Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Healthcare costs about to rise 44-62% because of ObamaCare

2»

Comments

  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    greenblood said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.

    The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).

    The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).

    So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
    Companies can drop you on a whim now. Obamacare didn't change that.
    Guaranteed Issue and Ban on Rescission
    Under the Affordable Care Act you cannot be denied coverage due to any reason other than your ability to pay, this is called guarantee issue. The ACA also includes provisions that ban rescission, meaning you cannot be dropped for any other reason other than failure to pay or fraud. Beyond that you can’t be charged a higher premium due to your health status and your health status can’t affect your ability to get or keep any health insurance covered by the Affordable Care Act. Please note that in some types of insurance, specifically supplemental health insurance options, don’t have to follow the same rules and regulations ACA compliant plans do.

    ObamaCare makes it illegal for health insurance companies to arbitrarily cancel your health insurance just because you get sick.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HoustonHusky
    HoustonHusky Member Posts: 6,000
    edited October 2016
    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.

    The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).

    The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).

    So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
    The pre-Obamacare system wasn't great but was better. Obamacare fucked things up several ways...one by mandating a laundry list of things that have to be covered (does everyone really need to pay more to cover gender reassignment surgery...you want it great. Just don't require everyone to subsidize it). Other is by forcing shitty reimbursement rates, which leaves Obamacare covered folks with no real health care anyway because a ton of doctors won't take them. Bunch of other ways as well. We are spending a ton of money to expand coverage to a modest amount of folks...would have been much cheaper just to have the govt buy them insurance directly. And the rates are still rising "exponentially".

    I love the stupidity of the argument...it's falling apart and didn't achieve any of its goals but it must be better.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.

    The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).

    The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).

    So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
    The pre-Obamacare system wasn't great but was better. Obamacare fucked things up several ways...one by mandating a laundry list of things that have to be covered (does everyone really need to pay more to cover gender reassignment surgery...you want it great. Just don't require everyone to subsidize it). Other is by forcing shitty reimbursement rates, which leaves Obamacare covered folks with no real health care anyway because a ton of doctors won't take them. Bunch of other ways as well. We are spending a ton of money to expand coverage to a modest amount of folks...would have been much cheaper just to have the govt buy them insurance directly. And the rates are still rising "exponentially".

    I love the stupidity of the argument...it's falling apart and didn't achieve any of its goals but it must be better.
    Sounds like you support single payer.

    Not to mention your lie about gender reassignment surgery.

    http://obamacarefacts.com/questions/is-there-transgender-health-coverage/
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HoustonHusky
    HoustonHusky Member Posts: 6,000
    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.

    The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).

    The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).

    So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
    The pre-Obamacare system wasn't great but was better. Obamacare fucked things up several ways...one by mandating a laundry list of things that have to be covered (does everyone really need to pay more to cover gender reassignment surgery...you want it great. Just don't require everyone to subsidize it). Other is by forcing shitty reimbursement rates, which leaves Obamacare covered folks with no real health care anyway because a ton of doctors won't take them. Bunch of other ways as well. We are spending a ton of money to expand coverage to a modest amount of folks...would have been much cheaper just to have the govt buy them insurance directly. And the rates are still rising "exponentially".

    I love the stupidity of the argument...it's falling apart and didn't achieve any of its goals but it must be better.
    Sounds like you support single payer.

    Not to mention your lie about gender reassignment surgery.

    http://obamacarefacts.com/questions/is-there-transgender-health-coverage/
    It's covered as a pre-existing condition...there is hope for you yet.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/25/obamacare-now-pays-for-gender-reassignment.html

    And no, I'm not for single payer. It would be much worse than what we have. I'd be ok with a two-tier system (what a lot of Europe has), but folks like Hillary would bankrupt the country adding more and more coverage to it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.

    The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).

    The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).

    So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
    The pre-Obamacare system wasn't great but was better. Obamacare fucked things up several ways...one by mandating a laundry list of things that have to be covered (does everyone really need to pay more to cover gender reassignment surgery...you want it great. Just don't require everyone to subsidize it). Other is by forcing shitty reimbursement rates, which leaves Obamacare covered folks with no real health care anyway because a ton of doctors won't take them. Bunch of other ways as well. We are spending a ton of money to expand coverage to a modest amount of folks...would have been much cheaper just to have the govt buy them insurance directly. And the rates are still rising "exponentially".

    I love the stupidity of the argument...it's falling apart and didn't achieve any of its goals but it must be better.
    Sounds like you support single payer.

