The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Healthcare going forward

I still seem to see only two viable paths forward.

Some type of public option health care like single payer

or

A tweaked version of 'Obamacare'

Going back to the original status quo is not even possible I think without causing a major upset in the market and ticking off a lot of the voters.
 
I still seem to see only two viable paths forward.

Some type of public option health care like single payer

or

A tweaked version of 'Obamacare'

Going back to the original status quo is not even possible I think without causing a major upset in the market and ticking off a lot of the voters.

They should start with the measures I suggested back in the Bush years: fund fifty or more new medical schools, encourage the formation of not-for-profit "fraternal" insurance, give tax breaks for building "immediate care" clinics, and other market-oriented measures. Juggling the system without changing the basics isn't going to do the job; we need more doctors, not-for-profit insurance, and quick access to care without the insane expense of emergency rooms.

Oh, and make the first thousand dollars of medical expense each year per person a deduction, along with a $100 tax credit for getting a physical.
 
The AMA's de facto monopoly over the supply of doctors...keeps the numbers low and the income high, to the detriment of the community.
Of course don't expect Congress to do anything about prices of old and life-saving drugs going up tenfold and worse, as the Martin Shrkeli's pour out of the woodwork and boardrooms everywhere.
 
Well it looks like Senator Rand Paul has his plan ready to go, he tweeted out he is releasing it this week.

This week I'll unveil a replacement to Obamacare. As agreed w/ @realDonaldTrump, we must replace it w/ real market reforms. Details coming!
9:03 AM - 9 Jan 2017

Look forward to see these details.
 
Socialism is thrown around not with any cognitive content but as an epithet. The only kind of socialism that fits the ACA would be national socialism, with the government and industry in cahoots to fleece the people and force them to conform.
But that's the irony. The original Heritage Foundation proposal from the late 80s had the individual mandate. Heritage is hardly a proponent of socialism. Their proposal was more directed to mandate healthcare coverage- particularly catastrophic coverage that kicked in to pick up expensive illnesses but also to shift focus to preventative care.

They should start with the measures I suggested back in the Bush years: fund fifty or more new medical schools, encourage the formation of not-for-profit "fraternal" insurance, give tax breaks for building "immediate care" clinics, and other market-oriented measures.
The shortage isn't in doctors. The shortage is in primary care and family practitioners- MDs, PAs and ARNPs who see patients for preventative care and are gateways for referrals to specialists. Unfortunately, these are also the providers that are paid the least. One thing that ACA encouraged was called "capitation" where doctors are paid a monthly fee for each patient that they provided care for, whether the patient was seen in the office or not. The idea was that this would help the primary care providers support their practice and it would encourage them to manage the patients so that they used services less.

I'm not sure what is happening in your state but in most states that I've visited, there is an urgent care facility on every major street. Some of these urgent cares are freestanding but many are associated with large hospital chains or pharmacy chains like CVS. This is a direct result of payments coming from ACA private plans and expanded Medicaid.

Well it looks like Senator Rand Paul has his plan ready to go, he tweeted out he is releasing it this week.
What he's going to propose is basically the original Heritage idea of plans that offer catastrophic coverage with removal of the ACA mandates for things like psychiatric care, maternity care and no minimal levels of coverage. He's probably also going to propose a monthly membership fee for Medicaid enrollees.
 
But that's the irony. The original Heritage Foundation proposal from the late 80s had the individual mandate. Heritage is hardly a proponent of socialism. Their proposal was more directed to mandate healthcare coverage- particularly catastrophic coverage that kicked in to pick up expensive illnesses but also to shift focus to preventative care.

That really is the irony, the mandate was a conservative idea as a way to avoid socialism but a liberal actually did it and so now they call it socialism. The partisan politics is disgusting.
 
But that's the irony. The original Heritage Foundation proposal from the late 80s had the individual mandate. Heritage is hardly a proponent of socialism. Their proposal was more directed to mandate healthcare coverage- particularly catastrophic coverage that kicked in to pick up expensive illnesses but also to shift focus to preventative care.

