3rd Attempt: GOP/Trump Repeal & Replace ACA and Trump lie about pre-exist coverage

Somehow, I don't think its that simple.

 

Actually, I meant to type easier rather than easy. I don't think any of it is easy.

 

Exactly. I was just having a little fun with Commodore. That is actually how they do it in China, if you do not pay, they do not treat you. I am sure Commodore loves that system.

 

Actually if Democrats came up with a way to reduce medical cost, I bet you won't support it.

 

You're still missing the bigger picture - all you're doing is making insurance cheaper while making people pay for more things on the backend. You're changing who pays, but not how much is paid. None of the above does anything to address the actual costs of rising healthcare.

 

Exactly. Rates will be cheaper because you are going to be covered for far less because of caps. This isn't how HEALTH care ought to work. No one plans to be diagnosed with prostate cancer or breast cancer. So, ya, your premium will decrease but when **** hits the fan.... HELLO BANKRUPTCY! That's the GOP mantra. All they care about is selling "DECREASED PREMIUMS!" to all the short sighted idiots who eat that **** up.

The point of insurance in the first place is when **** does hit the fan, you aren't going to go bankrupt. That's why we have insurance. This bill defeats the purpose of insurance.

 

The solution is simple you put put a single payer system with price control like pretty much every other first world country. Medical expenses are inelastic. If you are about die you don't have much of choice on what you are going to spend.

 

choice and competition reduce costs, those regulations limit choice and competition (by constraining what can be offered and at what price)

 

You're 100% right on the need to continue to focus on actual cost drivers of healthcare. Insurance costs are a symptom, not a cause.

However, you're wrong here. Obamacare had a number of things in it to lower actual costs of healthcare. Some were effective; some not so much; the biggest ones are long-term (for example, more preventive care now should reduce ER costs 5 years from now); many others are still in the testing phase. Dems did a horrible marketing job about the bill focusing entirely on coverage expansion rather than cost reduction, but there is a lot of experimental stuff in the bill there. The fundamental problem is that outside of better preventive care, no one actually knows HOW to cut the rising costs, so the best they can do is targeted experiments and then expand them if the prove successful.

 

who sets the price? how do they know what it should be?

 

Except we had that pre-Obamacare. And costs were rising even faster. We have a whole world's worth of data on this subject, along with 50 states that had different regulations. You should take a look. A little preview: places with more choice and competition don't have lower costs. Not in the US, not anywhere else in the world. When the real world data doesn't agree with simplistic theory, you might want to reevaluate the theory.

Can you name the country that has your ideal healthcare system (or the closest to it)?

 

You are confusing the choices of insurance companies having the choice of caping you off vs the choice of the consumer. All this bill does is give the choice for the consumer to be covered for less which is stupid when it comes to health as the most healthiest person could wake up next day and be diagnosed with some form of cancer. Ya, I bet that person wished he had full coverage.

 

If you want to pay for the super warranty, cover everything plan, more power to you.

The problem is we are all forced to.

Essential Health Benefit rules mean even if you would prefer to pay out of pocket for some things, or would prefer to not pay for certain types of coverage, the insurer is forbidden from offering a cheaper plan that fulfills this demand.

 

I can't believe we live in a time where people are arguing against essential health benefits, but here we are. The "I'm a man and don't get pregnant, so why should I pay for that" crowd will be crowing when women say "I'm a woman and don't get prostate cancer, why should I pay for that" and their costs for treatment are through the roof.

I, for one, cannot wait until we're all dying alone (because our families cannot get time off from their third job they took pay what they could for our treatment) of preventable diseases on our deathbeds and we feel the warm rush of freedom flow through our bodies before we enter the great Galt's Gulch in the hereafter.

 

your position is straight out of 1984. Who could possibly be against the ministry of peace? who doesn't want peace?

 

I think you are missing something about either 1984 or the current situation. They are very different. The Ministry of Peace, of course, wasn't really about peace, but unlike this health care benefits really truly are health care benefits, so your point is 100% off except that both concepts do use letters to form words.

 

The reinsurance portion of the bill is actually a great way to stabilize the markets. I also think we could cut some of the essential health benefits and reduce others. For example, unlimited pediatric dental and vision with unlimited ortho coverage should not be mandated. Those SHOULD be riders that individuals can add at extra cost.

On some others, like maternity, saying the insurance should be able to offer it as a rider is saying they shouldn't offer it. If they offer it as a rider the only people who will want it are people trying to have a baby, which means the rider would be EXTREMELY expensive OR if it were priced to where people could afford it would represent a loss to the insurance companies. So they just don't cover maternity. How do we know this? Two decades of history prior to it being mandated.

 

dumbartonbass, 2009: We've always been at war with cancer.

dumbartonbass, 2017: We've always been at war with freedom.

 

Again, this just rearranges who pays, but does nothing to reduce actual costs. Can you name a country that has a successful healthcare system modeled off your theoretical principles? And if not, have you ever asked yourself why that might be?

 

Really choice and competition reduces price. I currently live in a city that have two hospital systems, there are not that much choices, they all cost about the same. The CEO of one system actually stated that choice increases costs because we have underutilized capacities with two systems.

What about places with one medical provider system?

Even for places with many choices, is the cost really cheaper because

Facts have a liberal bias.