U.S. House passes healthcare bill in big win for Trump

[Superman]

remember when insurance deductibles were about half what they are now? back when you had to pay some of the cost, but not the vast majority?

ObamaCare, on the surface, is "giving" everyone a Ferrari.
except you don't have the money to put gas in it.

 

[deljzc]

I don't know if I agree with no government in anything. I agree with social security. I agree with medicare eligibility at over 65. I mean if you are so against nationalized health care (in some form of expanding what we already have), do you proposed getting rid of social security and medicare like pre-1935?

Do you really think it was better before 1935 that people had to plan and save and prepare for whatever hell could happen to you after you retire with no safety net at all?

That doesn't make any sense. Yes, that is completely "free enterprise" but I'm not sure we have a society that can really save and prepare for ANYTHING that can happen, no matter the cost, as you age. Why doesn't that standard apply to health care? My kid was born with a congenitive heart defect. We've spent thousands in health care costs. We still owe a lot. I have insurance through my small-business employer but I have never been told if my daughter is causing them cost increases because she is on the "plan". I pay $150/week for the family. I am covered for the first $6000.00/year flat, the next $6000.00/year I pay out of pocket. After that I am covered. For the most part, I'm not sure if I'm a "giver" into the health care system or a "taker". I spend upwards of $10,000.00-$12,000 a year in health care costs, but I know when my daughter goes to the Children's Hospital and gets put under for a MRI on her heart every 2-3 years that costs a lot of money. It's out-patient, but it's involved and a long day. I know when my daughter was born and had open heart surgery I immediately became a "taker". I had worked for 20 years of my life, always paying more to health care than I took. Before my daughter was born (with another company) I was paying $175/week for family health care and rarely used a dime. My first child cost me $2500 on top of insurance.

But when my second kid came, the cost of her open-heart surgery cost over $150,000.00 (maybe more, it's hard to know exactly what insurance paid total). She had a catheter procedure that probably cost $30,000.00 at age 2. I'm rounding as best I can.

I have to think at that point (through no fault of my own) I probably became a "taker" of the system.

From what I can deduce, over my 25 years of employment, I have paid $100,000 in weekly insurance costs (I only had a family for about 10 years of that). I have paid probably $25,000 directly or out-of-pocket.

If it wasn't for my daughter I would think I would be a huge "contributor" to the system but she changed things. Not my fault, just the way it is.

I just don't know what people expect out of healthcare. You can't always be a "giver/taker" exactly the right amount. It doesn't work that way. You can't say "I've never needed it and probably won't, so I don't want to pay a lot". You can't force people that likely have potentially lots of health care cost to just bare the burden completely either. That seems grossly unfair to people that have children with illnesses or cancer patients or accident victims.

 

[ark steel]

I don't know if I agree with no government in anything. I agree with social security. I agree with medicare eligibility at over 65. I mean if you are so against nationalized health care (in some form of expanding what we already have), do you proposed getting rid of social security and medicare like pre-1935?

Do you really think it was better before 1935 that people had to plan and save and prepare for whatever hell could happen to you after you retire with no safety net at all?

That doesn't make any sense. Yes, that is completely "free enterprise" but I'm not sure we have a society that can really save and prepare for ANYTHING that can happen, no matter the cost, as you age. Why doesn't that standard apply to health care? My kid was born with a congenitive heart defect. We've spent thousands in health care costs. We still owe a lot. I have insurance through my small-business employer but I have never been told if my daughter is causing them cost increases because she is on the "plan". I pay $150/week for the family. I am covered for the first $6000.00/year flat, the next $6000.00/year I pay out of pocket. After that I am covered. For the most part, I'm not sure if I'm a "giver" into the health care system or a "taker". I spend upwards of $10,000.00-$12,000 a year in health care costs, but I know when my daughter goes to the Children's Hospital and gets put under for a MRI on her heart every 2-3 years that costs a lot of money. It's out-patient, but it's involved and a long day. I know when my daughter was born and had open heart surgery I immediately became a "taker". I had worked for 20 years of my life, always paying more to health care than I took. Before my daughter was born (with another company) I was paying $175/week for family health care and rarely used a dime. My first child cost me $2500 on top of insurance.

But when my second kid came, the cost of her open-heart surgery cost over $150,000.00 (maybe more, it's hard to know exactly what insurance paid total). She had a catheter procedure that probably cost $30,000.00 at age 2. I'm rounding as best I can.

I have to think at that point (through no fault of my own) I probably became a "taker" of the system.

