Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[In the Corn]

BG and Swampie -

As I said, my list was a starter.

People with disabilities have most of their needs covered by government programs, so I think that's a non-starter.

hospitalization? - Perhaps there is a # of days covered by the single payer, but you subsidize something more. We already do some of this...delivery of a baby 2-3 days and you're out, unless there are complications.
emergency care? - Emergency care could potentially be re-imagined. Unfortunately, emergency care doesn't always equate to an actual emergency (trauma, heart attack, stroke, etc.). Many emergencies are that's the only place to give care at a certain time. Maybe we open up 24 minute clinic/urgent care to off load some of the emergency visits.
surgeries? - As I said, General Practitioner diagnosis the need for surgery, you should have secondary insurance (on another note) secondary insurance should be on a sliding scale fee.
catastrophic illnesses? - secondary insurance

where do these go?

Please note, I'm an advocate of single-payer.

[In the Corn]

Most importantly, by all accounts, he worked like a madman to build consensus across party lines and competing special interest blocs, making it a true bipartisan plan in his state.

That ship sailed out of Boston Harbor about 12 years ago...

[baldgriff]

my point was simply that it's better to try to come up with a model knowing that you'll get some things wrong, than it is to throw your hands up in the air & say it's not worth it.

Im not saying that its not worth it... Im saying at some point you have to talk specifics. I think that over the prior 140+ plus pages there have been espousing the virtues of single payer and claiming it as the moral highground and ultimate answer to all of the countries medical woes...

Then there are those of us that just must hate the poor and the sick because we want to talk more brass tacks. Talking brass tacks and asking what is and what isnt covered is by no means saying "its not worth it". Its asking people to actually start drawing the line as to what is and isnt covered. You have to have some semblance of actual policy stating what is or isnt in.

So again rather than arguing about whether we love or hate the sick and the poor based on our policy position - lets talk real life what is in or out.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Im not saying that its not worth it... Im saying at some point you have to talk specifics. I think that over the prior 140+ plus pages there have been espousing the virtues of single payer and claiming it as the moral highground and ultimate answer to all of the countries medical woes...

Then there are those of us that just must hate the poor and the sick because we want to talk more brass tacks. Talking brass tacks and asking what is and what isnt covered is by no means saying "its not worth it". Its asking people to actually start drawing the line as to what is and isnt covered. You have to have some semblance of actual policy stating what is or isnt in.

So again rather than arguing about whether we love or hate the sick and the poor based on our policy position - lets talk real life what is in or out.

That wasn't my point at all, it was hyperbole.

My point is this: Why are those opposed to Universal Healthcare putting so much importance on getting it right, doing little or nothing until the 'brass tacks" are discussed as if this idea alone is the only Govt program, conceived and executed poorly and costing taxpayers more than it should. I mention Defense because it's the most obvious and though I've heard grousing (minimal grousing) from the right on Defense, it's widely accepted that we NEED Defense to save American lives so we live with this program flaws and all until we can fix it or find a better way to do it. With that in mind, shouldn't we do the same with Healthcare? Why shouldn't we make sure we have coverage that protects every American and fix it as we go?

To what should be covered? Well everything except unnecessary cosmetic procedures. You really can't pick and choose what or who to cover as leaving even one American out is wrong and yes I mean morally. I don't see how those putting a pricetag on life and health can say it's not.

[baldgriff]

That wasn't my point at all, it was hyperbole.

My point is this: Why are those opposed to Universal Healthcare putting so much importance on getting it right, doing little or nothing until the 'brass tacks" are discussed as if this idea alone is the only Govt program, conceived and executed poorly and costing taxpayers more than it should. I mention Defense because it's the most obvious and though I've heard grousing (minimal grousing) from the right on Defense, it's widely accepted that we NEED Defense to save American lives so we live with this program flaws and all until we can fix it or find a better way to do it. With that in mind, shouldn't we do the same with Healthcare? Why shouldn't we make sure we have coverage that protects every American and fix it as we go?

To what should be covered? Well everything except unnecessary cosmetic procedures. You really can't pick and choose what or who to cover as leaving even one American out is wrong and yes I mean morally. I don't see how those putting a pricetag on life and health can say it's not.

You cant execute a game plan or any policy until you have defined the goals and scope and had the conversation where everyone comes to some consensus about it.

If I read it correctly, in your scenario all medical care is covered up to and including the costliest of procedures. Whereas, others agree that the government could create a plan where everyone has some basic healthcare coverage. Yes, you can draw a line and I would posit you have too or your government medical expenses will far outweigh its defense budget.

Either that or start actually curing things rather than prescribing a pill for this and 2 more for the side effects (but that is a different topic all together).

[Redbirds Fan]

Therein is the problem. The moment you start to define coverage you enter res ipsa territory, ie adding one thing excludes all others. So, ACA didn't define coverage. It mandated very broad minimum coverage and left the rest to the Secretary of HHS, Sylvia Burwell. She took an expansive approach, which has led to many exchanges going bankrupt and insurers to stop writing coverage.