    Not to mention your lie about gender reassignment surgery.

    http://obamacarefacts.com/questions/is-there-transgender-health-coverage/
    It's covered as a pre-existing condition...there is hope for you yet.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/25/obamacare-now-pays-for-gender-reassignment.html

    And no, I'm not for single payer. It would be much worse than what we have. I'd be ok with a two-tier system (what a lot of Europe has), but folks like Hillary would bankrupt the country adding more and more coverage to it.
    I know that's what yore news source says, but it's not true. Read the facts.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HoustonHusky
    HoustonHusky Member Posts: 6,000
    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.

    The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).

    The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).

    So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
    The pre-Obamacare system wasn't great but was better. Obamacare fucked things up several ways...one by mandating a laundry list of things that have to be covered (does everyone really need to pay more to cover gender reassignment surgery...you want it great. Just don't require everyone to subsidize it). Other is by forcing shitty reimbursement rates, which leaves Obamacare covered folks with no real health care anyway because a ton of doctors won't take them. Bunch of other ways as well. We are spending a ton of money to expand coverage to a modest amount of folks...would have been much cheaper just to have the govt buy them insurance directly. And the rates are still rising "exponentially".

    I love the stupidity of the argument...it's falling apart and didn't achieve any of its goals but it must be better.
    Sounds like you support single payer.

    Not to mention your lie about gender reassignment surgery.

    http://obamacarefacts.com/questions/is-there-transgender-health-coverage/
    It's covered as a pre-existing condition...there is hope for you yet.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/25/obamacare-now-pays-for-gender-reassignment.html

    And no, I'm not for single payer. It would be much worse than what we have. I'd be ok with a two-tier system (what a lot of Europe has), but folks like Hillary would bankrupt the country adding more and more coverage to it.
    I know that's what yore news source says, but it's not true. Read the facts.
    Read yours:

    The ACA helps transgender Americans due to its many patient protections such as:

    Mandating that insurers must accept preexisting conditions like "gender identity disorder", which was often considered a preexisting condition before the law, or expanding coverage options to low and middle income Americans.

    HondoFS
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • doogie
    doogie Member Posts: 15,072
    You and ozone are the only stupid fuckers left defending Obamacare. You realize this, yes?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.

    The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).

    The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).

    So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
    The pre-Obamacare system wasn't great but was better. Obamacare fucked things up several ways...one by mandating a laundry list of things that have to be covered (does everyone really need to pay more to cover gender reassignment surgery...you want it great. Just don't require everyone to subsidize it). Other is by forcing shitty reimbursement rates, which leaves Obamacare covered folks with no real health care anyway because a ton of doctors won't take them. Bunch of other ways as well. We are spending a ton of money to expand coverage to a modest amount of folks...would have been much cheaper just to have the govt buy them insurance directly. And the rates are still rising "exponentially".

    I love the stupidity of the argument...it's falling apart and didn't achieve any of its goals but it must be better.
    Sounds like you support single payer.

    Not to mention your lie about gender reassignment surgery.

    http://obamacarefacts.com/questions/is-there-transgender-health-coverage/
    It's covered as a pre-existing condition...there is hope for you yet.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/25/obamacare-now-pays-for-gender-reassignment.html

    And no, I'm not for single payer. It would be much worse than what we have. I'd be ok with a two-tier system (what a lot of Europe has), but folks like Hillary would bankrupt the country adding more and more coverage to it.
    I know that's what yore news source says, but it's not true. Read the facts.
    Read yours:

    The ACA helps transgender Americans due to its many patient protections such as:

    Mandating that insurers must accept preexisting conditions like "gender identity disorder", which was often considered a preexisting condition before the law, or expanding coverage options to low and middle income Americans.

    HondoFS
    Use your brain. I know what my link says. Having a pre existing condition for gender identity disorder doesn't require a gender reassignment surgery. And nothing in the bill requires that anyone pay for gender reassignment surgery.

    It's almost like you don't understand the difference or realize there's more than one treatment.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    doogie said:

    You and ozone are the only stupid fuckers left defending Obamacare. You realize this, yes?

    Obamacare needs work to be fixed. The Republicans only plan is to repeal it, which is FS. Congress needs to pull their head out of their ass and put in place some fixes to make the system better.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • greenblood
    greenblood Member Posts: 14,560
    2001400ex said:

    greenblood said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    Health care is a $3+ trillion portion of our economy. Its FS to say eliminating private companies that have an overall profit of a couple billion and putting the govt in charge of doing the same function is going to make it any more efficient. Its really FS.

    The root of the problem is that you have a 3rd payer system...there is very little incentive for anyone to not spend (i.e. I've paid my deductible, so I might as well get X, Y, and Z done because I'm just paying a $20 co-pay, and Lord knows I shouldn't lose weight because I pay the same premium no matter what).

