Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[chancellor]

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

Kinda how like the left whines you can't say the government will control your health care and ration it to control costs?

#CharlieGard

[Redbirds Fan]

Kinda how like the left whines you can't say the government will control your health care and ration it to control costs?

#CharlieGard

If by "whines" you mean "points out that you have no facts to support it", then yes.

Stating the proven fact that access to health care lowers mortality rates is not the same as calling someone a callous murderer. There is a name for the logical fallacy of mis-stating the other side's argument. I don't remember it. I think it is Latin.

I am glad sheep is now concerned about the prospects of the Democratic party.

[Hornsby]

Here's the simple thing...the ACA worked out pretty well for the majority of the country, worked so well that a pretty large portion of the populace like it and want to keep it. Turns out that people LIKE having some medical care, they LIKE having a Doctor to go to in times of illness. Who knew?

It wasn't and isn't perfect by any means, but it was a first step. And instead of looking at the things that worked and improving on them, or looking at the things that didn't work and fixing them, the GOP was hell-bent on scrapping the whole thing. And now they can't seem to figure out just WHY there's a public outcry, with people in wheelchairs getting arrested in congressional offices for protesting. Now congress is stuck with something that nobody likes, and is desperately trying to swing votes to make it pass, not make it good, so it actually might just be an improvement on the ACA, but to make it pass so that the wealthy can get a tax break.

Every journey begins with a 1st step, and the ACA was that...it needed fixing, sure, in lots of areas, but instead, it's getting destroyed bit by bit...and the people are NOT happy.

Can't wait to see those GOP town halls over the 4th of July break.

[baldgriff]

Again -
Most of us have already agreed that some sort of single payer seems as a relatively reasonable solution.

Second steps can be better or worse, but the third step best be in the positive direction. So again what do you want in or out?

[GwynnInTheHall]

Again -
Most of us have already agreed that some sort of single payer seems as a relatively reasonable solution.

Second steps can be better or worse, but the third step best be in the positive direction. So again what do you want in or out?

I don't get this post, why should there be any step backward? What is it about the ACA that should be changed, just a list of what you disagree with would be a sufficient answer and then an example of the step forward.

[Wonderboy]

One thing McConnell said to try and get other Senators to vote for his bill was that if they didn't pass this, he assumes the ACA will later fail, and eventually we would eventually have a single payer system. And I think he is correct, in a way. If the AHCL doesn't pass (or if it passes and is a failure) or if the ACA fails, people could get really ticked off and a single payer system will be passed. So in a way, supporters of single payer should hope the AHCL passes since, by McConnell's thinking, the failure of either the ACA or the AHCL will lead to a single payer system. The problem is the amount of suffering between here and then.

[Redbirds Fan]

Here's the simple thing...the ACA worked out pretty well for the majority of the country, worked so well that a pretty large portion of the populace like it and want to keep it. Turns out that people LIKE having some medical care, they LIKE having a Doctor to go to in times of illness. Who knew?

It wasn't and isn't perfect by any means, but it was a first step. And instead of looking at the things that worked and improving on them, or looking at the things that didn't work and fixing them, the GOP was hell-bent on scrapping the whole thing. And now they can't seem to figure out just WHY there's a public outcry, with people in wheelchairs getting arrested in congressional offices for protesting. Now congress is stuck with something that nobody likes, and is desperately trying to swing votes to make it pass, not make it good, so it actually might just be an improvement on the ACA, but to make it pass so that the wealthy can get a tax break.

Every journey begins with a 1st step, and the ACA was that...it needed fixing, sure, in lots of areas, but instead, it's getting destroyed bit by bit...and the people are NOT happy.

Can't wait to see those GOP town halls over the 4th of July break.

Well said. And I would like to see some of the people here who think the ACA is terrible tell us exactly what is terrible about it. Not that it is a "job killer" or that it "erodes personal freedom" or that it "thwarts scientific discovery", but some actual provisions which cause bad consequences.

