As always, the problem here is the discussion always focuses on who pays for medical care, instead of getting to the underlying problem: why is it so expensive in the first place?

I think it'd be harder to get moderates in the house on board with just a repeal than it was to get them to baaarely squeak the AHCA through.

80% of the reason it's expensive is because of who is paying for it.

lol "warns"

No, I think it makes alot of sense for moderates. They campaigned on repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a crappier version of Obamacare. The only way to do that is straight repealing it with the extreme right wing which creates a ticking time bomb, then replace it with democratic help.

Be a good time for Dems to forget to plug their phones in.

Everything I've read on this says it wasn't a serious bill. It was more expansive than any UHC program in the world, would have tripled total state expenditures, and contained zero funding provisions.

I hope they would block bad faith bills meant only to rile up low information voters.

"Are there not enough people going to medical school?

If so, the only real option is trying to lure doctors here via immigration, right? Obviously that'd be a hugely popular idea among Trump voters... :eyeroll:"

Bigger problem is there aren't enough residency slots. Pretty much all FMG's have to complete a residency in the US to get a license. (Canada is excluded, and I'm not sure about Western Europe) Residency slots are for the most part funded by Medicare, as I understand it - and there have been repeated proposals to increase the funding which haven't gone anywhere.

This is a hot topic in Australia right now, because the failure rate for licensing for non-white docs is hugely higher than for white docs - which pretty much breaks down to docs educated in India/Africa vs Australia. Allegations of racism are flying, but the licensing body is pretty vigorously blaming crap education in the foreign schools.

So just having Trump decide to open the doors for FMG's wouldn't solve anything - there still wouldn't be any training slots for them. Probably more cost efficient to increase the number of PA/NP programs and generate a lot more primary providers a lot cheaper and faster.

MM MD

Boom goes the dynamite

California needs to get its act together and put a serious single payer bill on the table and get it done... Three benefits:

1. Obviously it increases coverage in California, which we all agree is good.

2. It will get a lot of people to move to California, and while the perception among conservatives will be that they're freeloaders, a lot of us would be people who make decent money and pay taxes... including a ton of entrepreneurs who have even mild pre-existing conditions. They could expand their tax base quite a bit.

3. As the stand-alone 6th largest economy in the world, a successful single payer system in California would be a tremendous case study for the Democrats to run on nationwide in 2020.

These are the types of discussions our nation should be having on healthcare in a bipartisan fashion... How to control costs, improve quality of service, set policy to make sure we have enough doctors, and increase coverage. Instead it's all based on coverage and taxes.

PA/NP - physician's assistant and nurse practitioner? So basically they ease the workload on doctors, allowing the doctors to focus on the more serious patients? They also only do a couple years of post-grad, right? So basically we'd be creating a lot of relatively high paying jobs that are more attainable for a larger number of people?

"PA/NP - physician's assistant and nurse practitioner? So basically they ease the workload on doctors, allowing the doctors to focus on the more serious patients? They also only do a couple years of post-grad, right? So basically we'd be creating a lot of relatively high paying jobs that are more attainable for a larger number of people?[/QUOTE]"

PA's AFAIK, have to work under the supervision of an MD. NP's in 20 or so states can practice independently.

It's A solution - I dunno if it's the best. On the one hand, you don't really need an MD to treat an ankle sprain or a sore throat. OTOH, the amount of education they have is no where near what a doc has. The tricky part of the job comes when you need to recognize a sore throat is actually epiglottis, or that ankle sprain is actually a calcaneus fracture. You get that with experience. Mostly, though, it's probably a good solution for a lot of people, especially because the number of docs going into primary care is getting lower and lower, for a lot of reasons, and trying to generate a ****pile of MD's that would then do primary care is likely impossible.

MM MD

If it's so bad why was it passed in the Senate? Seems to me this is a classic case of "Democrats don't actually want Single Payer." I know exactly how this plays out come election time, so why don't you save your bull**** and cut to the chase: you're going to tell me it's unpopular, impossible, unpractical, and will never happen. Well, you're wrong, wrong, and goddamn wrong, and I will fight you on this until my last ****ing breath.

People need to start realizing also that if there is ever actually a powerful Democratic Socialist movement in this country, if there's ever REAL push to nationwide singlepayer, the Republican and Democratic parties will join forces so fast to block it it will make all of our heads spin. Democrats in power DO NOT want Universal Health Care, and they will do just about anything to block it.

To score cheap political points and blame whoever inevitably blocks it. Their constituents are about as well informed as you, so its a good way to gain support without having to actually do the hard work of writing laws that will improve some people's lives at the expense of others. Unless "progressives" start holding their leaders to higher standards they will keep on doing it.

Can the republicans repeal Obamacare outright with only 50 votes in senate?

Yes, if they really want to.

Though that would require nuking the filibuster entirely.

He obv heard some dip on Fox say this and is repeating it. The dude has no original thought.

How Mitch Could Get It Through

Bad idea though if Mitch goes this route.

Not really. Although it would not be immediate, the impact on the private insurance injury would be massive. Most private insurance would become niche or supplemental coverage. Employers would absolutely drop insurance plans in droves if a Medicare option became available. Taking a huge chunk out of private insurance makes their numbers much worse which means their ability to provide affordable total coverage evaporates.

Yeah he is clueless.

I have been asking for the republicans to stand up and own the last 7 plus years where they screamed the ACA destroyed healthcare and it must be repealed. Yet they have not and never will consider flat out repeal.

I wonder how much antacid the WH goes through in a day. Even though it is filled with terrible people they still likely flip out every time he makes a dumb tweet.

It has been discussed a lot over the years itt and I think many of us agree that increasing PA/NP availability is the quickest and most affordable way to expand the front lines of healthcare.

I don't 100% get the minutiae but I don't think this is true. Repealing (or repealing and replacing) Obamacare with just a simple majority is standard because of how it impacts the budget? But if they repeal first, then try to pass another bill later that replaces they they will need 60 for the replacement.

How Mitch Can Do It

Quote:

Because Republicans are using a fast-track procedure to repeal Obamacare, Democrats are severely limited in their leverage to halt the bill.

So they’ve been plotting a variety of tactics as they wage a forceful assault against the GOP’s attempts to repeal the law — from holding messaging news conferences to trying to find three Republicans to block the health care bill from even heading to the floor. This week, Democrats invoked a rarely-used rule to stop committees from meeting two hours after the Senate comes into session.

Meanwhile, one of the most aggressive options for Democrats — drafting dozens and dozens of amendments during the expected vote-a-rama next week — isn’t a sure thing, for now.

“The reality is, he can change the rules yet again,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said Wednesday, referring to McConnell. “Clearly, I’m thinking about all options and trying to game this out to see what we can do to substantively stop what I think would be a disastrous bill.”

Democrats are wary of publicly laying out their strategy before the text of the GOP’s plan to replace Obamacare is released, which is expected Thursday morning. Despite the prodding from liberal activists, senators say privately there would be no reason to wage death-by-amendment against the GOP health care measure if it already looks like it’s headed toward failure.

Bold added.