Healthcare/Health Insurance: what is the actual problem?

Economies of scale typically also come with bureaucracy, complacency and lack of competition. Larger can lead to efficiency, but it can also lead to these other things, which are typically bad for the consumer. There is an optimum size to everything and from my perspective the status quo ain't it. Not being in the industry I wouldn't have the foggiest about what size you need to be in order to buy into the "big enough to play" club, but I think we currently have a few that are in the "too big for their britches" club.
 
Kamala Harris begins to doom her 2020 platform before it even starts...

Kamala Harris Plans to Co-Sponsor Bernie Sanders’ Single-Payer Healthcare Bill

She told the audience that she was going to “break some news” and said, “I intend to co-sponsor the Medicare-for-all bill because it’s just the right thing to do. It’s just the right thing to do.”

Harris laughed after making her announcement and said, “somebody should tell my staff.”

She added that she believes health care is a “right” and not a “privilege”

Harris may be positioning herself for a 2020 White House run, and her single-payer announcement is significant because she has taken considerable heat of late from Sanders’ supporters who think she is too beholden to big-money donors like Hillary Clinton and do not like the fact that she was once a prosecutor.
 
Blue Cross saw it coming

DI5RAenXYAA9zNX.jpg
 
not that McCain has much to fear from a Texas voter but if he's a hold out on this, I'm officially on the "McCain has to go" bus.

Maybe it's my military background but I've always been a McCain fan. Didn't always agree with him but I was a fan most of the time. If he doesn't get with the program, he has to go.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
not that McCain has much to fear from a Texas voter but if he's a hold out on this, I'm officially on the "McCain has to go" bus.
Maybe it's my military background but I've always been a McCain fan. Didn't always agree with him but I was a fan most of the time. If he doesn't get with the program, he has to go.
Click to expand...

Rand Paul at least took his stand on substance.
Even lightweights Collins and Murkowski could ostensibly make such a claim

But McCain, going by his own statement, opposed it only because the Democrats don't like it. What kind of BS is that?
 
Joe Fan said:
Rand Paul at least took his stand on substance.
Even lightweights Collins and Murkowski could ostensibly make such a claim

But McCain, going by his own statement, opposed it only because the Democrats don't like it. What kind of BS is that?
Click to expand...

He's saying it was rushed and hasn't been properly vetted and debated. I remember a time when that was the reason that many on the right were critical of Obamacare. It's different when you're in the driver seat, I guess. It's not debatable that McCain has been consistent on having an open debate on healthcare, regardless of who was driving.

“I would consider supporting legislation similar to that offered by my friends Senators Graham and Cassidy were it the product of extensive hearings, debate and amendment. But that has not been the case. Instead, the specter of [the] September 30th budget reconciliation deadline has hung over this entire process," he said on Friday.
Click to expand...
 
2010: Just give us the House
2014: Just give us the Senate
2016: Just give us the WH
2018: Just give us 60 senators


 
I've been out on John McCain since he blamed Sarah Palin for losing the 2008 election. What a douche. She was the only reason he ever had a shot at all. Even if it was true, what an *** he is to lay that on her publicly.
 
The solution to getting rid of Obamacare has always been pretty simple.
Once ths latest repeal attempt is officially dead, Trump should immediately create a new EO that makes it apply to Congress. Eliminate their exemption. This has always been the secret to forcing quick Congressional action.
 
McCain's first big break with the GOP was back in the late '90s when he backed new federal tobacco taxes to fund anti-smoking campaigns and help recoup the public health costs associated with smoking. It was considered a bit of a betrayal, because tobacco companies had pretty recently shifted their contributions from Democrats to Republicans and helped finance the GOP's 1994 takeover of Congress.

Even though my distaste for Palin is well-documented here, blaming her for his loss is moronic and chickenshit. No VP nominee would have flipped that election or even made it significantly closer. He lost because 1.) the economy was going into the crapper under the GOP's watch, 2.) McCain was trying to win a third straight GOP term in the White House, 3.) McCain was an uninspiring and mediocre candidate, and 4.) Obama was a very strong opponent with a lot going for him and got more media help than any candidate in the history of modern American politics.

As for the demise of Graham-Cassidy, I still can't get too mad about it, because like the previous bill, we're basically talking about half-assed Obamacare. It's an improvement, because it gives states more flexibility, but it's not a fundamental shift from a government-oriented system to a market-oriented system.
 
Joe Fan said:
Trump should immediately create a new EO that makes it apply to Congress. Eliminate their exemption. This has always been the secret to forcing quick Congressional action.
Click to expand...
Could not agree more, but not going to happen. That privileged bunch of so send so's will never sacrifice anything and while pushing a few envelopes Trump does not have the cajones for that kind of political suicide.
 
nashhorn said:
Could not agree more, but not going to happen. That privileged bunch of so send so's will never sacrifice anything and while pushing a few envelopes Trump does not have the cajones for that kind of political suicide.
Click to expand...