And if Republicans had been honorable, we would have seen them insisting on provisions to emphasize preventative care. But... not.

The shortage isn't in doctors. The shortage is in primary care and family practitioners- MDs, PAs and ARNPs who see patients for preventative care and are gateways for referrals to specialists. Unfortunately, these are also the providers that are paid the least. One thing that ACA encouraged was called "capitation" where doctors are paid a monthly fee for each patient that they provided care for, whether the patient was seen in the office or not. The idea was that this would help the primary care providers support their practice and it would encourage them to manage the patients so that they used services less.

But the specialists are swamped themselves. A quick google shows that waits to see general practitioners have continued to get longer, and so have waits to see specialists. At the same time estimates say we're short about 10k doctors now and will be as high as 100k short by 2025! So yes, there's a shortage of doctors, which can be attributed directly to not enough medical schools, which can be attributed greatly to the AMA.

I'm not sure what is happening in your state but in most states that I've visited, there is an urgent care facility on every major street. Some of these urgent cares are freestanding but many are associated with large hospital chains or pharmacy chains like CVS. This is a direct result of payments coming from ACA private plans and expanded Medicaid.

It has improved in the last half dozen years, but emergency rooms are still burdened by people who should be going to immediate care. Maybe people don't know? When the immediate care facility here opened, the hospital sent out a mailing to the entire county, has signs posted in the ER, ran an ad in the local paper, and there was even an article in the local paper, but maybe some people didn't get the message? (Though the clinic and hospital acquired four new wheelchairs for the express purpose of moving people from ER to IC or the other way around.)

What he's going to propose is basically the original Heritage idea of plans that offer catastrophic coverage with removal of the ACA mandates for things like psychiatric care, maternity care and no minimal levels of coverage. He's probably also going to propose a monthly membership fee for Medicaid enrollees.

He should be proposing more medical schools and help in establishing not-for-profit/fraternal insurance.

And removing the mandate for psychiatric care is foolish politically, I think -- every time there's a mass shooting there's a cry about mental health, so opposing that mandate should be viewed as not caring about mass shootings.
 
That really is the irony, the mandate was a conservative idea as a way to avoid socialism but a liberal actually did it and so now they call it socialism. The partisan politics is disgusting.

The GOP is a great example of not caring about truth -- which is ironic since they whine about how liberals say truth is relative. I think relative is better than irrelevant.
 
That really is the irony, the mandate was a conservative idea as a way to avoid socialism but a liberal actually did it and so now they call it socialism. The partisan politics is disgusting.

A critical part of obamacare is taxpayer subsidization for all those who cannot pay their mandatory premiums. Since sbout half of Americans now get some form of welfare, not including social security and medicare, we have to assume that a large and growing percentage of Americans will get insurance at the expense of the taxpayer. But the taxpayers will not get subsidies, so they have to buy their own insurance and subsidize the others. Other than that, obamacare includes regulation of most aspects of healthcare; socialism involves both government ownership and control as well. So yes, it is socialism and it is irrelevant that a very few conservatives suggested some aspects of it. The Republicans as a group have never wanted it.
 
And if Republicans had been honorable, we would have seen them insisting on provisions to emphasize preventative care. But... not.
It's a mixed bag. The Republicans should get credit for passing Medicare D (prescription drug coverage). This went far in prevention since it is much cheaper to provide a medication to control blood pressure than it is to treat a stroke or chronic renal disease secondary to hypertension.

The battle to shift from tertiary (acute) care to primary care (prevention) has been an uphill climb. The public's resistance has been an issue but unrealistic expectations are also a big part of the problem.

For example, about 30% of Medicare expenses are incurred in the last year of a Medicare recipients life. Remember "death panels"? That was actually a clause proposed in ACA that would have reimbursed primary care practitioners for family discussions about living wills and end-of-life choices- a clause that was removed because of irrational blowback from the Tea Party and Republicans. Those discussions between physicians and patients about their end-of-life care choices might have gone a long way toward reducing a lot of unnecessary and fruitless care during the last year of life.


