focus your efforts on what to fix. You probably lose a lot of corporate, for-profit hospitals, clinics, etc. I'm not sure that is a bad thing. Sure, a lot of MBA's won't be able to sit in an office in a hospital and tell the DR's what tx they should be doing anymore.

I've had people come in and say, "I know you feel that this tx is best, but Dr so and so has done this and this in the past and look at his profits!". I then ask them how Dr so and so's malpractice suits are going. They respond, "it's the cost of doing business".

Then the next meeting we have with the Dr's, they get up and pimp Dr so and so as an amazing, revolutionary Dr who accomplishing all these great things!!! Oh, and look at how much he took home last year!

And the young docs get all googley-eyed because they have $400,000 in student loan debt and are sick of paying $4000 a month in student loan payments and want to be able to buy a car and a house and go on vacation a couple times a year, so they huddle around Dr so and so so they can be just like him.

It's fantastic. Healthcare at work.

 

[♪alt13]

I would be fine with single payer so long as it has fairly stiff copays and didn't cover everything, such as most prescriptions. Seriously cut Medicare and give it to everyone, ok. Expand Medicare and give it to everyone no.
[MENTION=228]green[/MENTION] do you really trust Congress to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies that keep them in office?

 

[green]

I would be fine with single payer so long as it has fairly stiff copays and didn't cover everything, such as most prescriptions. Seriously cut Medicare and give it to everyone, ok. Expand Medicare and give it to everyone no.
[MENTION=228]green[/MENTION] do you really trust Congress to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies that keep them in office?

No, I don't. BUT, we have to start somewhere. By going single payer, we can cast more light on what is going on behind the scenes, then work to fixing that.

Single payer isn't the answer, but it is a step in the right direction to getting better.

Sometimes you have to cut excess from your life before you can clean it up.

 

[♪alt13]

No, I don't. BUT, we have to start somewhere. By going single payer, we can cast more light on what is going on behind the scenes, then work to fixing that.

Single payer isn't the answer, but it is a step in the right direction to getting better.

Sometimes you have to cut excess from your life before you can clean it up.

I look at this more and more like transportation. Government roads are cool I don't want to pay a toll but the government shouldn't pay for my gas or my car. Airports are cool but government Shouldn't run the airlines or pay for my ticket. Trax is great but I'm glad that it's not free. I definitely don't want to ride in a travelling pioneer park.