Healthcare going forward

[Benvolio]

Remember, that the unions, the trial lawyers and many other organizations have lobbyists as well, so the members of Congress hear the viewpoints of all elements of society.

 

[KaraBulut]

Meanwhile, back in reality...

US political lobby spending by sector - 2016

Health                $509,584,091  <-insurance, pharma, medical assns)
Misc Business         $492,147,218
Finance/Insur/RealEst $490,622,326
Communic/Electronics  $371,003,936
Energy/Nat Resource   $298,582,717
Transportation        $224,759,611
Other                 $195,136,090
Ideology/Single-Issue $128,858,435
Defense               $126,591,498
Agribusiness          $126,242,202
Construction           $52,554,347
Labor                  $46,455,000  <-labor unions
Lawyers & Lobbyists    $19,401,478  <-lawyers

US political lobby spending by industry- 2016

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products   $244,095,383  <- big pharma
Insurance                         $146,662,996  <-insurance lobby
Business Associations             $143,528,696   <-business lobby
Electronics Mfg & Equip           $119,433,358
Oil & Gas                         $117,516,956
Electric Utilities                $113,683,549
Real Estate                       $103,743,325
Securities & Investments           $94,997,398
Hospitals/Nursing Homes            $93,995,578  <-hospitals
Telecom Services                   $87,604,223
Air Transport                      $85,800,002
Health Professionals               $83,640,288
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing  $78,862,189
Health Services/HMOs               $75,543,718  <-health orgs
Education                          $73,100,265
Defense Aerospace                  $73,064,329
Civil Servants/Public Officials    $68,888,386
Automotive                         $61,677,268
TV/Movies/Music                    $59,972,297
Commercial Banks                   $59,672,406

 

[gsdx]

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $244,095,383 <- big pharma

So much for spending $7 billion on R&D and over twice that amount on advertising.

There is something very, very wrong with that system.

 

[Benvolio]

Keep in mind that much of the lobbying is defensive, I.e. trying to educate hostile socialists in Congress.

 

[Kulindahr]

Remember, that the unions, the trial lawyers and many other organizations have lobbyists as well, so the members of Congress hear the viewpoints of all elements of society.

No, Congress is only hearing the viewpoints of those with enough money to hire lobbyists. They spend over half their time listening to representatives of the 0.5% who fund their elections.

 

[Kulindahr]

Meanwhile, back in reality...

US political lobby spending by sector - 2016

Health $509,584,091 <-insurance, pharma, medical assns)

So at $5k for an annual individual health coverage policy, they could be insuring a million people who don't have coverage.

Add to that the $5bn spent on advertising, and there's another ten million people who could be covered.

In other words, money being wasted on things other than caring for people by companies that are supposedly dedicated to caring for people is enough to provide coverage at the median level for a quarter of those currently without insurance. So from another perspective, there's no reason at all that health insurance and medical companies can't function on administrative costs in single digit percentages -- and still make respectable profits.

 

[ballcaphair]

Meanwhile, back in reality...

US political lobby spending by sector - 2016

Health                $509,584,091  <-insurance, pharma, medical assns)
Misc Business         $492,147,218
Finance/Insur/RealEst $490,622,326
Communic/Electronics  $371,003,936
Energy/Nat Resource   $298,582,717
Transportation        $224,759,611
Other                 $195,136,090
Ideology/Single-Issue $128,858,435
Defense               $126,591,498
Agribusiness          $126,242,202
Construction           $52,554,347
Labor                  $46,455,000  <-labor unions
Lawyers & Lobbyists    $19,401,478  <-lawyers

US political lobby spending by industry- 2016

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products   $244,095,383  <- big pharma
Insurance                         $146,662,996  <-insurance lobby
Business Associations             $143,528,696   <-business lobby
Electronics Mfg & Equip           $119,433,358
Oil & Gas                         $117,516,956
Electric Utilities                $113,683,549
Real Estate                       $103,743,325
Securities & Investments           $94,997,398
Hospitals/Nursing Homes            $93,995,578  <-hospitals
Telecom Services                   $87,604,223
Air Transport                      $85,800,002
Health Professionals               $83,640,288
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing  $78,862,189
Health Services/HMOs               $75,543,718  <-health orgs
Education                          $73,100,265
Defense Aerospace                  $73,064,329
Civil Servants/Public Officials    $68,888,386
Automotive                         $61,677,268
TV/Movies/Music                    $59,972,297
Commercial Banks                   $59,672,406

Data! Beautiful DATA! Thank you KaraBulut! I owe you a kiss at least...at least.

 

[Kulindahr]

Keep in mind that much of the lobbying is defensive, I.e. trying to educate [STRIKE]hostile socialists[/STRIKE] anti-science Tea Party members in Congress.

Now it's more accurate -- there are far more ignorant, anti-science Tea Party members than socialists.

 

[Stardreamer]

So Forbes has put out this idea for sounds like a win for me for addressing the major problems of the ACA markets, extending Medicare to age 55.

