The American Health Care Act - page 4

Discuss... Read More

  1. by   toomuchbaloney
    It sure seems like some social conservatives are very annoyed by how expensive it is for a government to provide for the health of it's citizens. Those same people complain about the cost and grow callouses on their hearts so that they can support plans which leave some of the most vulnerable citizens bankrupt and homeless. They would throw grandma to the wolves before they would chase the wolves out of the barn.

    Take insurance companies out of the middle of American health care and you immediately lose their 20% overhead and executive suite greed and golden parachutes.

    DonTCare gives those insurance executives nice bonuses and makes a person with a lapse in coverage pay the company 30% more.
    What a nice way to kick someone who just fell down.
  2. by   margin261
    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    It sure seems like some social conservatives are very annoyed by how expensive it is for a government to provide for the health of it's citizens. Those same people complain about the cost and grow callouses on their hearts so that they can support plans which leave some of the most vulnerable citizens bankrupt and homeless. They would throw grandma to the wolves before they would chase the wolves out of the barn.

    Take insurance companies out of the middle of American health care and you immediately lose their 20% overhead and executive suite greed and golden parachutes.

    DonTCare gives those insurance executives nice bonuses and makes a person with a lapse in coverage pay the company 30% more.
    What a nice way to kick someone who just fell down.

    Remember the great Obamacare lie regarding "death panels"? (Well, actually, a few republicans are whipping it out at recent townhalls but unfortunately for them the room was full of people who know it's bs)

    Their whole proposition is a death panel. If you're poor, elderly or ill then you're out of luck.
  3. by   Avid reader
    Why is it that other industrialized nations understand that having a health care system actually not only saves money, but actually makes money? Elementary logic. Ongoing assessments--- identify problems early---treat said problems--- healthy individual who works, pays taxes, contributes to society-- less chance of criminality--- better for everyone.
    No assessments... more chance of emergency medical problems eg metabolic or cardiology d/o's... compromised individuals... No Work...no taxes and a drain on society. Idle hands, devil's playthings? Criminality?


    Emergency care is six times more expensive than ongoing care. It's a simple equation. Keeping people healthy is beneficial to all aspects of society. It pays for itself ethically and morally as well as financially, however when medical care becomes FOR PROFIT, with upper management personnel earning tens of millions of dollars, the equation breaks down.



    Insurers are private companies with stock holders earning dividends and management with contracts and bonuses tied to earnings. Quarterlies have to be met to activate said bonuses. Lobbyists steer laws to disenfranchise users (namely us) to minimize costs ie health system usage... bumping quarterly earnings and activating said bonuses.


    That is the only reason our country screws around with a health care system.
    PROFITS!!!
    No health care system, then much easier to manipulate and more profitable for the wealthy.
  4. by   SC_RNDude
    Quote from margin261
    I really can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or really didn't get the point I was making.

    First- I want to say I agree with Muno & I shouldn't have included flu in my example. People are dying from the flu & yes, the ER iis appropriate in many of those cases.

    There will always be a certain segment of the population that goes to the ER for trivial things. Whether they have insurance or not will not affect their decision making. Just as there will always be a certain segment that won't go to the doctor/hospital until they are almost beyond helping.

    Of those that utilize the ER for trivial things currently, I would imagine that a larger proportion of them have insurance that will cover some part of the bill. If millions lose insurance under the 'American Healthcare Act', they'll still go to the ER, but have no insurance to cover any part of the bill.

    Also, for an ambulance to give patients a ride home, they must be stretcher bound- unable to even sit up in a wheelchair. Has to be a medical necessity for Medicare to pay for a return trip. For that matter, the trip to the hospital has to be shown as a medical necessity, for Medicare to pay.
    Fine, take out flu and replace with any number of other chief complaints: headache x 3 months, vomited once 4 hours ago, "my abdomen is 10/10 pain even before I started eating this Macho Burrito from Del Taco".

    And a great number of them do have insurance. It's called Medicaid or Medicare. Yes, the ER trip is being paid for. By the taxpayers.