Before resorting to something like that, how about if Trump makes a major push to pass the legislation rather than sitting on the sidelines waiting for it to happen? I think Trump knows that all of these bills suck and doesn't want his name associated with them if things go badly, which they likely would.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Before resorting to something like that, how about if Trump makes a major push to pass the legislation rather than sitting on the sidelines waiting for it to happen? I think Trump knows that all of these bills suck and doesn't want his name associated with them if things go badly, which they likely would.
Click to expand...
If he actually accomplished something who would he have to pick a fight with? Fights and bluster are more valued by his core constituency.
 
He could lie his butt off and "accomplish" something like Obamacare. Then he could watch it quickly fail over the next six years. The country is better off just letting the hot air balloon known as ACA continue to get twisted and fried in the high-power lines until it is reduced to smoke.

No program will ever exist that will pay for those unwilling or unable to buy health insurance and not require anything from the freeloaders, insure people AFTER they become ill, and do so at a lower cost.
 
Given many of the voters' penchant for wanting government handouts, and a general lack of personal accountability, single payer might be instituted at some point. It, too, will be another government failure.
 
Last edited:
iatrogenic said:
Given many the voters' penchant for wanting government handouts and general lack of personal accountability, single payer might be instituted at some point. It, too, will be another government failure.
Click to expand...

You are correct. However, it would be nice if the free market had an advocate in the debate besides Rand Paul. What I'm mostly seeing in this debate is an argument over whether the GOP bill will cover as many people as Obamacare does and whether preexisting conditions will still be covered. I see very little about consumer choice, inefficiencies inherent to government systems, quality of care, burden to the taxpayer, and cost control.

If the focus is coverage and preexisting conditions, then we're essentially debating the issue on the Democrats' terms, which means we've already lost. Why? Because if coverage and preexisting conditions override all other concerns, then simply from a logical standpoint, no private system is going to do better than a government system. We may as well pass single payer on GOP terms.
 
Mr. Deez said:
You are correct. However, it would be nice if the free market had an advocate in the debate besides Rand Paul. What I'm mostly seeing in this debate is an argument over whether the GOP bill will cover as many people as Obamacare does and whether preexisting conditions will still be covered. I see very little about consumer choice, inefficiencies inherent to government systems, quality of care, burden to the taxpayer, and cost control.

If the focus is coverage and preexisting conditions, then we're essentially debating the issue on the Democrats' terms, which means we've already lost. Why? Because if coverage and preexisting conditions override all other concerns, then simply from a logical standpoint, no private system is going to do better than a government system. We may as well pass single payer on GOP terms.
Click to expand...
just like all govt programs it is now mostly framed in "states are losing XXX" as though the money was just sitting there to be grabbed.

I was really looking forward to the 'states take control' version. I was hoping it would have resulted in 50 different versions of health care/costs and we would have had a test bed of 50 flavors to analyze.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
I was really looking forward to the 'states take control' version. I was hoping it would have resulted in 50 different versions of health care/costs and we would have had a test bed of 50 flavors to analyze.
Click to expand...

I'm as big of a fan of federalism as anybody. However, the only way for it to really work as intended by the Founders is if the programs are not only state administered but state funded - no block grants. If California wants single payer, then it should have to come up with every cent of that $400 billion per year. If that means a 30 percent state income tax, then so be it. Let them try.
 
Looks like DT is considering doing what he can to make healthcare more affordable while the Senate fails to act.

In all fairness I'd say the purchasing across state lines idea was pushed hardest by Cruz. Paul has been very active promoting the allowance of individuals to join health care associations to buy at bulk rates.

Both are solid ideas that should help make rates more competitive.

Trump may sign an executive order to push Rand Paul's health care plan

"I'll probably be signing a very major executive order where people can go out, cross state lines do lots of things and buy their own health care and that will be probably signed next week."

"Trump also said he was considering an order on health care associations -- an idea that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has said he has been negotiating with the president."
 
JUST REPEAL IT! They are afraid that the dems will point the finger at them stating they took their insurance away from millions. Psssssst! A little secret here, take it from someone that went through the misery of having Obamacare. The plan they offer is just in name only. You can't call that insurance because it's that bad. I told you about my experience and I'm telling you that even though I was paying twice as high premiums than before Obamacare, I couldn't use it. I ended up lying that I don't have insurance and paid out of pocket so I could get treatment.
 
If anyone wonders why large numbers of Americans won't go along with nationalized medicine or any large government decision-making power in healthcare issues, stories like this are a big part of the problem.

We have hospitals and courts rolling over the parents' wishes and trying to pull the plug on this baby. There are really two related but ultimately different issues here. First, should the hospital be required to keep treating the child to keep him alive? Obviously they've decided not to, and that's a debatable point. Second, should the child essentially be incarcerated in the hospital to ensure that when treatment is removed, his parents can't try to keep him alive? That's a big leap, and if courts can do this, that's very disturbing. If the parents want to take him out of the UK and bring him to Italy where hellh continue to get care, what the hell business of it is the hospital's or the Court's?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top