    The only way to limit spending if the govt is put in charge is by having the govt limit the availability of overall health care (i.e. X number of spots, and you wait your turn...i.e. the European way). And you are FS if you think our govt can do that when it has shown its horrible at it where it is in charge (most of the end of life spending is done under Medicare, and that is anything but under control).

    So let's keep the system we have. Better yet, let's go back to prior to Obamacare where premiums and costs were rising exponentially and people with pre existing conditions couldn't get insurance. Oh yeah, and insurance companies can drop you at a whim. Cause they can.
    Companies can drop you on a whim now. Obamacare didn't change that.
    Guaranteed Issue and Ban on Rescission
    Under the Affordable Care Act you cannot be denied coverage due to any reason other than your ability to pay, this is called guarantee issue. The ACA also includes provisions that ban rescission, meaning you cannot be dropped for any other reason other than failure to pay or fraud. Beyond that you can’t be charged a higher premium due to your health status and your health status can’t affect your ability to get or keep any health insurance covered by the Affordable Care Act. Please note that in some types of insurance, specifically supplemental health insurance options, don’t have to follow the same rules and regulations ACA compliant plans do.

    ObamaCare makes it illegal for health insurance companies to arbitrarily cancel your health insurance just because you get sick.
    When they leave the exchanges that's exactly what they're doing. How many have already left?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • doogie
    doogie Member Posts: 15,072
    There you go again!

    2001400ex said:

    doogie said:

    You and ozone are the only stupid fuckers left defending Obamacare. You realize this, yes?

    Obamacare needs work to be fixed. The Republicans only plan is to repeal it, which is FS. Congress needs to pull their head out of their ass and put in place some fixes to make the system better.
    blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    doogie said:

    There you go again!



    2001400ex said:

    doogie said:

    You and ozone are the only stupid fuckers left defending Obamacare. You realize this, yes?

    Obamacare needs work to be fixed. The Republicans only plan is to repeal it, which is FS. Congress needs to pull their head out of their ass and put in place some fixes to make the system better.
    blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
    Intelligent response as always.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • doogie
    doogie Member Posts: 15,072
    2001400ex said:

    doogie said:

    There you go again!



    2001400ex said:

    doogie said:

    You and ozone are the only stupid fuckers left defending Obamacare. You realize this, yes?

    Obamacare needs work to be fixed. The Republicans only plan is to repeal it, which is FS. Congress needs to pull their head out of their ass and put in place some fixes to make the system better.
    blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
    Intelligent appropriate response as always.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Fenderbender123
    Fenderbender123 Member Posts: 2,989
    The VA is a sneak preview for what single payer would look like for the rest of the US.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,865 Standard Supporter
    You can keep your doctor and save $2,500.00 a year!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 114,127 Founders Club
    Fenderbender123 said:

    The VA is a sneak preview for what single payer would look like for the rest of the US.

    The VA doesn't have the GUTS to have REAL death panels
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Fenderbender123
    Fenderbender123 Member Posts: 2,989
    Sledog said:

    You can keep your doctor and save $2,500.00 a year!

    By increasing the supply of coverage, we will increase the demand of medical procedures. And that, of course, will lower prices!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dhdawg
    dhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    Fenderbender123 said:

    The VA is a sneak preview for what single payer would look like for the rest of the US.

    or how about france? federally funded health care that spends less per capita than we do and is ranked #1 in the world, while we're at 37 (World Health Org.)
    government run healthcare is superior, just has to be funded properly unlike the VA.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 114,127 Founders Club
    dhdawg said:

    Fenderbender123 said:

    The VA is a sneak preview for what single payer would look like for the rest of the US.

    or how about france? federally funded health care that spends less per capita than we do and is ranked #1 in the world, while we're at 37 (World Health Org.)
    government run healthcare is superior, just has to be funded properly unlike the VA.

    Again, when France pays for their own defense get back to us
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HoustonHusky
    HoustonHusky Member Posts: 6,000
    dhdawg said:

    Fenderbender123 said:

    The VA is a sneak preview for what single payer would look like for the rest of the US.

    or how about france? federally funded health care that spends less per capita than we do and is ranked #1 in the world, while we're at 37 (World Health Org.)
    government run healthcare is superior, just has to be funded properly unlike the VA.