Insurance is math driven. If you can specify the outer limits of of potential liability and the nature of the covered group, you can come up with a fair price. In the real world, fair often does not equate with affordable. In order to bring the price down, you can limit coverage and/or improve the covered pool. These steps are crux of the debate. Democrats want to expand coverage and improve the pool by including healthy people, by force if necessary. Republicans want to allow for companies to create a variety of coverages, priced differently.

J

I think you may mean "expressio unius est exclusio alterius". Maybe not.

[GwynnInTheHall]

You cant execute a game plan or any policy until you have defined the goals and scope and had the conversation where everyone comes to some consensus about it.

If I read it correctly, in your scenario all medical care is covered up to and including the costliest of procedures. Whereas, others agree that the government could create a plan where everyone has some basic healthcare coverage. Yes, you can draw a line and I would posit you have too or your government medical expenses will far outweigh its defense budget.

Either that or start actually curing things rather than prescribing a pill for this and 2 more for the side effects (but that is a different topic all together).

I know I'm outside the mainstream on this, but I believe healthcare and Pharma should be non profit. No need for insurance companies at all, just doctors and people and facilities to bring them together which the Govt/states can run. I know that'll never happen because too many people would lose too much money. BUT we have to cover everything, ethically don;t we? Who cares about the cost. once you start picking and choosing then you are putting money before the welfare of the population.

[onejayhawk]

I think you may mean "expressio unius est exclusio alterius". Maybe not.

Completely right. It's been a long time since HS debate.

J

[cardboardbox]

If I were in charge, and I'm not (anywhere)

There is easily a place to draw some lines as to where the basic health care starts and everyone should pay in and these should be free or a minimal co-pay:

- Vaccinations
- Annual Physical
- Anything "Minute Clinic" related type appointment
- Two Dental Cleaning/Year
- Eye Exam and Basic Glasses (adds on like tinting, glare-resistance are out of pocket)
- General Practitioner Diagnostic
- 3-4 Mental Health Visits (after that additional co-pay)
- Prescription Drugs (with co-pay)
- I'm sure I'm missing some things here...I don't want to debate contraception, although, I would be in favor of it being covered.

After these things, you would need a secondary insurance to cover something the rest.

Just my thoughts.

not a bad list to start with, although I wonder how much of the population needs mental health visits. I'd be in favor of having various preventative care covered 100% but beyond that you'd have to go get insurance which may or may not be govt subsidized.

[Redbirds Fan]

There's been some talk here lately about how it is not appropriate to argue against the GOP health care bill by pointing out that it will cost lives. Conservative commentators, especially those on Fox, have been taking taking that position, claiming that nobody can know for sure unless they can see the future.

The fact is that studies have been done which show conclusively a direct link between access to health care and lower mortality rates. Here's how Nate Silver summed up the current state of the controversy:

"You can't talk about people DYING from losing access to health care" might literally be the dumbest argument in the history of the Internet. 11:07 PM - 26 Jun 2017

[Wonderboy]

GOP: We're passing a bill that will lead to people losing health care and increasing mortality rates.

DEM: That bill will mean more people will die.

GOP: YOUR TONE IS KILLING CIVIL DISCOURSE!

[Hodor]

GOP: We're passing a bill that will lead to people losing health care and increasing mortality rates.

DEM: That bill will mean more people will die.

GOP: YOUR TONE IS KILLING CIVIL DISCOURSE!

...

[senorsheep]

There's been some talk here lately about how it is not appropriate to argue against the GOP health care bill by pointing out that it will cost lives. Conservative commentators, especially those on Fox, have been taking taking that position, claiming that nobody can know for sure unless they can see the future.

The fact is that studies have been done which show conclusively a direct link between access to health care and lower mortality rates. Here's how Nate Silver summed up the current state of the controversy:

"You can't talk about people DYING from losing access to health care" might literally be the dumbest argument in the history of the Internet. 11:07 PM - 26 Jun 2017

I'll never say you can't talk about it. Given recent election results, I think your team is mind-numbingly stupid to talk about it in those terms, strategically speaking. A lot of smart folks on your side have noted that blasting people who disagreed with your policies as bigots, xenophobes, misogynists, anti-science morons, etc. was not only ineffective in the last election, but likely played a part in driving voters away from your party and your candidates. Insulting people you should be trying to win over seems counterproductive to me, but, hey, if you think that calling people who disagree with your health care policies callous murderers is a winner, by all means, go for it. It will doubtless be a smashing success this time around!

[baldgriff]

^^^^^
What he said

Insulting people you should be trying to win over seems counterproductive to me, but, hey, if you think that calling people who disagree with your health care policies callous murderers is a winner, by all means, go for it. It will doubtless be a smashing success this time around!

Its a great way to coalition build.....

[chancellor]

Never mind. Sig line winner in Sheep's last post.