Random Politics & Religion #00

It was incredibly easy to get health insurance when I was younger.
Cheaper too..

If all insurance is government insurance, how could less doctors take it? How are less doctors already taking government insurance thanks to ACA? If it's costing taxpayers more money, how much? Is that including the ~$1200/year that every taxpayer pays to cover the uninsured while the expanded medicaid would have cost each taxpayer less than half that?

If these things are true, surely there is some data that supports it?

Sounds about right.

It isn't anymore.

When companies were providing benefits to employees almost universally? What changed since then besides ACA?

My premiums went up by half and I lost my plan that I had for years. Working out great for me but I'm glad the young unworking population has it good while I pay out the nose. What a deal.

Notice I didn't say "all" I said Government.
The only reason more people are insured now is because Medicaid enrollment has skyrocketed! Whats Medicaid? Government insurance! What are Doctors choosing not to take as payment anymore? Medicaid!

The Doctors that are taking Medicaid are severely backed up and understaffed! The Doctors that don't take Medicaid are making bank and playing Golf since they are raking in the Insurance money from people that are forced to buy overpriced insurance now thanks to the ACA.

How does this not register in your head? The proof is literally everywhere if you choose to get your head out of the sand.

Sorry, took me a few minutes to respond. I had to get up off the floor from laughing so hard.

Yeah, it's those damn unemployeds not the majority of Americans that don't have the ability to get the not large amount of jobs that allow you to have health insurance.

/facepalm

I am having trouble sorting through this. You're talking about single payer and immediately go into how doctors aren't taking government insurance, but then that wasn't about single payer and something about medicaid being overpriced because doctors play golf?

Seriously, I asked a few straight forward and earnest questions and you just spout off a bunch of incoherent insults.

I see why you are confused. I never said Medicaid was overpriced. Medicaid is actually "free" Government funded, I.E. Taxpayers.

Another little tidbit, Medicaid does not pay what traditional insurance pays. The reason Doctors are refusing to take it.

Why would they when they can take as many Traditional insurance holders as they need, since people are now forced to have one or the other.

The catch here is that if you make "too much" money the government will not give you Medicaid "free insurance" (taxpayer money) and force you to buy the traditional insurance. Then if you make just under "too much money" they will subsidize your plan "free money". (taxpayer money)

If you are making "too much" money for that then you are force to buy overpriced traditional insurance without being subsidized..

It is complicated as all hell, and meant to be that way so nobody knows how screwed they are.


LoL no you didn't, you once again tried to put words in my mouth. If you think having your head in the sand is an insult. I have a new term for you crybully..

No.. I didn't.. I would love to see that quote. Also, I've been on this forum for every election. And No, they didn't either..

ok theres a few reasons. You are superimposing a completely different practice of medicine and how medical care is delivered. Nurses are a lot cheaper than MDs for both the patient and insurance company. Unfortunately the US doesnt give RNs the same perscription authority as MDs like Sweden and other European countries.

Lastly cost driven market adjustments vary on population. Lets take Hep C since Sovuldi is one of the most modern and expensive medications out there at $84k for treatment. As the pharmaceutical company I can drive up the cost in a country like the US because Hep C is fairly prevelent still and its infection rate is somewhat high. If i go to Sweden the number of Hep C patients and infection rate is significantly lower so I would need to lower the cost to compete with my competitor medications.

Population also has to do with public health systems because think of playing roulette. The more roulette tables I play the more likely I am to hit a particular number right? Now rather than roulette tables imagine genomes mutating like H1N1, HIV, Hep C, Syphilis, Meningitis, etc. In a smaller population pool I have a smaller likely hood of hitting that magic number which produces resistance to a medication. In a bigger population pool I have a higher chance of hitting that magic number to produce resistance or a new strain. That means countries like the US need to produce vaccines for the flu and pneumonia more often versus a country like Sweden.

In the case of bacteria bigger population, which means more bacteria, also means higher exchange rate of genes aka conjugation, which means higher chance of giving your friend some new genetic material and developing resistance.

Hence bigger populations need to spend more on research, medicine, preventative care, health education, medical practioners because they have more complex health systems not just because they have more people.

Should be addressed either way, obviously.


We're one of the only modern nations that doesn't regulate the price of prescription drugs. Pharma are also notorious for taking government research grants to finance drug research then transferring ownership of the finished product to an oversea subsidiary while charging prices meant to recoup the development cost they didn't pay. Why should their bottom line be a barrier to healthcare for the taxpayers?


That has more to do with population density than gross population.


This is just hypothetical, since there are no analogues to each system in relative populations. The only thing you can say factually is that we do spend more, not that we need to. Line item cost comparisons to other countries put our spending per capita much higher than smaller and even more densely populated countries, not because it costs more deliver the medication or procedures here, but simply because there is no guarantee of payment or reasonable limit on profiteering.

I asked bacon a question, which you responded to, and I asked you to clarify what you were talking about, because it wasn't an answer to the question you quoted.

Not a single thing I asked you was intended to bully or instigate. I don't know if you're just begging for conflict or if you really don't think a question can just be a question, but stop with this stupid routine.

It was an answer, just not the answer you wanted.

I see, You just enjoy either purposely putting words in my mouth or are completely misinformed on how screwed up the ACA and our medical industry is.

Knowing you are most likely not misinformed, the former would be instigating.

Again, I have rarely ever seen you ask a legit question that wasn't a pretense.


The routine you started? Okay...

Like I said overhauling "how" we practice medicine will take decades. MDs don't make what they used to they're not giving up their prescription authority without a fight. Technical a vet is competent to prescribe you meds...food for thought.

Also both population and density are important. Density effects mainly how fast something spreads. Also I consider the US to be fairly dense compared to other nations.

Because we have higher cases of diseases more money is spent. More dollars are needed to deal with the complex nature of the US.

We used to have a caucus system here in "The Other Washington." It was fun. It was replaced by a primary system. I miss it.

Meh. #179 of 241.

Source

Kasich is passing a bill to de-fund planned parenthood in Ohio. there goes the last guy I half-assedly liked in the presidential race.

Now I might have to get serious about Trump2016.

he's going to make america great again.

O and let's have a proper send-off for Jeb-o.

We need another word, Hypocrisy isn't doing it anymore.

Oh look, more quote mining.


He then says if that doesn't happen then, yes, there would be no consideration of the hypothetical (there was no open position at that time) nominee. This is obviously the exact same thing as being against all nominees under any condition.

Yawn, boring, next

we (ohio) haven't cornered the market on crazy politicians...

but we sure do have a metric shitton

JohnK

I have found a Republican governor who would be worth voting for as president.

Unfortunately he isn't running.

Brian Sandoval, Nevada

So, you'd vote for a RINO that's more moderate-liberal than conservative. You're not exactly blowing anyone's mind here.