Healthcare going forward

[Benvolio]

That is such pure unadulterated bullshit I'm surprised we can't smell it through the internet.

The result of the ACA, according to every medical person I've talked to, has been improved care for everyone, though especially in the emergency room. The only drawback is increased load on doctors, but that's the fault of the guild called the American Medical Association that deliberately keeps the supply of doctors low.

Increased load on doctors means longer waiting times, and it is only getting started. Increased load in the emergency room means people are using it for problems which could be handled in the office, making delays for actual emergencies.

 

[Benvolio]

I think it's already been proven that the morons that voted for Trump have no idea what ACA or Obamacare is.

Neverthelessless, he is doing what he promised, which is how democracy is supposed to work.

 

[KaraBulut]

The whole "in-network" thing strikes me as just another way insurance companies can avoid actually caring for people. Just about every provider I see is out of network because the closest in-network ones are about $60 away in gas money, so there's no point in me going in-network just to get a $30-lower co-pay.

There's a lot of issues with the "in network" participating thing. Some providers don't want to go through the contracting process with a dozen or more payers. And even if they accept say, Blue Cross, they may only be contracted with BC PPO and not BC HMO.

Each of these contracts is a separate contract, so there's little incentive for a provider to contract with a particular payer plan unless there's a large number of patients with that plan- for example, a small town where the biggest employer in town has a particular group of plans that they offer.

The exception is Medicare- where often 60% or more of the patients will be on Medicare in the typical adult practice.

Except that he and the Republicans in Congress promised to end and Obamacare.

...which is how democracy is supposed to work.

Last time I checked, there were at least 2 votes in Congress and he couldn't get the necessary votes to pass legislation... which is actually how democracy works.

And we're going to remind you and Trump of this:

 

[Benvolio]

It Was Your Article!! It Was Your Evidence, and it was almost 20 years old!! It could NOT have been Canada selling drugs for a higher price in the States because Canada was BARRED from selling drugs in the States in the first place. That left the US selling for cheaper prices in Canada (and still making a profit) so they could sell the drugs for a much higher price in the States at a MUCH higher profit.

You cannot understand how illogical it is to say that they sell cheap in Canada so they can sell higher in the US. Selling cheaper does not in any way enable selling higher in the US. They want to sell higher in Canada if they were allowed. They sell higher in the us because they are required to sell cheaper in the US.
Canadian companies can and do sell THEIR products in the US in large volume. But they are not allowed to buy US drugs at controlled lower prices and then ship them back to the US to sell in competition with US companies.

 

[Benvolio]

There's a lot of issues with the "in network" participating thing. Some providers don't want to go through the contracting process with a dozen or more payers. And even if they accept say, Blue Cross, they may only be contracted with BC PPO and not BC HMO.

Each of these contracts is a separate contract, so there's little incentive for a provider to contract with a particular payer plan unless there's a large number of patients with that plan- for example, a small town where the biggest employer in town has a particular group of plans that they offer.

The exception is Medicare- where often 60% or more of the patients will be on Medicare in the typical adult practice.



Last time I checked, there were at least 2 votes in Congress and he couldn't get the necessary votes to pass legislation... which is actually how democracy works.

And we're going to remind you and Trump of this:

It is not clear that Trump's orders are in violation of law; the subsidies contemplated by Obamacare require appropriations by congress, subject to presidential veto. I understand the appropriations have not been made, and mat not be made, so Trumps withholding of subsidies is not illegal. The Republicans in Congress promised to end Obamacare, so the president is honoring the promise. Obama and the democrats did not promise to ignore the law by allowing the "dreamers" to stay and more to come in. The people have never until Trump been allowed to vote on allowing immigration. The point is that Obama was not enforcing the vote of the people. Trump is.

 

[Benvolio]

Here is a discussion of the appropriation problem. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452660/obamacare-subsidy-payments:-trump-illegal-subsidies

 

[gsdx]

Neverthelessless, he is doing what he promised, which is how democracy is supposed to work.

But for all the wrong reasons. Hatred of a man and bigotry are not valid reasons. His hatred and bigotry are harming more people than helping them.

 

[Kulindahr]

Increased load on doctors means longer waiting times, and it is only getting started. Increased load in the emergency room means people are using it for problems which could be handled in the office, making delays for actual emergencies.

Um, the ACA dramatically reduced emergency room waits. In turn, the doctors here say that actually freed up doctor time, though I didn't follow how.

Meanwhile, it's apparently easier for foreign doctors to get certified in the U.S., which we wouldn't need to do if the AMA guild didn't have a monopoly on the domestic supply. Any real health care reform is going to have to provide funding for a new medical school in each state -- at least one -- and that's just to keep our number of doctors constant.

- - - Updated - - -

Neverthelessless, he is doing what he promised, which is how democracy is supposed to work.

No, that's how democracy gets broken: carrying out the will of the uninformed.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's a lot of issues with the "in network" participating thing. Some providers don't want to go through the contracting process with a dozen or more payers. And even if they accept say, Blue Cross, they may only be contracted with BC PPO and not BC HMO.