From what I can deduce, over my 25 years of employment, I have paid $100,000 in weekly insurance costs (I only had a family for about 10 years of that). I have paid probably $25,000 directly or out-of-pocket.

If it wasn't for my daughter I would think I would be a huge "contributor" to the system but she changed things. Not my fault, just the way it is.

I just don't know what people expect out of healthcare. You can't always be a "giver/taker" exactly the right amount. It doesn't work that way. You can't say "I've never needed it and probably won't, so I don't want to pay a lot". You can't force people that likely have potentially lots of health care cost to just bare the burden completely either. That seems grossly unfair to people that have children with illnesses or cancer patients or accident victims.

If you bought your own insurance you are not a "taker" of anything. Insurance is supposed to be a purchase to protect you from RANDOM events. If you have a pre-existing condition, the events cease to be random, which I why the policy amounts skyrocket. If I cant charge the pre-existing person for the higher premium where does the money come from? it is OPM.

If people would stand up and admit they are stealing from others to provide medical care for people, at least they would be honest. This BS free insurance is just that, BS. It does not bring down costs, just steals from others to cover it.

And, again, if I am paying for your healthcare, should you be able to do things some government agency thinks is unhealthy? If so, why should I pay for those consequences?

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I don't know if I agree with no government in anything. I agree with social security. I agree with medicare eligibility at over 65. I mean if you are so against nationalized health care (in some form of expanding what we already have), do you proposed getting rid of social security and medicare like pre-1935?

Do you really think it was better before 1935 that people had to plan and save and prepare for whatever hell could happen to you after you retire with no safety net at all?

That doesn't make any sense. Yes, that is completely "free enterprise" but I'm not sure we have a society that can really save and prepare for ANYTHING that can happen, no matter the cost, as you age. Why doesn't that standard apply to health care? My kid was born with a congenitive heart defect. We've spent thousands in health care costs. We still owe a lot. I have insurance through my small-business employer but I have never been told if my daughter is causing them cost increases because she is on the "plan". I pay $150/week for the family. I am covered for the first $6000.00/year flat, the next $6000.00/year I pay out of pocket. After that I am covered. For the most part, I'm not sure if I'm a "giver" into the health care system or a "taker". I spend upwards of $10,000.00-$12,000 a year in health care costs, but I know when my daughter goes to the Children's Hospital and gets put under for a MRI on her heart every 2-3 years that costs a lot of money. It's out-patient, but it's involved and a long day. I know when my daughter was born and had open heart surgery I immediately became a "taker". I had worked for 20 years of my life, always paying more to health care than I took. Before my daughter was born (with another company) I was paying $175/week for family health care and rarely used a dime. My first child cost me $2500 on top of insurance.

But when my second kid came, the cost of her open-heart surgery cost over $150,000.00 (maybe more, it's hard to know exactly what insurance paid total). She had a catheter procedure that probably cost $30,000.00 at age 2. I'm rounding as best I can.

I have to think at that point (through no fault of my own) I probably became a "taker" of the system.

From what I can deduce, over my 25 years of employment, I have paid $100,000 in weekly insurance costs (I only had a family for about 10 years of that). I have paid probably $25,000 directly or out-of-pocket.

If it wasn't for my daughter I would think I would be a huge "contributor" to the system but she changed things. Not my fault, just the way it is.

I just don't know what people expect out of healthcare. You can't always be a "giver/taker" exactly the right amount. It doesn't work that way. You can't say "I've never needed it and probably won't, so I don't want to pay a lot". You can't force people that likely have potentially lots of health care cost to just bare the burden completely either. That seems grossly unfair to people that have children with illnesses or cancer patients or accident victims.

Not sure what your argument is other than if one is against nationalizing healthcare then they must also be against social security and medicare, which is not really worth addressing. You go on to explain how your private insurance experience was in order to argue against some imaginary position that everyone has to be a "giver/taker" in exactly the right amount, as if we don't all understand how insurance works.

 

[BAS]

I don't know if I agree with no government in anything. I agree with social security. I agree with medicare eligibility at over 65. I mean if you are so against nationalized health care (in some form of expanding what we already have), do you proposed getting rid of social security and medicare like pre-1935?

Do you really think it was better before 1935 that people had to plan and save and prepare for whatever hell could happen to you after you retire with no safety net at all?

