Future of AHCA? (U.S.A. American Healthcare Act)

Will new version of the AHCA pass the senate?


  • Total voters
    13
Status
Not open for further replies.

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
You looked what up?:confused: @ronv if you're privy to a resource unequivocally descriptive of 'the problem' and it's solution{s} I'm certain we'd all like to have a 'gander'!:cool:
HP:cool:
I looked up the big word for greed.:D
Defining the problem (in a broad sense) is easy.
upload_2017-5-8_9-20-31.jpeg

My solution is a single payer like Medicare, but I'm not sure how you would unwind the private sector insurance so you would have the money to pay for it. I use Medicare as a baseline for care because I have it and am pretty happy with it and Medicare numbers are readily available as a worst case example (all old people) for cost comparisons.
But what I would really like to explore are other ideas (with examples) of how to get the costs in line.
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
Your question would seem to offer a study in classic anthropology?...

It seems humans are at their worst in 'numbers' in that they (albeit with many, many exceptions) tend to 'cede' their morality (and, hence, conscience, sense of responsibility/culpability -indeed even guilt- for their actions) to the 'mob', as it were... Add to this shameful proclivity the 'distance' provided by the many levels of abstraction intervening 'care' and 'administration' and there it is...:(

So... cynical tho it may sound -- The reply to your question:
Because they can:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Very Best regards
HP
I disagree.

The group leadership is almost entirely responsible for the overall demeanor, attitude and actions of the group.

I can't say I have ever worked for any business where the overall mentality and ethics of the whole were not a very near inertial representation of the ownership and management that ran things.

I have never seen a bad business ran by a good person and I have ever seen a good business ran by a bad person but I have seen first hand good businesses that were that way because the the person in charge was a good person themselves. Same with bad businesses. When the ownership was little more than a cooked scumbag that's the very mentality and ethics that the company as a whole carried as well.

As for our health care systems in the US I have every reason to believe it's run by a bunch of credentialized greedy cooks that are more concerned about protecting their butts and lining their pockets and little else than has anything to do with the actual quality, capability or justifications of their actions.

Theres a reason people from the US can fly halfway around world to some suposed '3rd world country' and get superior medical care and procedures done in state of the art hospitals and clinics for 1/10th the cost (including the cost of the trip) than they can in the US and it isn't because that doctor in some other country is less qualified or capable. It's because he has fair competition and has to provide the best care for the lowest cost if he wants to stay in business.

If I can get on a plane, fly first class to Turkey get a full top to bottom major dental job done in a state of the art clinic by dentists who have the most advanced up to date training in the world plus spend two weeks of vacation time while there and fly home for less than the same dental work in the US cost what exactly does that say about our system?
 

Hypatia's Protege

Joined Mar 1, 2015
3,226
The group leadership is almost entirely responsible for the overall demeanor, attitude and actions of the group.
But then the observation that a few may lead (i.e. manipulate) an (all to) obliging, 'many' would seem to argue my point? -- So long as the majority (IMO the vast majority) of people are content in the role of 'sheep' said sad and shameful behaviour will persist:(

Best regards
HP
 

Hypatia's Protege

Joined Mar 1, 2015
3,226
@Hypatia's Protege My brain is melting trying to understand tapless full wave CW circuit and you're on here having political squabbles:rolleyes: I like that, NOT:mad:!

Gophert I say that's flawed logic cuz victims of medical errors are over-represented by ppl who are already sick and so in precarious condition anyhow! So that's like saying digitalis is bad on basis that most users eventually die from heart disease:rolleyes:
Then too what passes for 'medical error' just gets weirder and weirdero_O:rolleyes:

Best regards
HP
 
Last edited:

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
8,959
But then the observation that a few may lead (i.e. manipulate) an (all to) obliging, 'many' would seem to argue my point? -- So long as the majority (IMO the vast majority) of people are content in the role of 'sheep' said sad and shameful behaviour will persist:(

Best regards
HP
Does that also include pharmaceutical? One of the many medications I take cost $245 for a 30 day supply, and that's after my medicare. The same exact pill I get from an online pharmacy , it comes from the UK and costs me $54 for 100 day supply, postage included. Guess where I buy it?
 

Hypatia's Protege

Joined Mar 1, 2015
3,226
Does that also include pharmaceutical?
Re: Guaranteed comprehensive health coverage? Indeed it does! -- A civilized society doesn't play games with healthcare - period!

Perhaps one day the US (and, for that matter, many other ostensibly 'human-rights oriented' societies) will qualify as civilized - I'd like to think so...

Best regards
HP
 
Last edited:

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
But then the observation that a few may lead (i.e. manipulate) an (all to) obliging, 'many' would seem to argue my point? -- So long as the majority (IMO the vast majority) of people are content in the role of 'sheep' said sad and shameful behaviour will persist:(

Best regards
HP
Yes but ultimately it's the few who have the power over others that make or prevent it.

Theres a reason good forums stay good forums and it's not just because of the members who are there. Site management's rules and the moderators who enforce them have everything to do with it.