Each of these contracts is a separate contract, so there's little incentive for a provider to contract with a particular payer plan unless there's a large number of patients with that plan- for example, a small town where the biggest employer in town has a particular group of plans that they offer.

The exception is Medicare- where often 60% or more of the patients will be on Medicare in the typical adult practice.

One of the best doctors I've ever had had a contract with an agency that did the work to make him in-network for whatever insurance his patients had.

Ironically, I have a doctor now at an agency he founded, and they no longer want to be in-network for anyone.

 

[ballcaphair]

One of the best doctors I've ever had had a contract with an agency that did the work to make him in-network for whatever insurance his patients had.

Ironically, I have a doctor now at an agency he founded, and they no longer want to be in-network for anyone.

This doctor will be a GP and will not have an ER and if he's good, it is our loss.

 

[Benvolio]

You cannot understand how illogical it is to say that they sell cheap in Canada so they can sell higher in the US. Selling cheaper does not in any way enable selling higher in the US. They want to sell higher in Canada if they were allowed. They sell higher in the us because they are required to sell cheaper in the US.
Canadian companies can and do sell THEIR products in the US in large volume. But they are not allowed to buy US drugs at controlled lower prices and then ship them back to the US to sell in competition with US companies.

Oops. That should read "They sell higher in the US because they are required to cheaper in Canada.

 

[Julian89]

Will nobody stop this?

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...premiums_and_all_but_kill_obamacare_exchanges

There are already but this will surely be an uphill battle.

Democratic attorneys general from the 18 states as well as Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit in federal court in California later on Friday. The states include: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington state.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...k-trump-obamacare-subsidies-cut-idUSKBN1CI0E4

 

[gsdx]

^ From the article:

“As far as the subsidies are concerned, I don’t want to make the insurance companies rich,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “They’re making a fortune by getting that kind of money.”

He doesn't seem to have a problem with drug manufacturers/sellers getting rich. Both insurance and drug companies are supposed to help people stay healthy, not to help them go bankrupt trying to stay alive.

 

[Benvolio]

^ From the article:



He doesn't seem to have a problem with drug manufacturers/sellers getting rich. Both insurance and drug companies are supposed to help people stay healthy, not to help them go bankrupt trying to stay alive.

There primary purpose is to make a profit. Without profit they soon cease to exist and the good they do will end.

 

[KaraBulut]

...Ironically, I have a doctor now at an agency he founded, and they no longer want to be in-network for anyone.

There's a few doctors who are trying this model or a "concierge" service where you pay them a flat fee per month or per year for routine services. There's one doctor that I know who charges about $75 for an office visit (where a primary care office visit copay runs $20-40 per visit). He always has same day appointments and he is generous with phone consults for routine complaints.

Neverthelessless, he is doing what he promised...

Actually, that's not true. He promised a cheaper and better replacement. And like all of his proposals, he provided no details (because he doesn't know much about healthcare and because he's a chronic liar). The poor people who benefited from the ACA are also a lot of the same people who believed him and voted for him.

This report is a pretty good representation of the issue of what Trump voters believed they were voting for:

 

[rareboy]

Neverthelessless, he is doing what he promised, which is how democracy is supposed to work.

He has no mandate to wreck everything. He didn't get elected democratically. We've been over this.

 

[Stardreamer]

Oops. That should read "They sell higher in the US because they are required to cheaper in Canada.

So you are in favor to the US citizens getting a raw deal by the drug companies and friendly laws supporting them?

 

[Julian89]

Perhaps democrats should stop saying that Trump hasn't done anything or kept his promises' they may be pressuring him to do things they do not like.

Promises like not making cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security?

Because that is how the Republicans will offset the deficits in their Tax Cuts for the Rich bill.

Not only would it cut Medicaid by $1 trillion, it would also cut Medicare by more than $470 billion in order to pay for hundreds of billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations in America. Further, the Republican tax plan this budget calls for would increase the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade, which will likely pave the way for savage cuts to Social Security.

Source:http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015e-e710-ddab-a57f-ef54f67a0000

Say everything you want about the source but I found none that will dispute these numbers so far.

I still have to hear from the Deplorable-in-Chief that he will veto this monstrosity given that it will break his promise during the campaign.

 

[Stardreamer]

President Trump pats himself on back after health insurance stocks take a dive

Gee Mr. President if your goal is to crash insurance stocks and drive up the deficit you should have joined with Democrats and passed Single Payer then you could really celebrate.

 

[Benvolio]

So you are in favor to the US citizens getting a raw deal by the drug companies and friendly laws supporting them?

The important thing is for drug companies to continue researching and developing new drugs. High prices are often necessary to make that possible. Some people cannot afford them, but they are not hurt; they are just where they would have been without the research. Stopping the R & D because the drugs will be too expensive makes no sense. Controlling the prices will have that effect.