We should bear in mind that the ACA impacts broad and different areas...it changes the law of employer insurance plans (no pre-existing condition exclusions, kids until 26, no lifetime cap on benefits), it provides for the availablility of insurance for the previously uninsured, and it impacts the Medicaid program. (Most of the acrimony we have around here seems to surround the discussion of what free coverage we will give the poor, which is only a part of the ACA.)

[senorsheep]

I am glad sheep is now concerned about the prospects of the Democratic party.

Given the current alternative, shouldn't I be?

[Wonderboy]

Honestly, our healthcare system has been so broke for so long that I really think we are reaching the point where a majority agrees that single payer is the way to go. If you want to "fix" Obamacare, I've seen some suggestions:

*Get rid of fee-for-service provider reimbursement, which will always incentivize volume-driven care decisions rather than a good long term outcomes, as well as causing a lot of wasted dollars.

*Allow the government to negotiate with the big Pharmaceutical companies. Really, why are we paying tens and hundreds of times more than other industrialized countries for the same drugs?

*Lower the age of Medicare to 60 (or even 55) so that people that age get treatment to resolve medical problems before they get too serious and costly. Costs money in the short run but saves money in the long run.

*Develop a low-cost catastrophic-only coverage plan to encourage everyone to participate, and to prevent the endless stream of bankruptcies that are the result of medical emergencies when there is no insurance.

Honestly, I don't know what would work. I just know every other industrialized country has figured this out, so we should be able to do that also.

[Redbirds Fan]

Honestly, our healthcare system has been so broke for so long that I really think we are reaching the point where a majority agrees that single payer is the way to go. If you want to "fix" Obamacare, I've seen some suggestions:

*Get rid of fee-for-service provider reimbursement, which will always incentivize volume-driven care decisions rather than a good long term outcomes, as well as causing a lot of wasted dollars.

*Allow the government to negotiate with the big Pharmaceutical companies. Really, why are we paying tens and hundreds of times more than other industrialized countries for the same drugs?

*Lower the age of Medicare to 60 (or even 55) so that people that age get treatment to resolve medical problems before they get too serious and costly. Costs money in the short run but saves money in the long run.

*Develop a low-cost catastrophic-only coverage plan to encourage everyone to participate, and to prevent the endless stream of bankruptcies that are the result of medical emergencies when there is no insurance.

Honestly, I don't know what would work. I just know every other industrialized country has figured this out, so we should be able to do that also.

[onejayhawk]

*Develop a low-cost catastrophic-only coverage plan to encourage everyone to participate, and to prevent the endless stream of bankruptcies that are the result of medical emergencies when there is no insurance.

Low cost catastrophic care is easy. It just has a five or six figure deductable. Democrats won't go for that.

J

[Mithrandir]

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.

How long have you been on this site?

[Mithrandir]

What exactly are the goals of the GOP when it comes to health care?

Has anyone here actually posted the answer to this question?

[Wonderboy]

Warren Buffett says America is ready for single-payer health care.

The billionaire investor tells "PBS NewsHour" that government-run health insurance "probably is the best system" because it would control escalating costs.

"We are such a rich country. In a sense, we can afford to do it," Buffett said. "In almost every field of American business, it pays to bring down costs."

Buffett has said health care costs hurt businesses more than corporate taxes do. At a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting this year, he called medical costs "the tapeworm of American economic competitiveness."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/28/news/warren-buffett-single-payer-health-care/index.html

I think that's something largely overlooked. Business could compete much better without the cost of health care for their employees. I can tell you that my employees didn't like it when we had to freeze wages or cut other items. But they freaked out when we discussed getting less medical coverage or shift some cost to them. Medical insurance was far and away the most important benefit they had. And according to Buffet (who admits he is not a expert on health coverage) it's more burdensome that taxes. I know my company would be happy paying higher taxes if we didn't have to hassle with medical insurance.

[Moonlight J]

Why not have the Government use the base level of healthcare for all and let companies compete with one another to attract employees with extra layers of coverage? Everyone is a Skymiles member, but companies could decide to offer Silver, Gold, or Diamond packages to attract folks.