    I don't know if you are being obtuse, or you misunderstood my comment. What I meant to convey was that they call 911 and take a ambulance for the trivial ER trip, and then get a taxi voucher for the ride home. Not an ambulance ride home.

    Medicare will decline payment for ambulance trip to the ER? I doubt that ever happens. The ambulance company wants to get paid. I'm sure somehow every trip is documented as a necessity.

    You are correct it that it won't change. At least not until they have some skin in the game, like a small copayment for example.
    Last edit by SC_RNDude on Mar 12 : Reason: Edit
  5. by   nursej22
    By my reading, ED care falls under Medicare part B, which covers only 80% of charges, so those patients indeed have some "skin in the game."

    My personal experience with Medicare is through my mother in law. She worked most of her life in retail, so she accumulated a very small retirement, plus her social security. My husband and I help her to pay her part B supplement and part D, so that she can still eat. She would never call an ambulance for nausea or a headache. Please remember those that may "abuse" the system are the exception.
  6. by   margin261
    Quote from SC_RNDude
    Fine, take out flu and replace with any number of other chief complaints: headache x 3 months, vomited once 4 hours ago, "my abdomen is 10/10 pain even before I started eating this Macho Burrito from Del Taco".

    And a great number of them do have insurance. It's called Medicaid or Medicare. Yes, the ER trip is being paid for. By the taxpayers.

    I don't know if you are being obtuse, or you misunderstood my comment. What I meant to convey was that they call 911 and take a ambulance for the trivial ER trip, and then get a taxi voucher for the ride home. Not an ambulance ride home.

    Medicare will decline payment for ambulance trip to the ER? I doubt that ever happens. The ambulance company wants to get paid. I'm sure somehow every trip is documented as a necessity.

    You are correct it that it won't change. At least not until they have some skin in the game, like a small copayment for example.

    I'm not above admitting mistakes- when you referred to 'medicare paid ride home' I assumed you were referring to an ambulance. Why? Because where I live, we don't have taxis. So, it's not something I factored in that equation.

    As for the other, it almost seems as if we agree? But the copay would come in now while they have insurance, right? If they lose insurance- no copay. Not that many of these frequent flyers would pay either the copay or the bill itself.
  7. by   margin261
    Oh, and Medicare does decline to pay for ambulance trips. When I worked on an ambulance, if it was not a true emergency, we were required to tell pts medicare/caid probably would not pay & they would be billed. There was a form we had them sign stating they were informed of this.
    However- we had a contract with the city that we transported everyone that wanted to go to the ER- whether it was reimbursable or not. My understanding was it was a tax write off.
    And charting for paramedics is the same as for nurses- it's a legal document. If someone calls for a headache, you can't chart- or charge- for a heart attack.
  8. by   Lil Nel
    Avid Reader-I do agree with you. Other industrialized countries have much better health care delivery systems, with much better outcomes. The US ranks well below many countries in terms of outcomes. I always give an eye roll whenever anybody insists the US has the best healthcare in the world! That just isn't true. The statistics don't back up that claim.

    Now, if you are a member of Congress, or a billionaire otherwise, that might be true. But for the average American, it isn't. Did anybody read or hear a few weeks ago that South Korea now has the world's highest life expectancy (for a child born now) at 90? The US certainly doesn't have the world's highest life expectancy.

    I think part of the reason why the US lags other nations is because of this stupid idea of individuality that permeates this society. For some reason, many people, including a large number of conservatives, can't grasp the idea of the collective good. In earlier threads it was discussed how lawmakers don't understand how insurance works because it operates under a theory of the collective. Republicans just can't grasp the idea. They fight it on a daily basis. They emphasis the individual. But individuals don't win wars.

    There is an excellent article in the Washington Post today that chronicles what is it like to give and receive care at a clinic in West Virginia. It is stunning that some of these people blame Obama for their woes. Apparently, they haven't heard that Trump and Company are doing all they can to cull folks like them from the Medicaid rolls.