But the specialists are swamped themselves.
Honestly, it depends on the specialty. The worst of the shortage is primary care practitioners and psychiatrists. There's going to be a shortage of surgeons because of impending retirements (about 1/3 of US surgeons are over age 55!) and low numbers of physicians choosing surgery specialties like orthopedics and vascular surgery.

We're not doing badly on medical specialties and most medical specialists are accepting new patients and are able to accommodate patients for appointments within a 2-4 week period.

It has improved in the last half dozen years, but emergency rooms are still burdened by people who should be going to immediate care. Maybe people don't know?
Late December and January are horrible times for emergency rooms because of physician vacations, high numbers of flu cases, GI bleeds and indigent/homeless patients seeking care. But overall, ED wait times are down since the ACA was implemented BUT it depends on whether your state adopted the expanded Medicaid program.

What we think happened is that after the passage of the law, patients did use the emergency rooms more initially. A poll of emergency departments found that about 47% of departments reported a "slight" increase in volume. What happened after that depended upon what resources were available and whether the emergency department was able to refer the patient to a primary care provider.

The stats coming out of states like Kentucky that accepted Medicaid reported about $1 billion savings on unpaid emergency department visits. That's significant. Because Kentucky also put money into establishing a public clinic system and mobile van clinics, patients who were going to be emergency room for primary care problems was reduced significantly. In states that didn't accept the Medicaid expansion, we expect the patients volumes to either be flat or slightly higher.

From what we know so far:

The hospitals with the highest increase in ED patient volumes (hospitals in red are in states that did not expand Medicaid):
Florida Hospital Orlando
Lakeland (Fla.) Regional Medical Center
• Yale-New Have (Conn.) Hospital
• Genesys Regional Medical Center (Grand Blanc, Mich.)
Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital (Houston)

Number visits per 100 patients in the most populous states:
• California: 38
• Florida: 44
• Illinois: 41
• New York: 37
• Texas: 49

And removing the mandate for psychiatric care is foolish politically, I think -- every time there's a mass shooting there's a cry about mental health, so opposing that mandate should be viewed as not caring about mass shootings.
Most people don't realize that ACA removed the separation between medical and psychiatric care benefits. This means that your insurance company must treat your psychiatric care visits in the same way as any other medical expense.

There is a need for systemic reform of the mental health care system and the laws around involuntary custody and commitment. Instead, state legislatures and Congress seem to be focusing on issues on the social conservative agenda- like access to abortion and gender-bathroom issues.
 
A critical part of obamacare is taxpayer subsidization for all those who cannot pay their mandatory premiums. Since sbout half of Americans now get some form of welfare, not including social security and medicare, we have to assume that a large and growing percentage of Americans will get insurance at the expense of the taxpayer. But the taxpayers will not get subsidies, so they have to buy their own insurance and subsidize the others. Other than that, obamacare includes regulation of most aspects of healthcare; socialism involves both government ownership and control as well. So yes, it is socialism and it is irrelevant that a very few conservatives suggested some aspects of it. The Republicans as a group have never wanted it.

And as I mentioned before the taxpayers will wind up paying one way or the other, subsidizing health care for those who can't afford it is more cost effective in the long run than the out of control costs transferred to tax payers that are the result of using emergency rooms as primary care.
 
Look forward to see these details.
Me, also. I've never heard any Republican proposal in recent years, except Health Savings Accounts. Of course that only works if somebody actually has "income to spare" that they can tie up for years or decades. Very few people can do this...so what can they do? DIE QUICKLY, if they get sick?
 
It's a mixed bag. The Republicans should get credit for passing Medicare D (prescription drug coverage). This went far in prevention since it is much cheaper to provide a medication to control blood pressure than it is to treat a stroke or chronic renal disease secondary to hypertension.

The battle to shift from tertiary (acute) care to primary care (prevention) has been an uphill climb. The public's resistance has been an issue but unrealistic expectations are also a big part of the problem.

