The GOP Healthcare Bill

[Gaidin]

Atleast I get to see the Obamacare train wreck in all it's glory. All the GOP bill would've done is changed the name on the engine to "Trumpcare".

The overall majority of Americans get insurance from work, Medicare, or Medicaid. Nevermind the issues with a bill fundamentally designed to cut over 20 million people off from care, Trump not doing his job until Congress forces him to is a lot less damaging.

[tgoodenow]

The overall majority of Americans get insurance from work, Medicare, or Medicaid. Nevermind the issues with a bill fundamentally designed to cut over 20 million people off from care, Trump not doing his job until Congress forces him to is a lot less damaging.

I agree the bill would do nothing but make it trumps. Instead of them losing their insurance outright, those 20 million will continue to pay premiums they can't afford for insurance they can't use because their deductibles are too large. Or get fined.

63% of Americans don't have enough money to pay for a $500 emergency situation. I wonder what percentage will be able to cover their $6,000 deductible?

[Gaidin]

I agree the bill would do nothing but make it trumps. Instead of them losing their insurance outright, those 20 million will continue to pay premiums they can't afford for insurance they can't use because their deductibles are too large. Or get fined.

63% of Americans don't have enough money to pay for a $500 emergency situation. I wonder what percentage will be able to cover their $6,000 deductible?

Your numbers are wrong. The bill was dicking with medicaid more than anything. Nevermind major benefits for general insurance that would screw everyone over.

Your philosophy: let the poor people die.

[L'Ost]

Viruses don't care whether you're poor or rich. Viruses live & spread better if they have an high number of humans to parasite.
If you disallow poors to cure themselves, then you'll pay more frequently for medication for your family and your kids.

[tgoodenow]

Your numbers are wrong. The bill was dicking with medicaid more than anything. Nevermind major benefits for general insurance that would screw everyone over.

Your philosophy: let the poor people die.

The affordable care act didn't address any of the cost drivers of healthcare.
Its expensive and doesn't provide care because those with "insurance" can't afford the deductibles.
Saying that I hate poor people won't change these facts.

[Gaidin]

The affordable care act didn't address any of the cost drivers of healthcare.
Its expensive and doesn't provide care because those with "insurance" can't afford the deductibles.
Saying that I hate poor people won't change these facts.

Your solution to the ACA is to cut the poor off at the legs instead of fix the issue? And you wonder why Kansas, Maine, Alaska, West Virginia, and Nevada senators came out against it.

[tgoodenow]

Your solution to the ACA is to cut the poor off at the legs instead of fix the issue? And you wonder why Kansas, Maine, Alaska, West Virginia, and Nevada senators came out against it.

I have offered no solution, I have simply pointed out that the ACA is not a solution and the "insurance" provides no coverage.
My solution is tort reform, shortening of pharmaceutical patent times, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, a review of hospital tactics that lead to unnecessary procedures, and a national review board to remove bad healthcare professionals and keep them out of the profession. These are the main controllable cost drivers of healthcare from what I have researched.

Both Trumpcare and the ACA are a disaster.

[Love Mountain]

I have offered no solution, I have simply pointed out that the ACA is not a solution and the "insurance" provides no coverage.
My solution is tort reform,

Doctor liability, while significant, isn't particularly bad. A small percentage of doctors are causing inflated rates for everyone else.

shortening of pharmaceutical patent times,

I don't know about that. Patents are a classic conundrum of rewarding innovation vs sharing benefits. It's tricky and I don't think there's a simple solution like the one you propose.

allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, a review of hospital tactics that lead to unnecessary procedures,

Selling insurance across state lines isn't going to significantly cut costs. It's not really the problem, though I don't see why not do it anyway.

and a national review board to remove bad healthcare professionals and keep them out of the profession. These are the main controllable cost drivers of healthcare from what I have researched.

Both Trumpcare and the ACA are a disaster.

More bureacracy? It's not a bad idea, I'm just skeptical about who's going to sit on it. But I agree in practice. More centralization means more control over costs.

[the_mango55]

You want to cut costs? Let the government negotiate prices like other countries do.

Republicans passed a law against that to please their donors in big pharma because it would "stifle innovation"

[tgoodenow]

Doctor liability, while significant, isn't particularly bad. A small percentage of doctors are causing inflated rates for everyone else.



I don't know about that. Patents are a classic conundrum of rewarding innovation vs sharing benefits. It's tricky and I don't think there's a simple solution like the one you propose.



Selling insurance across state lines isn't going to significantly cut costs. It's not really the problem, though I don't see why not do it anyway.



More bureacracy? It's not a bad idea, I'm just skeptical about who's going to sit on it. But I agree in practice. More centralization means more control over costs.

(In order) medical malpractice is estimated to account for anywhere between 7.2 to 12.7% of the increase of healthcare costs. They are especially costly because they are argued in front of a civil court - so the jurors have to be educated on the surgery and why it was malpractice. Arguing infront of ex medical professional magistrates would remove this cost and make settling by hospitals less likely.