    But that is probably discussion best suited for another thread such as the lack of education thread!
  9. by   Lil Nel
    So, it is estimated that Trumpcare will leave 24 million Americans without health insurance, and it is expected that number will rise as time goes on, if the proposal is enacted. And that is more than fine with Republicans. Because, get this, according to House Republicans, the goal is to "lower costs" not provide coverage for people.

    How rich is that? Lower costs for whom? The government? Insurance companies? Certainly not for the average American. Because we will all once again have to pay the costs of the uninsured. Since Obamacare, hospital costs for caring for the uninsured (which was passed along to all of us with employer-based insurance) have gone down considerably.

    Do Republicans think that the uninsured will simply curl up in a corner and die? No, they will still require care, and SOMEBODY has to pay for it.

    Oh, 2018 can't come soon enough!
  10. by   margin261
    Nel- That was the point I was trying to make that slid by 'dude'. The people that lose their insurance aren't going to sit quietly at home, suffer & say "oh well, wish I had insurance".

    It will be just like before the ACA. People will go to the ER, and they'll be sicker, therefore more expensive to help.

    Without the individual mandate, many folks won't get insurance, the rates go up for every one else- and those people will eventually end up needing health care.

    I've listened close to Tom Price. What he says makes absolutely no sense. Saying their hope is no one loses coverage, in fact, more people will have 'access' to coverage they want. Breitbart even called it a "lie". Then he says it's the 'healthcare' that matters- not the coverage. People aren't getting good healthcare now.

    Has anyone noticed that each republican that is for this 'healthcare plan' has a different spin on it? They don't even have a cohesive statement. No one will lose coverage. Well, coverage doesn't matter. Access. Freedom.

    Oh, and all those numbers we've been throwing at you for years from the CBO? Well, now that we don't like those numbers, the CBO is never accurate. I guess next we'll hear the CBO is "fake news"!
  11. by   Lil Nel
    You are right in your assessment, Margin.

    None of the Republicans are on the same page regarding the message/spin. And you've got to chuckle whenever they throw around the word "freedom" to describe this plan. How does not having health insurance coverage make anybody free? Paul Ryan said the Republican plan won't make anybody buy something they don't want. HUH????

    Again, 2018 can't come soon enough. It is time for this foolish bunch to go.

    Paul Ryan is right about one thing. Republicans need to pass this thing. As soon as they do, it is fodder for 2018!!!!
  12. by   elkpark
    Quote from margin261
    Has anyone noticed that each republican that is for this 'healthcare plan' has a different spin on it? They don't even have a cohesive statement. No one will lose coverage. Well, coverage doesn't matter. Access. Freedom.

    Oh, and all those numbers we've been throwing at you for years from the CBO? Well, now that we don't like those numbers, the CBO is never accurate. I guess next we'll hear the CBO is "fake news"!
    Well, you've got to feel for the GOP spokespeople. They are in the difficult position of trying to sell a plan which is really about drastically cutting government spending on healthcare as something that shows that the GOP really cares about people and their health. That's quite a challenge!! Life would be so much easier for them if they could just come out and say, this is what you voted for, this is the Republican priority, good luck.

    I've been seeing a lot of articles about poor people in red states with serious health problems who are loyal GOP voters, who are just starting to figure out that the GOP healthcare plan is going to leave them in the lurch, and I have to wonder each time, what on earth did you think you were voting for??? The GOP hasn't been secretive over the years about its goals and agenda. Ryan has been talking about wanting to cut (gut) Medicaid and Medicare for years, and now he's got his chance. Is anyone really surprised that he's doing it?
  13. by   Lil Nel
    Yep. Like the folks in the Washington Post article. And this plan also gets rid of Medicaid coverage for drug addiction treatment. Lots of Trump voters live in states devastated by drug use - Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, etc.

    I've said it before: I look forward to the day when they wake up and realize they got exactly what they voted for!

    And folks like Rand Paul want an even more stringent plan that what Paul Ryan has proposed. What will it take for Americans to finally understand that MOST Republicans don't care anything about them, or their families.

close