That doesn't make any sense. Yes, that is completely "free enterprise" but I'm not sure we have a society that can really save and prepare for ANYTHING that can happen, no matter the cost, as you age. Why doesn't that standard apply to health care? My kid was born with a congenitive heart defect. We've spent thousands in health care costs. We still owe a lot. I have insurance through my small-business employer but I have never been told if my daughter is causing them cost increases because she is on the "plan". I pay $150/week for the family. I am covered for the first $6000.00/year flat, the next $6000.00/year I pay out of pocket. After that I am covered. For the most part, I'm not sure if I'm a "giver" into the health care system or a "taker". I spend upwards of $10,000.00-$12,000 a year in health care costs, but I know when my daughter goes to the Children's Hospital and gets put under for a MRI on her heart every 2-3 years that costs a lot of money. It's out-patient, but it's involved and a long day. I know when my daughter was born and had open heart surgery I immediately became a "taker". I had worked for 20 years of my life, always paying more to health care than I took. Before my daughter was born (with another company) I was paying $175/week for family health care and rarely used a dime. My first child cost me $2500 on top of insurance.

But when my second kid came, the cost of her open-heart surgery cost over $150,000.00 (maybe more, it's hard to know exactly what insurance paid total). She had a catheter procedure that probably cost $30,000.00 at age 2. I'm rounding as best I can.

I have to think at that point (through no fault of my own) I probably became a "taker" of the system.

From what I can deduce, over my 25 years of employment, I have paid $100,000 in weekly insurance costs (I only had a family for about 10 years of that). I have paid probably $25,000 directly or out-of-pocket.

If it wasn't for my daughter I would think I would be a huge "contributor" to the system but she changed things. Not my fault, just the way it is.

I just don't know what people expect out of healthcare. You can't always be a "giver/taker" exactly the right amount. It doesn't work that way. You can't say "I've never needed it and probably won't, so I don't want to pay a lot". You can't force people that likely have potentially lots of health care cost to just bare the burden completely either. That seems grossly unfair to people that have children with illnesses or cancer patients or accident victims.

I think more concerning for you is what will your daughter do for insurance once she's on her own as an adult. Unless she finds a job where the employer covers the insurance, she's going to be over-burdened by the costs of personal insurance coverage.

 

[fedderone]

I am convinced that there is no solution.... the government cant do it.... the free market can't do it.... nobody will ever figure out a way to make sure the average American citizen can afford to get sick without doing something about what doctors and hospitals charge for the services they provide. A five hour heart surgery can't cost $40 grand. A hospital bed can't cost thousands of dollars a day. A round of chemotherapy can't cost tens of thousands of dollars. The only way an insurance company can cover someone is to charge a fuckton of money for it. The costs are so beyond what a regular person can afford, there just isn't a feasible way to solve this problem unless costs come down.

Yes, but do you know WHY those charges are so retarded?
Do you know the major reason behind one aspirin at the hospital costing you $20.00?
It's not as simple as you thinking it's greed by the hospital and/or doctors.
I agree it should NOT be that much, but the fault does not lay squarely at the feet of the medical providers.

 

[oneforthebus]

The point of premium increases for pre-existing conditions is to incentivize people to maintain coverage while they are still healthy. It's not to punish people for getting sick.

Say you could buy homeowners insurance the day after your house burned down. Why would anyone maintain homeowners insurance prior to something happening? No stupid little fine that they don't even really enforce is going to incentivize you to spend thousands every year on insurance that you may never need. You buy it because of what MIGHT happen. You don't get to buy it after the fact.

 

[Troglodyte]

If anybody thinks that moving the insurance function to the government is the answer, they are just idiots.

Perhaps, but why is Medicare so popular?

 

[Troglodyte]

Does anyone know why 4 of the Republicans who voted Nay were from PA?

 

[IndySteel]

Does anyone know why 4 of the Republicans who voted Nay were from PA?

Yes, they are retarded.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Does anyone know why 4 of the Republicans who voted Nay were from PA?

Because a lot of elected Republicans in PA, especially in the east, are effectively Democrats. That's why we can't buy beer and wine in grocery stores.

 

[Steeltime]

As to pre-existing conditions - all insurance plans have had "waiting periods" for pre-existing conditions to avoid forcing insurers to pay a ton of money for care of an individual who waited for a serious condition to arise before buying health insurance. To protect the patient, the waiting period can be limited to 30 days.

Therefore, the apocryphal examples of a person getting diagnosed with cancer and only then signing up for insurance will be reduced. The insureds will have to pay for the cost of caring for the pre-existing condition for the first 30 days. After that, the insurance kicks in to cover the pre-existing condition.

