GOP Plan Orders Insurers to Charge People 30% More If Uninsured for 63 Days

Doogles said:

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right?

My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive.

Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly.

It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt.

doogie said:

dhdawg said:

bananasnblondes said:

Obama care is going to be tricky for the GOP to fight because it is, in essence, a Republican plan - it's Romney's health care plan. Obama wanted single payer but new hr couldnt fet it through congress so he crafted the plan after the best republican plan out there. The GOP will not be able to "tweak a few things" and come up with a better plan. The next health care act in America will be extreme, either single-payer or completely free market and it probably won't come g or awhile.

at first I didn't buy into the "Obamacare was supposed to fail leading to single payer" but now I sort of see some of the genius in it.

you dedicate an entire provision to preventing companies from denying people for pre-existing conditions. Republicans know they can't get rid of that and stay in office. But you can't keep that provision without many of the other aspects. that is along with lifetime caps, etc.

what I think the GOP will try to do is do nothing and gut the bill, let it collapse, and then use that as proof that "socialized medicine" doesn't work.

problem is they ran on replacing it, and their president ran on "cheaper insurance for everyone." So they're in a corner.

All that you need now is a democratic presidential candidate that can frame it correctly in 2020. not Hillary who's against it because she's bought off

You see genius in how you fell for lies?

Woof said:

2001400ex said:

Doogles said:

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right?

My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive.

Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly.

It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt.

I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care.

I've always found this line of thought incredibly stupid due to the way healthcare and health insurance is structured in the US. As an example:

- For most helicopter parents these days, if their kid has the sniffles, fuck what it costs, they want the doctor to run every test possible, regardless of logic

- From the doctor's perspective, it makes sense for them to say yes to most of helicopter parent's demands, because if the 0.0001% chance that Suzie has racebannon-syndrome comes to fruition, they're going to get their asses sued

- Neither person really cares about cost in this case, so the insurance company ends up paying for a few extra tests that don't really make sense, fighting with the doctors, and denying claims (and thus being vilified)

Neither of the supposedly rational actors in this situation are acting rationally here, and it leads to billions wasted in unnecessary procedures and millions of hours of back and forth between doctors / patients / and insurance companies.

Not sure how to fix this mess. I just know that I don't trust the vast pool of mental midgets in this country to make rational healthcare decisions.

Woof said:

2001400ex said:

Woof said:

2001400ex said:

Doogles said:

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right?

My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive.

Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly.

It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt.

I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care.

I've always found this line of thought incredibly stupid due to the way healthcare and health insurance is structured in the US. As an example:

- For most helicopter parents these days, if their kid has the sniffles, fuck what it costs, they want the doctor to run every test possible, regardless of logic

- From the doctor's perspective, it makes sense for them to say yes to most of helicopter parent's demands, because if the 0.0001% chance that Suzie has racebannon-syndrome comes to fruition, they're going to get their asses sued

- Neither person really cares about cost in this case, so the insurance company ends up paying for a few extra tests that don't really make sense, fighting with the doctors, and denying claims (and thus being vilified)

Neither of the supposedly rational actors in this situation are acting rationally here, and it leads to billions wasted in unnecessary procedures and millions of hours of back and forth between doctors / patients / and insurance companies.

Not sure how to fix this mess. I just know that I don't trust the vast pool of mental midgets in this country to make rational healthcare decisions.

While yet is an issue for the 90% that are current covered, I'm not thinking the other 10% that don't currently have insurance would add to that issue much. That being said, I'm sure the reduced waste in billing that currently goes on will easily cover those people.

Fair point.

The pros of uniform coverage are:
- People don't die
- Negotiating in bulk saves money in theory - see Medicare D for an example of how the gubment is somehow able to supremely fuck this up
- Reduced bureaucracy / inefficiency to some extent

Cons would be:
- The government is likely to screw it up
- I almost always prefer free market solutions
- One size fits all solutions means that I'm likely to pay the same in taxes as a fat smoker whose diet consists entirely of foods with the words "frozen" "hydrogenated" and "artificial sweeteners" on the labels

In theory, I could likely get behind some sort of national healthcare proposal that only has catastrophic coverage and an annual check up or two, but then again, check my cons list.

dflea said:

salemcoog said:

2001400ex said:

Woof said:

2001400ex said:

Woof said:

2001400ex said:

Doogles said:

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right?

My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive.

Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly.

It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt.

I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care.

I've always found this line of thought incredibly stupid due to the way healthcare and health insurance is structured in the US. As an example:

- For most helicopter parents these days, if their kid has the sniffles, fuck what it costs, they want the doctor to run every test possible, regardless of logic

- From the doctor's perspective, it makes sense for them to say yes to most of helicopter parent's demands, because if the 0.0001% chance that Suzie has racebannon-syndrome comes to fruition, they're going to get their asses sued

- Neither person really cares about cost in this case, so the insurance company ends up paying for a few extra tests that don't really make sense, fighting with the doctors, and denying claims (and thus being vilified)

Neither of the supposedly rational actors in this situation are acting rationally here, and it leads to billions wasted in unnecessary procedures and millions of hours of back and forth between doctors / patients / and insurance companies.

Not sure how to fix this mess. I just know that I don't trust the vast pool of mental midgets in this country to make rational healthcare decisions.

While yet is an issue for the 90% that are current covered, I'm not thinking the other 10% that don't currently have insurance would add to that issue much. That being said, I'm sure the reduced waste in billing that currently goes on will easily cover those people.

Fair point.

The pros of uniform coverage are:
- People don't die
- Negotiating in bulk saves money in theory - see Medicare D for an example of how the gubment is somehow able to supremely fuck this up
- Reduced bureaucracy / inefficiency to some extent

Cons would be:
- The government is likely to screw it up
- I almost always prefer free market solutions
- One size fits all solutions means that I'm likely to pay the same in taxes as a fat smoker whose diet consists entirely of foods with the words "frozen" "hydrogenated" and "artificial sweeteners" on the labels

In theory, I could likely get behind some sort of national healthcare proposal that only has catastrophic coverage and an annual check up or two, but then again, check my cons list.

I agree with most of that. Except about paying the same as the fat lazy smoker. You already do as insurance companies charge the same regardless of health.

@dflea true????

I get the non-smoker discount every year, faggot. That's why I quit years ago.

How does having full blown AIDS affect your rates?