Utah @ 
Baylor Those Republicans are so smart! Those poor starving health care CEO’s just …
Welcome to Ute Hub › Forums › Politics › Those Republicans are so smart! Those poor starving health care CEO’s just …
- This topic has 31 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
Puget Ute.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
96GradAlumMemberaren’t making enough to make ends meet. LOL
Republican healthcare plan has a big tax break for insurance execs’ pay
If you’re wondering who those jokers work for … well … it’s pretty obvious it isn’t the average American worker.
Unbelievable! 🙁
-
UtahParticipantBut, BUT, BUT there is no money for healthcare!!!!
-
zeousParticipantAt what point do you sit back and consider the possibility that both sides are playing us common folk.
-
-
ironman1315ParticipantCongress should just start price fixing or create a statutory scheme for price fixing everything in the healthcare market from insurance to pills and be done with it.
-
autahfanParticipantYes, communism has worked so well everywhere it’s been tried.
-
ironman1315Participant
Definition of communism:
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Where is price fixing a class war, or a society where property is publicly owned?
Further, I find it ridiculous that healthcare companies can just toss out a price after the service is rendered, which is what they do. It violates the very essence of contracting, which is a meeting of the minds. How can I govern my choices if hospitals just vomit out a price based on whatever data they want? It’s ridiculous.
-
UtahParticipant
I’d bet that he has no idea what he is billed for his healthcare.
-
-
UtahParticipant
Your ignorance is showing. There is a reason why hip replacements are $40,000 here and $10,000 everywhere else.
Dont spew garbage like that. Get informed.
-
Utahute72ParticipantI did find it somewhat Ironic that Nancy “We’ll have to pass it so you know what’s in it” Pelosi is complaining about not having enough information on the current proposal.
-
UtahParticipant
Yeah, she comes off looking pretty silly on that one. What is so wrong with letting everyone know, having a little debate, and actually passing something that is solid, has support from both sides and has a chance to survive?
Or, going back through the ACA and making changes where needed and trying to make this thing work. Starting over from scratch seems silly. Why? Because in 2-8 years, when the Democrats take control, they will just scrap it and start over again.
At some point, someone has to be the bigger person and actually accomplish something. Why not start now?
-
Utahute72Participant
Again, that’s why I would prefer a piecemeal approach to fixing the thing, but the political climate seems to be in conflict with rationality.
-
-
-
RenegadeflyParticipantBetter recheck your 40,000 dollar figure.
-
ironman1315Participant
It ranges from 11k to 70k throughout the US. What is wrong with his figure?
-
UteThunderParticipantYou could say he’s ‘a little husky’ . . . Oh, not that figure?
-
-
-
-
-
Utahute72Participant
One of the biggest problems with Obamacare is it had limited means to make sure insurance companies lived up to their responsibilities. This will only make the situation worse. Note to both sides, Fix the Damn Problem.
-
Puget UteParticipantIt actually had a broad package of incentives designed to keep the insurance companies in the game. This was agreed to by the insurance companies up front, and in return they were going to pick up all of the people who had pre-existing conditions, were ‘uninsurable’, etc. Part of this was getting the states to open up their exchanges, expanding Medicaid/Medicare, etc. Also there was a system of rebates paid to insurance companies over the course of ~5 years to offset their losses accrued by covering everybody.
The Republicans blocked this at nearly every turn, with the final straw coming in late 2015 where Marco Rubio inserted one page into the Omnibus Budget bill that immediately eliminated the insurance offset rebates. The result was several of the 5 biggest insurance companies rapidly realized they would lose too much money (and could potentially become insolvent) by remaining in the exchanges, and they pulled completely out of the ACA in many states.
-
UtahFanSirParticipantIt would be nice to have and see competition among insurance companies. Let them, as Medicare has done, begin to wring costs out of the system, a system of doctors and hospitals that in and of itself is not an open market place of competition. States actually restrict competition by way of insurance companies that can offer service in their state. Health care in the US is a for profit business unlike the rest of the world. Then we delude ourselves into believing it’s the best medical service in the world. It may be for those who can afford it, otherwise it is not by statistical measures.
-
Puget UteParticipant
True, but there are only a few insurance companies big enough to be able to absorb everything. And they are already in every state. How is Cigna of Iowa going to be able to undercut Cigna of Utah, when the branch already operating in the state already has operational agreements with the local healthcare providers? And how would they even begin to compete with all of the other existing companies in the state, let alone IHC? This will not provide enough of a change.
It would be even nicer to see Medicare expand to allow everybody to join.
-
UtahFanSirParticipant
The single payer system you mean…Medicare has done a remarkable job. The GOP would do away with this to, in time.
-
Puget UteParticipant
Unfortunately you are 100% correct. Single payer would save hundreds of billions annually (including insurance company corporate profits and investor stock profits, and through significant streamlining), would negotiate on meds and equipment as the single largest medical provider, would make insurance easier for everybody in the nation, would free up entrepreneurs to pursue their dreams rather than tie them to a job that provides healthcare (or force them to buy on expensive open markets, and would make pre-existing conditions irrelevant.