That latter is why I say that a $100 tax credit should be given for getting a physical. Maybe make it in just odd-numbered years, since many physicians say we don't need one every single year. It would move us toward preventive care and get people thinking in that direction.

For example, about 30% of Medicare expenses are incurred in the last year of a Medicare recipients life. Remember "death panels"? That was actually a clause proposed in ACA that would have reimbursed primary care practitioners for family discussions about living wills and end-of-life choices- a clause that was removed because of irrational blowback from the Tea Party and Republicans. Those discussions between physicians and patients about their end-of-life care choices might have gone a long way toward reducing a lot of unnecessary and fruitless care during the last year of life.

I'm happy that of the five people I know who've died in the past couple of years, all requested no "heroic measures" -- in fact two required that if doctors decided they were doomed, they would be returned home and be kept comfortable, nothing else.

Honestly, it depends on the specialty. The worst of the shortage is primary care practitioners and psychiatrists. There's going to be a shortage of surgeons because of impending retirements (about 1/3 of US surgeons are over age 55!) and low numbers of physicians choosing surgery specialties like orthopedics and vascular surgery.

We're not doing badly on medical specialties and most medical specialists are accepting new patients and are able to accommodate patients for appointments within a 2-4 week period.

Not my experience for myself, my sister or my mom. The only time any of us have gotten a quick specialist appointment is if the primary physician said it was life or death -- and even that took three days! (Though I give the specialist credit: the moment he saw my mom and scanned the monitors, he said to clear his schedule and the OR.)

Late December and January are horrible times for emergency rooms because of physician vacations, high numbers of flu cases, GI bleeds and indigent/homeless patients seeking care. But overall, ED wait times are down since the ACA was implemented BUT it depends on whether your state adopted the expanded Medicaid program.

Around here, June is pretty heavy for emergency rooms, too: kids get out of school and go ripping off to intense activities they're not in shape for and have serious accidents. Though if the scuttlebutt is right, the worst ER day here last year was July 4th.

What we think happened is that after the passage of the law, patients did use the emergency rooms more initially. A poll of emergency departments found that about 47% of departments reported a "slight" increase in volume. What happened after that depended upon what resources were available and whether the emergency department was able to refer the patient to a primary care provider.

That was reported to be the case here, including people who didn't understand how the law worked and showed up expecting free care without having signed up. It stayed higher, too, until the new clinic was finished.

Though I heard a comment at the clinic the other day, from a couple in their 80s: it's still not like it used to be, when you could go see your own doctor without an appointment! I think that's the standard we need to get back to; I've used immediate care and it's frustrating to sit there while the doc goes through my doc's records (when he has them!) to get a feel for my history.

The stats coming out of states like Kentucky that accepted Medicaid reported about $1 billion savings on unpaid emergency department visits. That's significant. Because Kentucky also put money into establishing a public clinic system and mobile van clinics, patients who were going to be emergency room for primary care problems was reduced significantly. In states that didn't accept the Medicaid expansion, we expect the patients volumes to either be flat or slightly higher.

....

Yes. We were all paying for those costs anyway; now they're actually in the accounting in a plain way.

Most people don't realize that ACA removed the separation between medical and psychiatric care benefits. This means that your insurance company must treat your psychiatric care visits in the same way as any other medical expense.

There is a need for systemic reform of the mental health care system and the laws around involuntary custody and commitment. Instead, state legislatures and Congress seem to be focusing on issues on the social conservative agenda- like access to abortion and gender-bathroom issues.

I was aware of it, as was most of my family, as we either use mental health care or know people who do. The ministerial association in town got the word out, too. I remember it coming as a great relief to a number of people who were looking at the cap on benefits that was inevitably going to cut them off once they got elderly -- so just by making that change, the law improved mental health!


My proposal is to put reform of the mental health care system in a new Militia Act. Call the section "To provide for a competent militia", and have it make sure everyone gets screenings in middle school, high school, and regularly thereafter. Those determined to be a risk to themselves and/or others could by law be removed from the status of belonging to the militia (which we all do) and put on a warning list for the NICS.

