Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bipartisan Health Care Reform

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 6:03:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know I'm not known as the bipartisan type. But, let's just say, hypthetically, that the 2010 Health Care bill gets fully repealed somehow, some way. We need to implement some new reforms to curb health costs. When I say bipartisan, I mean it. This means that the system is not gonna be totally privatized. It also means that we don't need to here about how great single payer is.

Anyways, these are some reforms that are "conservative" or "market oriented", that I think liberals would agree are largely reasonable:

1.) Make all health plans, including health savings accounts, fully tax deductible, so as to end the tax preference for employer driven health insurance.

2.) A strong litigation reform to reduce defensive medicine.

3.) FDA reform that brings market reforms to the FDA to make the drug approval process quicker and cheaper.

4.) Fight hospital mergers and consolidations by enforcing anti trust laws and trying to stop state and local laws that inadvertently promote these mergers.

5.) Allow people to buy insurance over state lines to increase competition.

6.) Loosen license laws and requirements to stop the artificial restriction of the supply of physicians by the state and the AMA.

7.) Allow small businesses and groups to pool together to buy health insurance just like large groups and companies can.

These are all "market based" or "conservative" ideas that I think liberals can accept. So, what other ideas from the left and right could be part of a bipartisan health care reform?
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 6:13:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You forgot one, to prevent insurance companies from denying care to the people with disabilities (they actually usually deny care, because the people can't afford the heightened costs).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 6:14:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 6:13:24 PM, Contra wrote:
You forgot one, to prevent insurance companies from denying care to the people with disabilities (they actually usually deny care, because the people can't afford the heightened costs).

Well, you couldn't have guaranteed issue without an individual mandate, because people would wait until they are sick to buy insurance and costs would skyrocket.
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 6:16:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I meant that an insurance company cannot deny coverage to individuals because of preexisting conditions.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 6:18:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 6:16:23 PM, Contra wrote:
I meant that an insurance company cannot deny coverage to individuals because of preexisting conditions.

Yes, I know what you meant. But, that simply isn't possible without an individual mandate because people would wait until they were sick to buy coverage which would drive up costs.
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 6:20:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 6:18:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:16:23 PM, Contra wrote:
I meant that an insurance company cannot deny coverage to individuals because of preexisting conditions.

Yes, I know what you meant. But, that simply isn't possible without an individual mandate because people would wait until they were sick to buy coverage which would drive up costs.

I don't think that's true - many are simply just refused coverage.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 6:21:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 6:20:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:18:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:16:23 PM, Contra wrote:
I meant that an insurance company cannot deny coverage to individuals because of preexisting conditions.

Yes, I know what you meant. But, that simply isn't possible without an individual mandate because people would wait until they were sick to buy coverage which would drive up costs.

I don't think that's true - many are simply just refused coverage.

Yes, I understand. But, if we made it where insurance companies couldn't deny coverage to people who are sick, people would wait until they were sick to get coverage which would make costs skyrocket.

It simply can't work.
President of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 6:37:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 6:16:23 PM, Contra wrote:
I meant that an insurance company cannot deny coverage to individuals because of preexisting conditions.

People with pre-existing conditions can get insurance. We were over this.

They will, however, have higher insurance costs as insurance is paying into a future risk and if the future risk is higher than the pay in should also be higher.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 6:53:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
JT, would you accept a public option in your plan?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 7:06:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 6:53:50 PM, Contra wrote:
JT, would you accept a public option in your plan?

No.

I could never support a plan that included a public option.
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 7:16:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 7:06:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:53:50 PM, Contra wrote:
JT, would you accept a public option in your plan?


No.

I could never support a plan that included a public option.

Why not?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 7:26:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 7:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:06:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:53:50 PM, Contra wrote:
JT, would you accept a public option in your plan?


No.

I could never support a plan that included a public option.

Why not?

Because there is no point to having one. It wouldn't increase competition. We already have 1300 some odd insurance companies in the country. Adding one more government run company wouldn't be the thing that would lower costs.

Or, if the real purpose is for the public option to be subsidized so it can undercut private companies out of business, we would then have single payer. That I am totally against.
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 7:34:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 7:26:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:06:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:53:50 PM, Contra wrote:
JT, would you accept a public option in your plan?


No.

I could never support a plan that included a public option.

Why not?

Because there is no point to having one. It wouldn't increase competition. We already have 1300 some odd insurance companies in the country. Adding one more government run company wouldn't be the thing that would lower costs.

Or, if the real purpose is for the public option to be subsidized so it can undercut private companies out of business, we would then have single payer. That I am totally against.

Since this thread was for bipartisan solutions, I will refrain from pushing it here. However, under SP, instead of 1300+ companies, there would be --- 1 payer.

No a public option would increase competition, but would not be subsidized (at least I would doubt it - subsidies are ineffective in health care).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 7:43:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 7:34:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:26:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Since this thread was for bipartisan solutions, I will refrain from pushing it here. However, under SP, instead of 1300+ companies, there would be --- 1 payer.

No a public option would increase competition, but would not be subsidized (at least I would doubt it - subsidies are ineffective in health care).

1 payer also means a consensus of one as to who gets what medicine...1300 is better in this case, or would you gleefully waive your right for a 2nd (or 1302nd) opinion? hehe
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 7:50:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 7:41:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
How about adding to the list competitive pricing on drugs? Why can't we buy Canadian generic drugs?

I think it's a good idea.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 8:10:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 7:34:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:26:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:06:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:53:50 PM, Contra wrote:
JT, would you accept a public option in your plan?


No.

I could never support a plan that included a public option.

Why not?

Because there is no point to having one. It wouldn't increase competition. We already have 1300 some odd insurance companies in the country. Adding one more government run company wouldn't be the thing that would lower costs.

Or, if the real purpose is for the public option to be subsidized so it can undercut private companies out of business, we would then have single payer. That I am totally against.

Since this thread was for bipartisan solutions, I will refrain from pushing it here. However, under SP, instead of 1300+ companies, there would be --- 1 payer.

No a public option would increase competition, but would not be subsidized (at least I would doubt it - subsidies are ineffective in health care).

I think we should debate on Single Payer, lol. But, for this thread, we'll avoid that.

But, I don't see how one other competitor would increase competition all that much.
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 8:11:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 7:41:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
How about adding to the list competitive pricing on drugs? Why can't we buy Canadian generic drugs?

I am all for price transparency. Honestly, though, I think that free markets are more transparent without government interference. But, as part of a compromise, I would be okay with government trying to increase price transparency.
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 8:25:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 6:18:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:16:23 PM, Contra wrote:
I meant that an insurance company cannot deny coverage to individuals because of preexisting conditions.

Yes, I know what you meant. But, that simply isn't possible without an individual mandate because people would wait until they were sick to buy coverage which would drive up costs.

Not true. You can do things like modifying open enrollment periods and imposing late enrollment penalties.

To decrease informat asymmetries and transaction costs for consumers, there should be Insurance Exchanges.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

A lot of people cannot afford health insurance by their own. I know many people who got a job IN ORDER TO get healthcare. Not salary, healthcare.

Employers have a bargaining power individuals lack and they can get better deals.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 9:14:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 7:43:38 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:34:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:26:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Since this thread was for bipartisan solutions, I will refrain from pushing it here. However, under SP, instead of 1300+ companies, there would be --- 1 payer.

No a public option would increase competition, but would not be subsidized (at least I would doubt it - subsidies are ineffective in health care).

1 payer also means a consensus of one as to who gets what medicine...1300 is better in this case, or would you gleefully waive your right for a 2nd (or 1302nd) opinion? hehe

With Single-Payer, the insurance provider (gov't) provides all medically necessary payments, and private insurers could pay for other, not covered treatments.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 9:15:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 8:10:21 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:34:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:26:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:06:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:53:50 PM, Contra wrote:
JT, would you accept a public option in your plan?


No.

I could never support a plan that included a public option.

Why not?

Because there is no point to having one. It wouldn't increase competition. We already have 1300 some odd insurance companies in the country. Adding one more government run company wouldn't be the thing that would lower costs.

Or, if the real purpose is for the public option to be subsidized so it can undercut private companies out of business, we would then have single payer. That I am totally against.

Since this thread was for bipartisan solutions, I will refrain from pushing it here. However, under SP, instead of 1300+ companies, there would be --- 1 payer.

No a public option would increase competition, but would not be subsidized (at least I would doubt it - subsidies are ineffective in health care).

I think we should debate on Single Payer, lol. But, for this thread, we'll avoid that.

But, I don't see how one other competitor would increase competition all that much.

Sounds like fun.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 9:52:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 7:34:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:26:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:06:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:53:50 PM, Contra wrote:
JT, would you accept a public option in your plan?


No.

I could never support a plan that included a public option.

Why not?

Because there is no point to having one. It wouldn't increase competition. We already have 1300 some odd insurance companies in the country. Adding one more government run company wouldn't be the thing that would lower costs.

Or, if the real purpose is for the public option to be subsidized so it can undercut private companies out of business, we would then have single payer. That I am totally against.

Since this thread was for bipartisan solutions, I will refrain from pushing it here. However, under SP, instead of 1300+ companies, there would be --- 1 payer.

define payer. we would all pay taxes :(

Also, how is that a benefit, one payer?

No a public option would increase competition, but would not be subsidized (at least I would doubt it - subsidies are ineffective in health care).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 10:04:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 9:52:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:34:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:26:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:06:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:53:50 PM, Contra wrote:
JT, would you accept a public option in your plan?


No.

I could never support a plan that included a public option.

Why not?

Because there is no point to having one. It wouldn't increase competition. We already have 1300 some odd insurance companies in the country. Adding one more government run company wouldn't be the thing that would lower costs.

Or, if the real purpose is for the public option to be subsidized so it can undercut private companies out of business, we would then have single payer. That I am totally against.

Since this thread was for bipartisan solutions, I will refrain from pushing it here. However, under SP, instead of 1300+ companies, there would be --- 1 payer.


define payer. we would all pay taxes :(

For the majority though, it would save money.

Also, how is that a benefit, one payer?

-Streamlined, Centralized Administration = large savings
-Electronic, Confidential medical records = savings on cash, 50% cut in medical errors, reduces fraud, reduces overusage of care from both doctors and patients
-Less Bureaucratic --> More efficient

No a public option would increase competition, but would not be subsidized (at least I would doubt it - subsidies are ineffective in health care).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 10:05:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But since this plan is not on SP, but a bipartisan plan, I think that the plan (JT) proposed sounds mostly promising from what I can remember - just needs a few more tweaks
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 10:07:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 9:14:32 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:43:38 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:34:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:26:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Since this thread was for bipartisan solutions, I will refrain from pushing it here. However, under SP, instead of 1300+ companies, there would be --- 1 payer.

No a public option would increase competition, but would not be subsidized (at least I would doubt it - subsidies are ineffective in health care).

1 payer also means a consensus of one as to who gets what medicine...1300 is better in this case, or would you gleefully waive your right for a 2nd (or 1302nd) opinion? hehe

With Single-Payer, the insurance provider (gov't) provides all medically necessary payments, and private insurers could pay for other, not covered treatments.

Who determines that...fraudulent doctors? we have enough problems as it is with fraudulent people raping the unaccountable medicare to the tune of billions. Yeah go ahead and let the government give whatever the hospitals say they need, that won't last long. Government will ration the healthcare. One voice. One way.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 10:12:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 10:04:50 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 9:52:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:34:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:26:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/29/2012 7:06:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:53:50 PM, Contra wrote:
JT, would you accept a public option in your plan?


No.

I could never support a plan that included a public option.

Why not?

Because there is no point to having one. It wouldn't increase competition. We already have 1300 some odd insurance companies in the country. Adding one more government run company wouldn't be the thing that would lower costs.

Or, if the real purpose is for the public option to be subsidized so it can undercut private companies out of business, we would then have single payer. That I am totally against.

Since this thread was for bipartisan solutions, I will refrain from pushing it here. However, under SP, instead of 1300+ companies, there would be --- 1 payer.


define payer. we would all pay taxes :(

For the majority though, it would save money.

Possibly, I have not looked into costs of SP outside our the debate we did. But I know for a fact it decreases care.


Also, how is that a benefit, one payer?

-Streamlined, Centralized Administration = large savings

explain

-Electronic, Confidential medical records = savings on cash, 50% cut in medical errors, reduces fraud, reduces overusage of care from both doctors and patients

http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.healthcare-today.co.uk...

-Less Bureaucratic --> More efficient

"There has long been concern about bureaucracy, high premiums, and deficits in the German system."
http://www.biggovhealth.org...


No a public option would increase competition, but would not be subsidized (at least I would doubt it - subsidies are ineffective in health care).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 10:14:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am busy now. Might not [be able too] respond :(
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 10:17:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The huge issue is fraud accountability. The government is a proven idiot when it comes to managing fraudulent claims vs the private sector. Government Rationing will be the only way for them to handle fraudulent claims, or they shall face massive losses. One government. One way. No questions. Is there any country with tax-funded healthcare that does not do this?