Pharmaceutical investments have a higher return than every sector except technology. Low interest government loans would be a better alternative (in the same manner student loans work). Lowering of patent times will obviously decrease private investment so low interest loans will have to pick up the slack. Lower patent times will prevent price gouging of medicine without alternatives.


Selling across state lines will prevent the need of offices in each state and allow for a single structure to handle consumer complaints.

National review board could simply be a subset of NHS. Bad healthcare professionals moving from hospital to hospital drive up insurance costs which are a major driver of healthcare costs. Eliminating this variable would lower insurance risk a lot.

[Love Mountain]

(In order) medical malpractice is estimated to account for anywhere between 7.2 to 12.7% of the increase of healthcare costs. They are especially costly because they are argued in front of a civil court - so the jurors have to be educated on the surgery and why it was malpractice. Arguing infront of ex medical professional magistrates would remove this cost and make settling by hospitals less likely.

I am of the opinion that litigation is too expensive. I am more skeptical of just how much tort reform advocates are claiming to be able to save. Ridiculous payouts that go into billions of dollars are fairly rare, their consistency is alarming but I don't think extensive overhaul is needed to control that particular threat. I am more wary of attorney fees and the entire industry that's built around healthcare litigation. Imo, it's hugely inflated and is a broken market, much like the healthcare industry.

Pharmaceutical investments have a higher return than every sector except technology. Low interest government loans would be a better alternative (in the same manner student loans work). Lowering of patent times will obviously decrease private investment so low interest loans will have to pick up the slack. Lower patent times will prevent price gouging of medicine without alternatives.

I am against government loan programs. And no, not because I am against "government" or think that the government can't run anything without becoming insolvent. Government loan programs actually have a pretty good track record as far as accounting goes, they also have some not so good records but that's beside the point. No, my issue with government credit is that it disrupts markets. Student loans are a good example of that actually. Education should be rationed, and while the populist rhetoric of "every kid should have a chance to go to college" is nice, I am against putting people into debt. I am also against lending to private parties with no set goal, that's essentially giving a risky subsidy. It also tend to "crowd out" other creditors.

Plus, the Government already invests huge sums into healthcare research. Spending more in existing institutions is always something I'm up for, but that's not really what you're suggesting. Be mindful that I am not against reworking patent laws. I am simply questioning whether shortening patent periods will actually accomplish anything.

Selling across state lines will prevent the need of offices in each state and allow for a single structure to handle consumer complaints.

That doesn't make sense to me... The main problems are high market barriers such varying state regulations (which I personally don't think is that big of a problem) and building a new provider network.

National review board could simply be a subset of NHS. Bad healthcare professionals moving from hospital to hospital drive up insurance costs which are a major driver of healthcare costs. Eliminating this variable would lower insurance risk a lot.

I don't know why this is necessary. A national database that stores everyone's records would be much more simple. Let employers sort out the rest.

[empr guy]

It's coming out that trump thinks health insurance costs people ~$12 a month because the Gerber ad's on fox news advertise infant life insurance for about that price. This might be why he's both been so inconsistent in his views and so ineffective at getting votes for whatever abomination of a plan they're currently debating. Thoughts?

[Admiral Piett]

I support Trump's repeal of ACA which was a disaster for my family that lost their insurance due to it. However, I do not support the GOP's replacement proposals which are still a "tax" on the American people if they don't buy insurance. Any kind of mandate to buy insurance is not the answer. There is a much simpler solution and although initially expensive would be far cheaper in the long run. Expand medicare to all Americans. Also, we need prescription drug price limits - badly.

[Gaidin]

I support Trump's repeal of ACA which was a disaster for my family that lost their insurance due to it. However, I do not support the GOP's replacement proposals which are still a "tax" on the American people if they don't buy insurance. Any kind of mandate to buy insurance is not the answer. There is a much simpler solution and although initially expensive would be far cheaper in the long run. Expand medicare to all Americans. Also, we need prescription drug price limits - badly.

We as a government will keep going back and forth over this in hilarious ways as long as we bicker over the money instead of the healthcare itself. Get used to it.

One article I read started the first paragraph off with how a person was diagnosed with cancer that could become terminal. The first question they were asked was if they had a job. He asked why that should be a hanging point of a death sentence.

[Love Mountain]

Because personal responsibility. Wonderful people when that's the first thing that comes into their head.

[Gaidin]

Because personal responsibility. Wonderful people when that's the first thing that comes into their head.

My ass. You end up between jobs in economic slumps. And COBRA dumps a multi hundred dollar bill on you instead of a 50 dollar bill. It's not pretty. Choices get to be made before the next job comes along.

[Love Mountain]

To be fair to conservatives, the whole issue of tying insurance to employers came out of a democratic establishment. Undoing it however, has been met with fierce resistance from almost everybody involved.

[Condottiere 40K]

Employment incentive, when there was a wage freeze.

[irontaino]

Another one bites the dust

[Love Mountain]

Good. At least some Reps have a spine. Good to see Collins in the dissent time and time again.