People plus their employers are already paying significant amounts of money for insurance, and if that money went directly into a single-payer system instead it would more than cover the cost of health care for all, and the actual cost to the government would be minimal or would be a savings. The problem is the Republicans would claim that it is a new program costing trillions of dollars in New spending (and new taxes), when in actuality it would be reallocation of the money already flowing in the system.
Hell, the Republicans won’t even allow Medicare to negotiate on drug prices the way the VA does. That alone would save billions annually. This seems like a perfect conservative position to support, but for some reason it is anathema to them.
The Republican plan essentially hopes that interstate competition between insurers (who would largely be competing against themselves), plus allowing huge medical savings accounts, wouldn’t be very helpful to the 175M+ people already living paycheck to paycheck. “Oh so you got cancer? Hopefully you have saved a few million bucks in your MSA!”. Note that the plan also eliminates the lifetime caps imposed by the ACA.
-
Newbomb TurkParticipantBut, but, they have ACCESS!!!
-
Puget UteParticipant
Shut up, Mr. Pre-Existing Condition!
/S
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ladyinredParticipantRather than buying a healthcare plan, I think I will just get the new iPhone 8 when it comes out.
Dr. Google is always available to ask questions of anyway.
-
Puget UteParticipant
That iPhone 8 sounds like a good investment. You would only need about 15-20 of those to cover the cost of an emergency appendectomy…
-
ladyinredParticipant
Thankfully, I will never have to worry about appendicitis or really any illness, owing in large part to my diet of coffee (fiber), protein bars (duh), and Pinot Grigio (vitamins). Healthcare is for losers anyway.
-
SkinyUteParticipantThe best quote I read in response to Chaffetz’ moronic iPhone comments yesterday, “6 days in the ICU cost my family 317 iPhones”.
I will fully agree with him that if someone has the option of paying $100 for an iPhone or $100 for health care and chooses the iPhone, then that person makes horrible decisions. The problem, however, is that:
a) The idea that a heath care plan under their proposal (especially one for someone with a significant medical history) will cost anywhere near an iPhone is laughable.
b) Under their proposed plan, the choice for many families (especially low income) won’t be between health insurance and an iPhone. The choice will be between health insurance and feeding their kids. Or health care and keeping the lights on. Or health care and literally anything.An interesting comment I saw this morning on the difference between ACA and Trump’s plan:
The Kaiser Family Foundation calculates the changes to customers in two sample markets: Reno, which is a cheap market, and Mobile, which is expensive. A 60-year-old in Mobile who earns $20,000 a year currently qualifies for a tax credit of $13,235 to buy insurance. Under Trumpcare, that tax credit would be reduced to $4,000 a year. On the other hand, people who earn $75,000 a year, who currently get nothing to help them buy insurance, would get a $4,000 credit from the Republican plan.
-
UteThunderParticipant
It’s not just the one time cost of the iPhone. They also have to buy a phone for their spouse and each of their kids. And then they have to pay the monthly bill for each of those lines. And of course, when the latest model of smart phone comes out, they have to upgrade to that as well. So rather than have a land line with a bill of $35 per month, they fork out $1600+ for iPhones plus their monthly bill of $150+ per month.
And it’s not just cell phones. A large number of low income Americans choose to spend money on luxury items they can’t afford, rather than budgeting their money for necessities. I’m shocked at some of the vehicles I see lower income families driving. And of course they have to have internet and cable TV costing another $50-$150 per month, each.
I’m not saying all low income families can afford healthcare, but there’s a great deal of them that could afford it if they chose to spend their money on what they NEED instead of on what they WANT.
-
SkinyUteParticipant
I’m not disagreeing that most people are poor money managers. However, the discussion is far more complicated than the “if they just gave up their phones, they could afford health insurance” soundbite that the GOP is pushing right now. It reminds me of this:
How DARE they!!
-
-
Puget UteParticipant
My wife had an emergency appendectomy a few years ago that cost ~50 iPhones, for a 6-hr stay in the hospital. The surgeon’s bill came to ~2 iPhones, the anesthesiologist was ~2.5 iPhones, the meds afterward were 1/3 of an iPhone, and the rest was just the hospital fees. (These are the billed amounts, and not necessarily what the insurance company paid).
I have excellent insurance that costs me (and my employer) roughly 23 iPhones per year, so my out-of-pocket cost for the entire thing was a bit over 1/2 of an iPhone.
If we were stuck using a high-deductible plan like the one my sister has then I would have paid the first 6.8 iPhones out of pocket to meet the annual deductible, as well as the full amount for the follow-up visits (another 1/5 iPhone). I would have been on the hook for a lot more iPhones than probably over 65% of the population could afford to squeeze out of the budget, for a completely unforeseeable event.
-
-
-
PlainsUteParticipantGet a dataplan so you can just use WebMD instead of doctors.
-
Puget UteParticipant
WebMD? You know that dataplan is going to be used on WebEssentialOils.com.
-
-
-
SubstiuteParticipantGood article on why the GOP is in trouble on Health Care and so many other issues. It’s much easier to criticize than govern is the bottom line.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/why-repeal-and-replace-is-going-so-badly
-
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.