By the way, that is pretty much what medical insurance policies already do, except that the waiting period is longer, up to 1 year. Just limit the waiting period and I think the problem can be solved.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Obamacare is a lie. People are freaking out over pre-existing conditions because they don't understand what it means or how insurance works. Obamacare effectively had the same pre-existing penalties. They just hid it in plain sight by making it mandatory that everybody have insurance.

Pre-existing simply means that you did not have insurance, then you got sick, and then you bought insurance and want them to retroactively pay for that illness. That's all. It's completely fair and logical. If you already have insurance the the whole concept of pre-existing does not apply to you or your dependents at all.

Insurance works by a company selling policies to a large group of people. The point is to protect against a major calamity. Something that an individual would otherwise never be able to pay for. Something like your house burning down. How many people would be able to just pay for a new house after their old one burned, while still being on the hook the pay the mortgage on the old one? Not many. That's why you need insurance.

How does an insurance company pay for things? they have millions of people who buy that same home insurance and a large portion of them may never file a claim ever, or if they do it may be for something relatively minor. So the insurance company collects premiums from them and ends up with a surplus pool from which they are able to pay for the occasional burned down house and still make a profit.

What happens if you are allowed to buy hime insurance after your house burns? That surplus pool dries up fast. Why? Because why would anybody pay for insurance before something bad happened if they could just buy it after?

This means for the now relatively few who pay for insurance, their rates have to skyrocket. Because the insurance needs to keep that pool filled.

This is why Obamacare made it mandatory that everybody pay for insurance. They understand that the pool needs to be filled and now because they are guaranteeing coverage to even those who don't pay, the price goes up for those who do. Not to mention, they mandated that all policies must cover everything. So that essentially means that if you drive a clunker, you can't just buy a minimum policy, you have to have collision and everything just like the guy with the Porsche.

Here's what it breaks down to. Somebody has to pay for uninsured people when they have their bills paid. With pre-existing, it means those people essentially must pay for themselves. And if they can't they would have to go through some sort of bankruptcy or welfare or whatever. So they wouldn't even really end up paying themselves anyway in many cases.

The alternative is that you pass along the cost to all the other who do pay for insurance.

which is more fair?

 

[Superman]

Say what? Trump praises Australia’s universal health care
By Mike Murphy, Editor
Published: May 4, 2017 11:38 p.m. ET

Hours after celebrating the House vote to repeal and replace Obamacare, President Donald Trump praised Australia’s universal health-care system as superior to America’s.

“It’s going to be fantastic health care,” Trump said of the American Health Care Act during a press conference in New York on Thursday night with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. “I shouldn’t say this to our great gentleman and my friend from Australia because you have better health care than we do.”

Australia has universal health care, where the government pays for all citizens to have access to doctors and public hospitals for free.

Sen. Bernie Sanders immediately pounced. “Thank you Mr. Trump for admitting that universal health care is the better way to go,” Sanders tweeted late Thursday. “I’ll be sure to quote you on the floor of the Senate.”

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/say-what-trump-praises-australias-universal-health-care-2017-05-04

 

[Troglodyte]

Because a lot of elected Republicans in PA, especially in the east, are effectively Democrats. That's why we can't buy beer and wine in grocery stores.

You need to get out more. You can buy beer and wine at the grocery store in PA now. Not that I do, it's cheaper at the distributor.

 

[Superman]

Because a lot of elected Republicans in PA, especially in the east, are effectively Democrats. That's why we can't buy beer and wine in grocery stores.

soon, in Florida, the land of sunshine and prosperity, you can purchase liquor in the grocery store.

 

[21STEELERS21]

We are headed toward Universal Healthcare like Australia, the house vote just indicates we want to make our
healthcare system into a complete mess before we do. Healthcare is really a national security issue. If you don't
have a healthy workforce you can't compete in the world economy of today and you also end up with too many
sick people dependent on the government and siphoning off resources. Every other developed country has figured this
out already.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

We are headed toward Universal Healthcare like Australia, the house vote just indicates we want to make our
healthcare system into a complete mess before we do. Healthcare is really a national security issue. If you don't
have a healthy workforce you can't compete in the world economy of today and you also end up with too many
sick people dependent on the government and siphoning off resources. Every other developed country has figured this
out already.

Except that:
1. Our health insurance system (not healthcare is already a mess.
2. We spend trillions of taxpayer dollars being the world's policeman, which other nations do not do. If Australia and western Europe spent as much of their GDP on defense as we do they wouldn't have had "free" medical all these years either.