    France has basically a 2-tier system with a bunch of folks paying a significant co-pay for procedures and also having private insurance.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Fenderbender123
    Fenderbender123 Member Posts: 2,989
    And France's healthcare would be even more efficient if it were free of government regulation/control.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dhdawg
    dhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    edited October 2016
    RaceBannon said:

    dhdawg said:

    Fenderbender123 said:

    The VA is a sneak preview for what single payer would look like for the rest of the US.

    or how about france? federally funded health care that spends less per capita than we do and is ranked #1 in the world, while we're at 37 (World Health Org.)
    government run healthcare is superior, just has to be funded properly unlike the VA.

    Again, when France pays for their own defense get back to us
    I agree with trump on NATO, but they spend less than we do. so why is it important in this context?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dhdawg
    dhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    edited October 2016
    Fenderbender123 said:

    And France's healthcare would be even more efficient if it were free of government regulation/control.

    spend less, better outcomes.
    HoustonHusky said:

    dhdawg said:

    Fenderbender123 said:

    The VA is a sneak preview for what single payer would look like for the rest of the US.

    or how about france? federally funded health care that spends less per capita than we do and is ranked #1 in the world, while we're at 37 (World Health Org.)
    government run healthcare is superior, just has to be funded properly unlike the VA.

    France has basically a 2-tier system with a bunch of folks paying a significant co-pay for procedures and also having private insurance.

    correct. It's not a purely single payer system like in Britain (also ranking higher than us). Just an example of what a hybrid system that protects the freedom of patients and doctors, while still having government regulation to control costs.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/what-can-the-us-learn-from-the-french-health-care-system-2011-3
    not perfect. And as it says in the article, GDP costs going down would likely be impossible under our current system. Given they are #1 and we in the 30's though you'd think we can learn from them right?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HoustonHusky
    HoustonHusky Member Posts: 6,000
    dhdawg said:

    Fenderbender123 said:

    And France's healthcare would be even more efficient if it were free of government regulation/control.

    spend less, better outcomes.
    HoustonHusky said:

    dhdawg said:

    Fenderbender123 said:

    The VA is a sneak preview for what single payer would look like for the rest of the US.

    or how about france? federally funded health care that spends less per capita than we do and is ranked #1 in the world, while we're at 37 (World Health Org.)
    government run healthcare is superior, just has to be funded properly unlike the VA.

    France has basically a 2-tier system with a bunch of folks paying a significant co-pay for procedures and also having private insurance.

    correct. It's not a purely single payer system like in Britain (also ranking higher than us). Just an example of what a hybrid system that protects the freedom of patients and doctors, while still having government regulation to control costs.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/what-can-the-us-learn-from-the-french-health-care-system-2011-3
    not perfect. And as it says in the article, GDP costs going down would likely be impossible under our current system. Given they are #1 and we in the 30's though you'd think we can learn from them right?
    Problem is, you have a very different population here than France, and you would have to get people here to agree to a 2-tier system (i.e. there is a base govt health care system that has long waits if you don't pay out of pocket and won't cover everything...remember all the elderly dying a few years ago from heat/exhaustion?).

    I'm personally fine with a 2-tier system, but the problem is that the cost savings has to come from the lower tier having a pretty crappy heath care system that won't cover lots of things (or will cover only with long waits), and won't give people on it access to lots of things people expect (epidurals for births, cancer treatment, a choice of doctor, etc). The upper tier gets better care only though it coming out of their own individual pockets.

    And realize there is pretty much is no tort (i.e. lawyers) involved in any of France's healthcare, and doctors on average get paid very little which won't go over well here either.

    For all the people that think some how, some way this will magically work here first need to get it to work on any of the large portions of the health care system the govt already controls, from Medicare/Medicaid, VA, Chips, etc. Its absolute idiocy to think the govt will take over all of the health care system and make it more efficient when they can't do it for the sections they already run.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dhdawg
    dhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    edited October 2016
    Except there's little to suggest anyone is forced to seek inferior care. The problem with paying the doctors exists. Which is why it would require tweaks. No one is saying you have to copy theirs or Britain's system. You can have aspects of it mixed with aspects of ours. But to pretend like our system is fine when we spend the most and rank in the low 30's is denial
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • greenblood
    greenblood Member Posts: 14,560
    edited October 2016
    dhdawg said:

    Except there's little to suggest anyone is forced to seek inferior care. The problem with paying the doctors exists. Which is why it would require tweaks. No one is saying you have to copy theirs or Britain's system. You can have aspects of it mixed with aspects of ours. But to pretend like our system is fine when we spend the most and rank in the low 30's is denial

    I'm actually ok with a single payer system, with the option of group insurance or individual insurance to be purchased through the open market as well. And because people paying for their own plan also pay for the country's plan through higher taxes, they should be able to deduct the full cost of their open market plan from their federal taxes.

    Now you can spend money to get a good plan, or have the government provide you with a "basic" plan.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter