Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

The ACA???

Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 12:21:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

Even Obama made a Freudian slip likening it to the Galaxy Note 7. Hillary will just throw more money at it, I mean what's a few extra trillion among friends? But that is the typical government solution to most everything, since they can't bomb it. They don't and won't give up control and let someone who kwtf they are doing run it so the ship will continue to sink.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 12:41:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 12:21:07 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

Even Obama made a Freudian slip likening it to the Galaxy Note 7. Hillary will just throw more money at it, I mean what's a few extra trillion among friends? But that is the typical government solution to most everything, since they can't bomb it. They don't and won't give up control and let someone who kwtf they are doing run it so the ship will continue to sink.

Trumps 'repeal and replace' is just as amorphous.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 1:02:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 12:41:26 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:21:07 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

Even Obama made a Freudian slip likening it to the Galaxy Note 7. Hillary will just throw more money at it, I mean what's a few extra trillion among friends? But that is the typical government solution to most everything, since they can't bomb it. They don't and won't give up control and let someone who kwtf they are doing run it so the ship will continue to sink.

Trumps 'repeal and replace' is just as amorphous.

yeah he's a shock jock for those who remember that term, he would still use similar ideas or whatever parts that may actually work since all any of these programs are just bastardized versions of medicare and medicaid.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 1:29:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 1:02:11 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:41:26 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:21:07 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

Even Obama made a Freudian slip likening it to the Galaxy Note 7. Hillary will just throw more money at it, I mean what's a few extra trillion among friends? But that is the typical government solution to most everything, since they can't bomb it. They don't and won't give up control and let someone who kwtf they are doing run it so the ship will continue to sink.

Trumps 'repeal and replace' is just as amorphous.

yeah he's a shock jock for those who remember that term, he would still use similar ideas or whatever parts that may actually work since all any of these programs are just bastardized versions of medicare and medicaid.

One of these days, when I have more than 5 minutes in response, I'll write out a pretty detailed that does make sense, preserves the technology infrastructure, reduces cost for employer/subscriber/payer/provider, and keeps docs-hospitals in the black (for private. It doesn't really address Medicare nor Medicaid as those bureaucracies will only change they insolvency which... they already are).
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2016 10:44:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

We are on the way to single payer, there should be no doubt.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 4:13:11 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 1:29:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:

One of these days, when I have more than 5 minutes in response, I'll write out a pretty detailed that does make sense, preserves the technology infrastructure, reduces cost for employer/subscriber/payer/provider, and keeps docs-hospitals in the black (for private. It doesn't really address Medicare nor Medicaid as those bureaucracies will only change they insolvency which... they already are).

I'll be waiting!
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 11:13:22 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
ACA:
We are going to give millions of adults, who have never worked and who never intend to work, whose greatest ambition is to be declared incapacitated, free health insurance so the can create a medical paper trail, to help them get disability payments.
This won't cost anyone anything, and will actually make health insurance cheaper.

That is not the whole package, but is a key element that is not reported.
Reformist
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 11:17:09 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

Affordavle care act was designed to fail so we could move to single payer

We need to repeal it yes but not replace it. Let the insurance companies make health care plans
DDO History Revival Officer
Fuher of the Reich

"I'm not Asian"-Vaarka

"I would rather have a fascist than a socialist in office"- Bball

To be a feminist or to be smart that is the question
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 1:19:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
From the responses it seems several, maybe many, would like to move to a single payer system. That prompts several questions but the first and primary question is based on what? A uniquely American system or one based of another countries?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 1:24:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 4:13:11 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:29:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:

One of these days, when I have more than 5 minutes in response, I'll write out a pretty detailed that does make sense, preserves the technology infrastructure, reduces cost for employer/subscriber/payer/provider, and keeps docs-hospitals in the black (for private. It doesn't really address Medicare nor Medicaid as those bureaucracies will only change they insolvency which... they already are).

I'll be waiting!

It will be very long but for expediency... think catastrophic coverage with all additional subsets a la carte.

Best simple analogy: imagine buying only the channels you want from a cable/satellite/internet provider. Removing the bundle...
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 2:06:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

Both are clueless. At a very fundamental level the only way to reduce healthcare is:

1. Reduce the number of instances of medical services.

2. Introduce efficiency to reduce costs.

The ACA is not designed to do either. Nothing Trump will do will address either. Everyone is bent about ACA premiums going up, but they should if they didn't cover the claims.

My plan however focuses on #2 because whether instituted by gov or private insurance companies #1 equates to rationing. There needs to be checks on excessive usage, but not rationing.

To increase efficiency there first needs to be low cost options for consumers to get basic services. Everything to evaluating what requires a prescription versus not. Licensing and functions should be evaluated. I've never had any service provided by a general practitioner that was so complex it could not be done by a nurse or lower level.

We need fundamental structural changes on how healthcare is delivered and how insurance works to lower costs.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 2:14:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 2:06:45 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

Both are clueless. At a very fundamental level the only way to reduce healthcare is:

1. Reduce the number of instances of medical services.

2. Introduce efficiency to reduce costs.

The ACA is not designed to do either. Nothing Trump will do will address either. Everyone is bent about ACA premiums going up, but they should if they didn't cover the claims.

My plan however focuses on #2 because whether instituted by gov or private insurance companies #1 equates to rationing. There needs to be checks on excessive usage, but not rationing.

To increase efficiency there first needs to be low cost options for consumers to get basic services. Everything to evaluating what requires a prescription versus not. Licensing and functions should be evaluated. I've never had any service provided by a general practitioner that was so complex it could not be done by a nurse or lower level.

We need fundamental structural changes on how healthcare is delivered and how insurance works to lower costs.

Omg... you must work in the industry. You nailed 2 primary drivers of cost: practioner and utilization.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 2:56:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/27/2016 10:44:56 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

We are on the way to single payer, there should be no doubt.

Yay death panels and rationing to follow!!! Oh well I'll still have private insurance so, sucks to be poor or government dependand I guess.
http://www.medicaldaily.com...
http://www.slate.com...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 3:00:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

I think the best way to fix the system is to not have a system at all. Centrally planned economies don't work very well. I will say the deplorable work and everyone will promptly freak out, but it is the one and only one solution if we want great healthcare: Careful deregulation.
This space for rent.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 3:02:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 2:56:12 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/27/2016 10:44:56 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

We are on the way to single payer, there should be no doubt.

Yay death panels and rationing to follow!!! Oh well I'll still have private insurance so, sucks to be poor or government dependand I guess.
http://www.medicaldaily.com...
http://www.slate.com...

Good news: single payer is not an option. If it were it would be in place.
Bad news: more gov interference. People don't understand State vs fed contradiction.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 3:06:54 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 12:41:26 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:21:07 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

Even Obama made a Freudian slip likening it to the Galaxy Note 7. Hillary will just throw more money at it, I mean what's a few extra trillion among friends? But that is the typical government solution to most everything, since they can't bomb it. They don't and won't give up control and let someone who kwtf they are doing run it so the ship will continue to sink.

Trumps 'repeal and replace' is just as amorphous.

True, but there is reason to think he knows something about implementing complex plans. One doesn't ask Lionel Messi when he's going to pass in a game - it depends. Real world you have to respond to the game, so we should be voting for skill, not a static plan.

You really couldn't do much worse than ACA. But it was probably designed to fail, so any effort to actually improve things [rather than gain political power], probably will.
This space for rent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 3:08:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 2:56:12 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/27/2016 10:44:56 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

We are on the way to single payer, there should be no doubt.

Yay death panels and rationing to follow!!! Oh well I'll still have private insurance so, sucks to be poor or government dependand I guess.
http://www.medicaldaily.com...
http://www.slate.com...

Yea, call me un-terrified.

Family make terrible medical decisions every day. Insurers make unnecessary profit based medical decisions every day.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 3:09:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 11:13:22 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
ACA:
We are going to give millions of adults, who have never worked and who never intend to work, whose greatest ambition is to be declared incapacitated, free health insurance so the can create a medical paper trail, to help them get disability payments.
This won't cost anyone anything, and will actually make health insurance cheaper.

That is not the whole package, but is a key element that is not reported.

Let me be blunt about this. EVERYONE GETS MEDICAL CARE. It doesn't matter if you are a murderer, a felon, a broke joke, Bill Gates, or the Dalai Lama. In this country, if you get hurt, then you receive treatment, regardless of the system and regardless of your ability to pay. People will find a way, as they should.

Guess who makes up the difference whether the system is private or public? Productive citizens! For hospitals to keep running they need to keep getting paid, and so the system will always be lopsided due to the necessity of all people receiving health care. The rich pay more, and the poor negotiate for less. There are valid arguments against public systems covering health care for the poor. Yours is not one of them.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 3:09:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 1:29:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:02:11 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:41:26 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:21:07 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

Even Obama made a Freudian slip likening it to the Galaxy Note 7. Hillary will just throw more money at it, I mean what's a few extra trillion among friends? But that is the typical government solution to most everything, since they can't bomb it. They don't and won't give up control and let someone who kwtf they are doing run it so the ship will continue to sink.

Trumps 'repeal and replace' is just as amorphous.

yeah he's a shock jock for those who remember that term, he would still use similar ideas or whatever parts that may actually work since all any of these programs are just bastardized versions of medicare and medicaid.

One of these days, when I have more than 5 minutes in response, I'll write out a pretty detailed that does make sense, preserves the technology infrastructure, reduces cost for employer/subscriber/payer/provider, and keeps docs-hospitals in the black (for private. It doesn't really address Medicare nor Medicaid as those bureaucracies will only change they insolvency which... they already are).

It won't work. For the same reason, to follow my analogy, that any pre-game soccer plan can't work (and I'd differentiate a strategy from a plan). What we need is the 10 thousand individual brains of the industry responding to real world needs, not a handful of pointy heads who never got a MacDonalds fired up for a day's work.
This space for rent.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 6:00:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 3:08:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/28/2016 2:56:12 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/27/2016 10:44:56 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/26/2016 12:02:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Everyone's heard the numbers by now. I'm not even going to post them.

One candidate wants to 'strengthen' it.
One candidate wants to 'repeal and replace'.

Both are clueless.

I've done the numbers, set rates, corrected DJJS formulas, created infrastructures for employers and business associates, tracked things for the DEA/FBI... in short it'll take about one sentence for a person to illustrate if they understand the industry or not.

So, with the ACA, leaving emotional support and partisanship support/objection to the wayside, OUTLINE a way to reduce cost, not bankrupt practitioners, not hamstring employers, and not further bankrupt the states and federal government.

And yes I was somewhat vague by not specifically naming anything except the title. I have 0 interest in wiki/google phd's who will parrot articles or cite stats out of context. In short I'm being vague to exclude the laymen. Be offended if you like. Instead of replying, to leave additional character space for your post, just indicate who you are replying to and add your own.

NOTE: saying 'I don't know' is actually the best response one could say.

We are on the way to single payer, there should be no doubt.

Yay death panels and rationing to follow!!! Oh well I'll still have private insurance so, sucks to be poor or government dependand I guess.
http://www.medicaldaily.com...
http://www.slate.com...

Yea, call me un-terrified.

Family make terrible medical decisions every day. Insurers make unnecessary profit based medical decisions every day.

Certainly CEO's and the like, their salaries I often question. But businesses need profits to expand to then have greater purchasing power etc, not sure where a balance would be, perhaps a cash systems with just catastrophic insurance, which really helps the hospitals not take such a huge loss. Then there's the lawsuits..... But ACA seems to be really tanking, not looking good especially with the huge amount of our tax dollars that has been wasted with it (websites specifically)
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 9:27:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 3:09:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/28/2016 11:13:22 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
ACA:
We are going to give millions of adults, who have never worked and who never intend to work, whose greatest ambition is to be declared incapacitated, free health insurance so the can create a medical paper trail, to help them get disability payments.
This won't cost anyone anything, and will actually make health insurance cheaper.

That is not the whole package, but is a key element that is not reported.

Let me be blunt about this. EVERYONE GETS MEDICAL CARE. It doesn't matter if you are a murderer, a felon, a broke joke, Bill Gates, or the Dalai Lama. In this country, if you get hurt, then you receive treatment, regardless of the system and regardless of your ability to pay. People will find a way, as they should.

Guess who makes up the difference whether the system is private or public? Productive citizens! For hospitals to keep running they need to keep getting paid, and so the system will always be lopsided due to the necessity of all people receiving health care. The rich pay more, and the poor negotiate for less. There are valid arguments against public systems covering health care for the poor. Yours is not one of them.

Well, you miss something.
Healthy people, who have no need for medical services, receive medical services, paid for by those who work.
If it is free, they will use it. Need is incidental.
They spend years, trying to developers a medical paper trail to get disability.
Sometimes it takes 15 or 20 years. I had them on my caseload.
If all else fails, they get it for aged, at 65.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 9:32:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 9:27:00 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/28/2016 3:09:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/28/2016 11:13:22 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
ACA:
We are going to give millions of adults, who have never worked and who never intend to work, whose greatest ambition is to be declared incapacitated, free health insurance so the can create a medical paper trail, to help them get disability payments.
This won't cost anyone anything, and will actually make health insurance cheaper.

That is not the whole package, but is a key element that is not reported.

Let me be blunt about this. EVERYONE GETS MEDICAL CARE. It doesn't matter if you are a murderer, a felon, a broke joke, Bill Gates, or the Dalai Lama. In this country, if you get hurt, then you receive treatment, regardless of the system and regardless of your ability to pay. People will find a way, as they should.

Guess who makes up the difference whether the system is private or public? Productive citizens! For hospitals to keep running they need to keep getting paid, and so the system will always be lopsided due to the necessity of all people receiving health care. The rich pay more, and the poor negotiate for less. There are valid arguments against public systems covering health care for the poor. Yours is not one of them.

Well, you miss something.
Healthy people, who have no need for medical services, receive medical services, paid for by those who work.
If it is free, they will use it. Need is incidental.
They spend years, trying to developers a medical paper trail to get disability.
Sometimes it takes 15 or 20 years. I had them on my caseload.
If all else fails, they get it for aged, at 65.

Actually this is something I've always wanted to delve into but never had the time. The cost benefit analysis of maintaining the poor through better preventative health measure covered by subsidized insurance, vs poor health measures leading to more severe health issues that can't be paid for.

Did I word that right?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 9:36:27 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 9:32:05 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/28/2016 9:27:00 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/28/2016 3:09:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/28/2016 11:13:22 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
ACA:
We are going to give millions of adults, who have never worked and who never intend to work, whose greatest ambition is to be declared incapacitated, free health insurance so the can create a medical paper trail, to help them get disability payments.
This won't cost anyone anything, and will actually make health insurance cheaper.

That is not the whole package, but is a key element that is not reported.

Let me be blunt about this. EVERYONE GETS MEDICAL CARE. It doesn't matter if you are a murderer, a felon, a broke joke, Bill Gates, or the Dalai Lama. In this country, if you get hurt, then you receive treatment, regardless of the system and regardless of your ability to pay. People will find a way, as they should.

Guess who makes up the difference whether the system is private or public? Productive citizens! For hospitals to keep running they need to keep getting paid, and so the system will always be lopsided due to the necessity of all people receiving health care. The rich pay more, and the poor negotiate for less. There are valid arguments against public systems covering health care for the poor. Yours is not one of them.

Well, you miss something.
Healthy people, who have no need for medical services, receive medical services, paid for by those who work.
If it is free, they will use it. Need is incidental.
They spend years, trying to developers a medical paper trail to get disability.
Sometimes it takes 15 or 20 years. I had them on my caseload.
If all else fails, they get it for aged, at 65.

Actually this is something I've always wanted to delve into but never had the time. The cost benefit analysis of maintaining the poor through better preventative health measure covered by subsidized insurance, vs poor health measures leading to more severe health issues that can't be paid for.

Did I word that right?

No, you meant to say healthy people who want other people to give them free stuff will pretend to be disabled.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 9:39:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
One poor soul suffered from depression, so the state bought him some pills to fix that.
Then the real problems started. The poor lad had erectile dysfunction resulting from the antiquity pills, still disabled. I read the medical report.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 11:07:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 9:39:56 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
One poor soul suffered from depression, so the state bought him some pills to fix that.
Then the real problems started. The poor lad had erectile dysfunction resulting from the antiquity pills, still disabled. I read the medical report.

I laughed my a$$ off when I read this. It sounds horrible though. Well okay then, how do you propose going about the low income, disabled, sexually challenged, depressed people of this great nation. Boy......Where do you draw the line, and how do you promote affordable care?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 11:25:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 11:07:55 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/28/2016 9:39:56 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
One poor soul suffered from depression, so the state bought him some pills to fix that.
Then the real problems started. The poor lad had erectile dysfunction resulting from the antiquity pills, still disabled. I read the medical report.

I laughed my a$$ off when I read this. It sounds horrible though. Well okay then, how do you propose going about the low income, disabled, sexually challenged, depressed people of this great nation. Boy......Where do you draw the line, and how do you promote affordable care?
Here is a minimal start.
Someone over the age of 27 who has lifetime earnings less than $2000 only gets help from the government with medical expenses in life or death situations.
That will close a few million Medicaid cards.

Change the age to 21, and the earnings to $1, and another few million.

The cost of my health insurance and copays continues to rise, while the cost of medical care for healthy adults who never worked, and never will work continues to rise. There is a relationship.

Adults need to be held responsible for their bad choices, like not working.
Like having children they cannot afford to feed or clothe.
Irresponsible parents get free stuff only because they have children, and refuse to work.

A few decades ago if a woman delivered a child, and she had not had prenatal care, the child automatically received disability, no review for one year. All women qualified for Medicaid if confirmed pregnant, in most if not all states.
Some of those women refused to get prenatal care so the child would receive disability payments.
One woman in our county had three children under these circumstances.
Through her efforts, those children continued to receive disability for mental deficiencies, into adulthood.
This happened frequently enough that the laws were changed, so this can no longer happen.

Please don't get lost in the details of this situation.
Think of it in terms of 'These are the types of things people who choose to be poor will do to get more free stuff.'
This is just an indicator.

Medical health care should be thought of as a limited resources, because it is.
People who make no effort to be self sufficient should not qualify for our sympathy, empathy, or money. Many people do not agree with that. I do not see how their position can be justified.

Taxpayers can barely afford to provide free health care for all children, regardless of parental citizenship, lack of any income, etc. Trying to give all adults the same health care will not work.

If someone assumes no one would choose to be poor, just so they can get free stuff, a huge pile of problems with a generous society just goes away.
Suddenly, all adults act responsibility. They all do the best they can to provide for themselves and their dependents, and just need a little extra help temporarily.
If this were the case, ACA might work.
You cannot force or coerce adults to act responsibly.
Let their family, churches, and civic organizations provide their needs, not strangers.

I do not know what you have read, but Medicaid (welfare) is an ingredient of ACA.