 

[ark steel]

Yes, but do you know WHY those charges are so retarded?
Do you know the major reason behind one aspirin at the hospital costing you $20.00?
It's not as simple as you thinking it's greed by the hospital and/or doctors.
I agree it should NOT be that much, but the fault does not lay squarely at the feet of the medical providers.

Agree. I don't know why people can't see why a night in the hospital costs so much.

A hotel room in downtown NY or Chicago can cost #300+/day and a hospital bed "can't" cost $1k/day? For round the clock healthcare and a practical guarantee of your health when you are desperately ill? Sounds like a ******* bargain.

 

[Superman]

I can fluff my own damn pillow

 

[Ron Burgundy]

soon, in Florida, the land of sunshine and prosperity, you can purchase liquor in the grocery store.

Any funeral homes in Temple Terrace you can put a word in for me?

 

[21STEELERS21]

Medicare is noted for being the lowest admin cost medical system in the world. All you need to do is apply it to everyone.
If government can't run anything, how did they get Medicare right?.

Ron makes an excellent point. Our taxpayers fund the largest military to protect the health of the citizens of many other countries,
while many of our own citizens can't see a doctor. How stupid is that? Our healthcare system is costing us more lives, than the
military ends up protecting.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Medicare is noted for being the lowest admin cost medical system in the world. All you need to do is apply it to everyone.
If government can't run anything, how did they get Medicare right?.

They didn't. That's bullshit. Here are the numbers for the fraud factory Medicare.

In fact, President Obama has made this claim several times. This statistic about Medicare's low administrative costs has become one of the linchpins in the argument for a "public option" on health care. The only problem, not surprisingly, is that it's hogwash.

The explanation is really quite simple, and it's provided here by Robert Book of the Heritage Foundation. The statistic cited by Alter and Krugman uses administrative costs calculated as a percentage of total health care costs (For Medicare it's roughly 3 percent and for private insurers it's roughly 12 percent).

But here's the catch: because Medicare is devoted to serving a population that is elderly, and therefore in need of greater levels of medical care, it generates significantly higher expenditures than private insurance plans, thus making administrative costs smaller as a percentage of total costs. This creates the appearance that Medicare is a model of administrative efficiency. What Jon Alter sees as a "miracle" is really just a statistical sleight of hand.

Furthermore, Book notes that private insurers have a number of additional expenditures which fall into the category of "administrative costs" (like state health insurance premium taxes of 2-4%, marketing costs, etc) that Medicare does not have, further inflating the apparent differences in cost.

But, as you might expect, when you compare administrative costs on a per-person basis, Medicare is dramatically less efficient than private insurance plans. As you can see here, between 2001-2005, Medicare's administrative costs on a per-person basis were 24.8% higher, on average, than private insurers.

So, contrary to claims of Alter, Krugman, and President Obama, moving tens of millions of Americans into a government run health care option won't generate any costs savings through lower administrative costs. Just the opposite.

This confirms two things most Americans already know: 1) government is rarely, if ever, more efficient than the private sector, and 2) if something sounds too good to be true, it almost always is.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ve_cost_benefit_myth_97193.html#ixzz4gEj0PgIl
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

 

[Superman]

Any funeral homes in Temple Terrace you can put a word in for me?

if you can help me get rid of an ogre, sure.

 

[oicu8ad]

I am convinced that there is no solution.... the government cant do it.... the free market can't do it.... nobody will ever figure out a way to make sure the average American citizen can afford to get sick without doing something about what doctors and hospitals charge for the services they provide. A five hour heart surgery can't cost $40 grand. A hospital bed can't cost thousands of dollars a day. A round of chemotherapy can't cost tens of thousands of dollars. The only way an insurance company can cover someone is to charge a fuckton of money for it. The costs are so beyond what a regular person can afford, there just isn't a feasible way to solve this problem unless costs come down.

And THAT is the biggest part of the problem. Over billing from doctors and hospitals. And price X for this person with this insurance, but Y price for another person with a different insurance, and Z price for someone with no insurance.

There should be a SET PRICE for all procedures and that set price should be published like a MENU. Everyone pays the same price and the price is known before the procedure.

My ACL is torn and I tried to get a price from several hospitals years back and they were dumbstruck. I actually had one lady tell me: "....well, we won't know the price until after we do it". Many places would not call me back after I asked for a price. I never had it fixed and it really never bothers me (unless I jump off a ladder, cut too quickly, etc.) then it hurts like a *****.

Anyway, ACL surgery should have a ******* set price, and doctors should compete to get my business. Why is healthcare any different?