The Medicare buy-in could help solve the problem. It would get many people with pre-existing conditions out of the individual market and help achieve what appears to be a key GOP goal—reducing premiums for others. But it also would create what might be the only viable alternative for people in their 50s and 60s who are priced out of the new individual market. The GOP alternative, state-run high-risk pools, has been tried and failed.

The buy-in could also lower overall Medicare premiums. That’s because while those in their 50s and early 60s are sicker than the overall under 65 population, they are on average healthier than current Medicare beneficiaries. Thus the Medicare risk would be spread among a population that is healthier than today.

Fix The Affordable Care Act By Letting People 55-64 Buy Into Medicare

Yes, it's one more step towards the evil single payer but basically, it is a sound idea that appears to be win-win all around.

 

[Benvolio]

So Forbes has put out this idea for sounds like a win for me for addressing the major problems of the ACA markets, extending Medicare to age 55.


Fix The Affordable Care Act By Letting People 55-64 Buy Into Medicare

Yes, it's one more step towards the evil single payer but basically, it is a sound idea that appears to be win-win all around.

It is not a win for taxpayers who will be expected to subsidize the system.

 

[gsdx]

It is not a win for taxpayers who will be expected to subsidize the system.

Indeed. Much better to take away healthcare from millions of Americans and leave them begging on street corners to pay for a broken hip... or their child's whooping cough.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

The only people that have a problem with their tax dollars going to something like Healthcare for people are selfish human waste.

I also realize that part of the problem is that these same individuals give the stigma that the poor are "moochers" or "looking for handouts." The poor also "put themselves in that position", "don't apply themselves", "they are lazy", etc etc. It's amazing that these people who are not poor apparently know so much about them.

How unfortunate that society made up systematic hate to people less fortunate to justify everyone not being able to get something like Healthcare, welfare, etc.

 

[Stardreamer]

It is not a win for taxpayers who will be expected to subsidize the system.

But in the end, those costs wind up being paid for one way or the other, at least using this approach, the costs are reduced.

 

[Kulindahr]

So Forbes has put out this idea for sounds like a win for me for addressing the major problems of the ACA markets, extending Medicare to age 55.


Fix The Affordable Care Act By Letting People 55-64 Buy Into Medicare

Yes, it's one more step towards the evil single payer but basically, it is a sound idea that appears to be win-win all around.

I'd add one other thing: extend it to anyone accepted/recognized as disabled by any government agency. I'm not the only person I know who is recognized as disabled by the IRS but who doesn't want to suffer through the indignity and torture of dealing with the Social Security disability system (which is by their own admission designed to make people feel helpless and to give up).

 

[Kulindahr]

It is not a win for taxpayers who will be expected to subsidize the system.

Of course it is -- it means they're participating in treating their neighbors and fellow citizens with dignity and care. Any patriotic American would want to contribute to providing for those in need -- especially Americans who maintain that the country has a Christian heritage.

 

[Kulindahr]

The only people that have a problem with their tax dollars going to something like Healthcare for people are selfish human waste.

I also realize that part of the problem is that these same individuals give the stigma that the poor are "moochers" or "looking for handouts." The poor also "put themselves in that position", "don't apply themselves", "they are lazy", etc etc. It's amazing that these people who are not poor apparently know so much about them.

How unfortunate that society made up systematic hate to people less fortunate to justify everyone not being able to get something like Healthcare, welfare, etc.

This is why I maintain that every members of Congress should be required to live at least three months a year in the poorest section of his or her district. It wouldn't hurt to require that anyone who wants to run for Congress have to not just live in the poorest area but also live on minimum wage for a year before being allowed to enter a race.

 

[Kulindahr]

But in the end, those costs wind up being paid for one way or the other, at least using this approach, the costs are reduced.

The costs end up being paid, and then some, as the longer someone goes without proper medical care the more it costs once they finally get some.

The GOP position is just another illustration of dishonest economics, a desire to push costs off on other people rather than step up and behave like fellow citizens.

 

[gsdx]

But in the end, those costs wind up being paid for one way or the other, at least using this approach, the costs are reduced.

He detests charity and welfare. The idea of him having to pay for someone's hernia operation abhors him, but he somehow doesn't have a problem paying for Trump's golfing weekends in Florida.

Let's do the math:

Hernia surgery - about $15,000 each.
Golf vacation - about $3,000,000 each. (That's 200 hernia operations.)

Nope. He doesn't have a problem with that. Just think of the millions and millions of Americans who are paying for Trump's weekend golf vacations who have never even been on a golf course. Why should they pay?

 

[rareboy]

So today Donald is saying that pre-existing conditions will be covered.

Which is the exact opposite of what's in the fucking legislation.

 

[Kulindahr]

He detests charity and welfare. The idea of him having to pay for someone's hernia operation abhors him, but he somehow doesn't have a problem paying for Trump's golfing weekends in Florida.

Let's do the math:

Hernia surgery - about $15,000 each.
Golf vacation - about $3,000,000 each. (That's 200 hernia operations.)

Nope. He doesn't have a problem with that. Just think of the millions and millions of Americans who are paying for Trump's weekend golf vacations who have never even been on a golf course. Why should they pay?

I've been skinny-dipping on a golf course (it was flooded at the time, and I was on crew, and.... anyway...).

Does that count?