In addition, every community should have a drop-in mental health center with facilities for voluntary overnight stays. That was available when I was at OSU, and it seriously reduced the incidence of injuries, self- and otherwise, among the mentally ill. The day center had lots of activities, volunteers to talk to and get help from, and a hot link to most of the counselor types in town. Everyone praised it, but getting money to keep it up? Didn't happen, and it should.

That's something I'm kind of intense about partly because of my bit of native American blood: many tribes had the equivalent of a community care facility, and if we can't live up to at least the standards of caring for one another of the people we as Europeans stole the continent from, we should just give it back.
 
Me, also. I've never heard any Republican proposal in recent years, except Health Savings Accounts. Of course that only works if somebody actually has "income to spare" that they can tie up for years or decades. Very few people can do this...so what can they do? DIE QUICKLY, if they get sick?

Or shut up, suffer in silence, get yourself thrown in jail... until there's a mass shooting and then all the GOP politicos will whine that we need mental health care.
 
Even one of the biggest GOP "solutions" for helping lower the cost of health care through the market, allowing interstate competition between health plans, has been looked at in more independent studies as doing little, if any, to help contain costs. The market approach doesn't tend to work well here.
 
Even one of the biggest GOP "solutions" for helping lower the cost of health care through the market, allowing interstate competition between health plans, has been looked at in more independent studies as doing little, if any, to help contain costs. The market approach doesn't tend to work well here.

Actually there's already a provision for "interstate competition between health plans": fraternal insurance, such as through a church or lodge, can be interstate, it just has to be not-for-profit. That aspect needs to be enhanced by giving incentives to such entities to form insurance outfits, and extending the range of organizations that can have/form them.

Just one idea: colleges generally have student insurance. How about letting them form fraternal insurance companies for alumni and staff (and families)?

Churches would seem to be the obvious one, and indeed the New Testament is firm that churches should take care of their members, so a nationwide not-for-profit insurance company for Baptists, one for Catholics, etc. only make sense.

Unions could do it -- and maybe it would attract members!


Get enough big not-for-profit insurance outfits going, and the for-profits will have little choice but to reign in costs somehow.
 
Much of health insurance is by mutual companies which are in effect, not for profit. Policy holders are in theory stockholders and profits are paid to policy holders/shareholders in the form of reduced premiums. Blue Cross, for instance, and Mutual of Omaha.
 
Much of health insurance is by mutual companies which are in effect, not for profit. Policy holders are in theory stockholders and profits are paid to policy holders/shareholders in the form of reduced premiums. Blue Cross, for instance, and Mutual of Omaha.

Not for profit doesn't mean they don't pay their executive staff extravagantly.

Millions of dollars that could go towards treatment are swallowed by the boardroom.
 
Me, also. I've never heard any Republican proposal in recent years, except Health Savings Accounts. Of course that only works if somebody actually has "income to spare" that they can tie up for years or decades. Very few people can do this...so what can they do? DIE QUICKLY, if they get sick?

Well Ryan has had a plan on his web site for some time but last I heard it was very bare bones and inadequate. Most of the Republican plans seem to consist of HSAs, block granting medicare/medicaid to the states and letting them run it. Oh and keeping the parts of Obamacare that the people like. The problem is they are pretty much written based on politics and not on whether they are viable approaches.

I'm willing to let the states be laboratories on how to best run medicare and medicaid provided the federal government sets minimum standards that must be met. That is the way I think most interactions with the states and the federal government should run.
 
Even one of the biggest GOP "solutions" for helping lower the cost of health care through the market, allowing interstate competition between health plans, has been looked at in more independent studies as doing little, if any, to help contain costs. The market approach doesn't tend to work well here.

The major problem as I understand it with the let them get insurance from other states plan is that current insurance companies control costs through the use of networks and if your insurer doesn't already operate in your state, they are not going to have a network you can use. What good is buying a cheaper plan from Florida for me if I have to fly to Miami to see a doctor?
 
Back
Top