How often to we see all out trolls come here and to what limit do us members have to drive them out Vs what a moderator or site admin can do to them? We can as common members here are pretty limited on what we can say and do to them to make their lives rough but if they don't leave then moderation has to step in and kick them out. Now if the moderators chose to do nothing then more and more trolls take up residency until they drive all the good people out and the place turns into a bad forum.
 

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
Agreed but strictly administered as a group insurance plan --as opposed to a 'classic' entitlement-- Such would assure ongoing solvency sans recourse to fascism (i.e. rationing, caps, etc.)...

Best regards
HP
Well, here I go being liberal again. I would agree except there are people that simply cannot pay for insurance. I am one of those people that don't think we should shorten the lives of people that are poor. But perhaps that's a different discussion.
I kind of look at it like when you get insurance thru work. For the most part you get the same insurance if you make 25K or 225K. You also get insured even if you have preexisting conditions.
 

djsfantasi

Joined Apr 11, 2010
7,919
Life sometimes throws you curves. We were living very comfortably, two cars, two homes, two kids... Then, a couple job losses later and a medical emergency or two, and I find myself dependent on Medicare and have an income less than I had out of college 45 years ago. I am not lazy, do not take advantage of the system and paid a not insignificant amount into the system.

I deserve to be angry.
 

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
Life sometimes throws you curves. We were living very comfortably, two cars, two homes, two kids... Then, a couple job losses later and a medical emergency or two, and I find myself dependent on Medicare and have an income less than I had out of college 45 years ago. I am not lazy, do not take advantage of the system and paid a not insignificant amount into the system.

I deserve to be angry.
Always the unknowns. Sometimes bad thing happen to good people. :(
But you know what? I bet it will work out for you!:)
 

Hypatia's Protege

Joined Mar 1, 2015
3,226
Yes but ultimately it's the few who have the power over others that make or prevent it.
Indeed! However it's the many who empower the few -- It's a common sentiment and true that people deserve the government they get! -- Unfortunately that's a bit hard on 'minority demographics' case-in point being the 'cognitively able':(

Theres a reason good forums stay good forums and it's not just because of the members who are there. Site management's rules and the moderators who enforce them have everything to do with it.
I respectfully disagree -- the quality of fora is wholly reflective of the quality of its participants (including --but not exclusive to-- administration). Even in the case of 'autocracy' (which certainly does not describe AAC:)) one's decision to participate is determined, in part, by 'moderation philosophy' - either directly or indirectly (i.e. via site 'tone' corollary thereto)... Thus it is that even (ostensibly) private organizations are shaped via 'natural selection', as it were!:cool:

Best regards
HP:)
 

Hypatia's Protege

Joined Mar 1, 2015
3,226
Well, here I go being liberal again. I would agree except there are people that simply cannot pay for insurance. I am one of those people that don't think we should shorten the lives of people that are poor. But perhaps that's a different discussion.
I apologize that I was unclear -- When I said 'group insurance plan' I was referring to the actuarial construct --as opposed to-- the premium/deductible schedule.

Under said system:
-All citizens are fully covered - period!
-As with all fair taxation, premiums and deductibles are income based -- To be clear: no counted income=no premium/deductible but full coverage! It's all of decent, civilized and practically realizable!
-Beneficiaries are not penalized for poor health via forfeiture/confiscation of property (i.e. there is no 'asset test').



I am one of those people that don't think we should shorten the lives of people that are poor.
IOW you're not a fascist! -- Sincere congratulations!:cool:

@ronv I'm bound to ask, having corresponded with me upon this topic for neigh-on one year, how could you possibly arrive at a conclusion aligning me with the foul likes of Ezekiel Emanuel based upon any misinterpretation of post #47?:rolleyes::mad::(

Best regards
HP
 

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
I apologize that I was unclear -- When I said 'group insurance plan' I was referring to the actuarial construct --as opposed to-- the premium/deductible schedule.

Under said system:
-All citizens are fully covered - period!
-As with all fair taxation, premiums and deductibles are income based -- To be clear: no counted income=no premium/deductible but full coverage! It's all of decent, civilized and practically realizable!
-Beneficiaries are not penalized for poor health via forfeiture/confiscation of property (i.e. there is no 'asset test').




IOW you're not a fascist! -- Sincere congratulations!:cool:

@ronv I'm bound to ask, having corresponded with me upon this topic for neigh-on one year, how could you possibly arrive at a conclusion aligning me with the foul likes of Ezekiel Emanuel based upon any misinterpretation of post #47?:rolleyes::mad::(

Best regards
HP
To answer the last question first. I was confused by this statement:
as opposed to a 'classic' entitlement
Some would view no premium for those unable to pay as an entitlement. At least I did.
So now that we are on the same wavelength, how do you think we could accomplish this without turning the world upside down?

PS. Just because I ask you a question does not mean I disagree with you. It can just mean I'm seeking your opinion:D
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
4,477
Under said system:
-All citizens are fully covered - period!
-As with all fair taxation, premiums and deductibles are income based -- To be clear: no counted income=no premium/deductible but full coverage! It's all of decent, civilized and practically realizable!
-Beneficiaries are not penalized for poor health via forfeiture/confiscation of property (i.e. there is no 'asset test').
Charmingly naive, HP.

Your system will be the death of us all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top