Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Great ObamaCare Debate, Part 237: Back to Court The Great ObamaCare Debate, Part 237: Back to Court

04-12-2017 , 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Not that I trust the Democrats to be smart outside of massive pressure from their constituents, doing nothing and letting Trump sabotage it is such a no brainer that they would have to try to be stupid. Outside of Trump offering Medicare for all or something.
Democrats: "Hold my beer, I've gotta go to the White House to negotiate."

Seriously, I trust them to screw this up. It's just so easy, though. Like, he came out and bragged about what he's going to do so he can't even convince most people that it's collapsing on its own once he does that.
04-13-2017 , 12:40 AM
Re Trump withholding payments, i have this to say: are you ****ing kidding me. It's like he only cares about getting a win. I mean I see the words, i just can't believe an actual human person would do this ****.
04-13-2017 , 01:13 AM
I for one would be in favor of the Dems totally caving in exchange for Trump not sabotaging Obamacare. I'd rather not wait for a Dem to retake the White House to access health insurance. However, the chance is pretty good Trump is bluffing.
04-13-2017 , 01:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron81
I for one would be in favor of the Dems totally caving in exchange for Trump not sabotaging Obamacare. I'd rather not wait for a Dem to retake the White House to access health insurance. However, the chance is pretty good Trump is bluffing.
Caving means allowing Trump and the Republicans to repeal/gut Obamacare. It just means Democrats play a role in helping them take that access away.

If Trump wants to threaten to grab this third rail, Democrats only play is to encourage him to hold on tightly.
04-13-2017 , 11:49 AM
04-13-2017 , 01:10 PM
Dave Brat is an idiot, though.
04-13-2017 , 01:15 PM
Plus the FC know nothing but obstructionism. They have no idea how laws are made of
04-13-2017 , 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
Plus the FC know nothing but obstructionism. They have no idea how laws are made of
They think if their version of repeal is put to a vote it'll pass. But I'm pretty sure they are basing that view on nothing other than talking amongs themselves and to other super-conservative groups and have no idea how "moderate" Republicans actually think.
04-24-2017 , 12:56 PM


04-24-2017 , 08:57 PM
http://lat.ms/2pXmvru

**One patient in Iowa costs $1 million per month. Premiums rise 35% and leave only one insurer in entire market.**

The answer to this problem is easy. Give this patient a palatial mansion in Ohio as their new home.

There has to be some point where society can't do everything possible. Is it worth it to spend $1 million a day to keep an 85-year old alive longer?

Trade-offs happen all the time. $1 million per month is beyond trade-off. That is sacrifice of mass communities for one individual. Who will did anyway. Nobody is cheating death.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
04-24-2017 , 09:01 PM
Yeah it's problem. For-profit healthcare ftmfw. Good luck putting a price on human life in the political arena. The attack ads write themselves.
04-24-2017 , 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt
http://lat.ms/2pXmvru

**One patient in Iowa costs $1 million per month. Premiums rise 35% and leave only one insurer in entire market.**

The answer to this problem is easy. Give this patient a palatial mansion in Ohio as their new home.

There has to be some point where society can't do everything possible. Is it worth it to spend $1 million a day to keep an 85-year old alive longer?

Trade-offs happen all the time. $1 million per month is beyond trade-off. That is sacrifice of mass communities for one individual. Who will did anyway. Nobody is cheating death.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Death panels?
04-24-2017 , 10:04 PM
This ins't anything new. When I was in training in Chicago, a couple of pediatric patients wiped out the top-up dollars Children's Memorial got for indigent kids for the entire year. One of them was shipped in from Gary, so the Illinois $$ were spent on an Indiana kid, which caused a lot of discussion about being a tertiary referral center.

No easy solution.

MM MD
04-25-2017 , 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Death panels?
It's sad, I see this at work, from time to time, extremely high cost drugs and treatment, constant ICU admissions, for a patient with zero quality of life. And typically it's children. There is a definitely a "medical industrial complex" though. Referrals to more and more sub-specialists, PT, OT, more and more testing, when truly the answer is "there's nothing that can fix this".

I reject the premise of the article about "single-payer" though. UK/NHS has death panels. Procedures and medication have to be "approved" before they can be purchased/used. 12 million down the hole for any patient, whether it's a self-insured company, or an ACA plan, or even a single-payer plan is a problem.

The problem is the human need to try to cheat death. To fix what cannot be fixed.
04-25-2017 , 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt
http://lat.ms/2pXmvru

**One patient in Iowa costs $1 million per month. Premiums rise 35% and leave only one insurer in entire market.**

The answer to this problem is easy. Give this patient a palatial mansion in Ohio as their new home.

There has to be some point where society can't do everything possible. Is it worth it to spend $1 million a day to keep an 85-year old alive longer?

Trade-offs happen all the time. $1 million per month is beyond trade-off. That is sacrifice of mass communities for one individual. Who will did anyway. Nobody is cheating death.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unequivocally agree.

How many others health care is sacrificed for one. Could we cover 10,000 other children each year for that 12 million?
04-26-2017 , 11:26 AM
Republicans exempt their own insurance from their latest health care proposal

Quote:
The new Republican amendment, introduced Tuesday night, would allow states to waive out of Obamacare’s ban on preexisting conditions. This means that insurers could once again, under certain circumstances, charge sick people higher premiums than healthy people.
Quote:
Obamacare requires all members of Congress and their staff to purchase coverage through the health law’s marketplace, just like Obamacare enrollees.
Quote:
That’s been happening for the past four years now. Fast-forward to this new amendment, which would allow states to waive out of key Obamacare protections like the ban on preexisting conditions or the requirement to cover things like maternity care and mental health services.

If congressional aides lived in a state that decided to waive these protections, the aides who were sick could presumably be vulnerable to higher premiums than the aides who are healthy. Their benefits package could get skimpier as Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirement may no longer apply either.

This apparently does not sound appealing, because the Republican amendment includes the members of Congress and their staff as a protected group who cannot be affected by this amendment’s terms.

You can see it on the sixth page of the amendment, although it is admittedly hard to spot.
04-26-2017 , 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
Unequivocally agree.

How many others health care is sacrificed for one. Could we cover 10,000 other children each year for that 12 million?

Nope, that money would get funneled to a MF wall
04-26-2017 , 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
It's sad, I see this at work, from time to time, extremely high cost drugs and treatment, constant ICU admissions, for a patient with zero quality of life. And typically it's children. There is a definitely a "medical industrial complex" though. Referrals to more and more sub-specialists, PT, OT, more and more testing, when truly the answer is "there's nothing that can fix this".

I reject the premise of the article about "single-payer" though. UK/NHS has death panels. Procedures and medication have to be "approved" before they can be purchased/used. 12 million down the hole for any patient, whether it's a self-insured company, or an ACA plan, or even a single-payer plan is a problem.

The problem is the human need to try to cheat death. To fix what cannot be fixed.
No, they don't.
04-26-2017 , 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
No, they don't.
We do have death panels though. We just like to hide them under the guise of 'lack of funds', GoFundMe for medical campaigns or I'll die, etc etc. People like to rail against imaginary death panels of single payer systems but presumably that imaginary death panel is more efficient. Why spend 100k on a service that's not going to extend a life or provide quality of life merely because the patient has a 100k to spend or should we spend 10k on a service that's going to drastically extend a person's life even if they don't have 10k to spend?

Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 04-26-2017 at 12:25 PM.
04-26-2017 , 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Why spend 100k on a service that's not going to extend a life or provide quality of life merely because the patient has a 100k to spend
alternative inheritance tax ldo :P
04-26-2017 , 12:32 PM
I mean the whole insurance market is just one giant death panel, but for profit. If your insurance decides a treatment is too risky, not effective, etc and doesn't authorize the treatment or no insurance will pick you up in the first place then you've just been effectively death paneled.
04-26-2017 , 01:16 PM
Quote:
A Republican legislator has vowed to close a loophole in his Obamacare replacement proposal, following Vox’s reporting on the exemption Tuesday night.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...ress-exemption
04-26-2017 , 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
We do have death panels though. We just like to hide them under the guise of 'lack of funds', GoFundMe for medical campaigns or I'll die, etc etc. People like to rail against imaginary death panels of single payer systems but presumably that imaginary death panel is more efficient. Why spend 100k on a service that's not going to extend a life or provide quality of life merely because the patient has a 100k to spend or should we spend 10k on a service that's going to drastically extend a person's life even if they don't have 10k to spend?
Speaking of which, here's a death panel in progress.


https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/sta...93166744694787
04-26-2017 , 05:01 PM
Like the Kings in the North, a death panelist should at least bear the responsibility of wielding the sword personally.
04-26-2017 , 08:14 PM
God this so lol great

      
m