BringBackOrton Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 18 hours ago, PearlHowardman said: Thinking Outside The Box: Give Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners the authority to set broken bones, etc. Maybe even prescribe Rx for simple illnesses. I wouldn't be surprised if most ER visits can be handled by PAs and NPs. I have no doubt that this would save a lot of money. 18 hours ago, PearlHowardman said: PAs and NPs treating patients with non-critical medical conditions and even prescribing Rx for non-critical medical conditions should be looked into. If you want cheap care you get what you pay for.
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 13 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: I'm not familiar with States' constitutional rights for health insurance. Article X. 14 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Apparently that doesn't apply to many other forms of insurance. No, it does. You think your homeowner's insurance isn't state-regulated? Or liability insurance? Professional E&O insurance? Auto? You just don't notice, because there's no "Everybody needs it, so it has to be a national program!" argument. 15 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: If the automakers can build California emissions cars and 49 state cars, then insurers can offer different coverage options. !@#$ing what???? Automakers, in that case, make one car to CA's standards, since it'll meet all the other states' standards. Same with textbooks, table saws, speakers... If you want to make a regulatory standard national, get it passed in California. 25 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: IMO there is simply too much regulation and restriction on coverage and due to this each state becomes a protected market for few providers. We've seen it here with the large carriers buying the smaller ones who offered better rates, and the end of catastrophic plans (which were once offered) with new coverage mandates. Which is one of the things the ACA was intended to accomplish: consolidation of the industry, but within state boundaries. Why do you think the rollout was on a state-by-state basis? Why can states opt out of the Medicaid expansion? Hell, even before the ACA, Medicaid was a state-run program. 1
row_33 Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 i hate when my cat thinks outside the box oh gee, i'm sure something someone on PPP thought up hasn't been proposed about 1,500 times during discussions on health care before, no make that 1,500,000 times
Kevbeau Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 31 minutes ago, DC Tom said: !@#$ing what???? Automakers, in that case, make one car to CA's standards, since it'll meet all the other states' standards. Same with textbooks, table saws, speakers... If you want to make a regulatory standard national, get it passed in California. Can verify. All our packaging/manufacturing standards are geared to meet California requirements. The only "exception" to that rule might be Harbor Freight. They "claim" to sell differing models.
3rdnlng Posted July 30, 2018 Author Posted July 30, 2018 33 minutes ago, DC Tom said: !@#$ing what???? Automakers, in that case, make one car to CA's standards, since it'll meet all the other states' standards. Same with textbooks, table saws, speakers... If you want to make a regulatory standard national, get it passed in California. When did this change? There used to be different emission standards between CA and the rest of the country. The CA cars cost more.
keepthefaith Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 52 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Article X. No, it does. You think your homeowner's insurance isn't state-regulated? Or liability insurance? Professional E&O insurance? Auto? You just don't notice, because there's no "Everybody needs it, so it has to be a national program!" argument. !@#$ing what???? Automakers, in that case, make one car to CA's standards, since it'll meet all the other states' standards. Same with textbooks, table saws, speakers... If you want to make a regulatory standard national, get it passed in California. Which is one of the things the ACA was intended to accomplish: consolidation of the industry, but within state boundaries. Why do you think the rollout was on a state-by-state basis? Why can states opt out of the Medicaid expansion? Hell, even before the ACA, Medicaid was a state-run program. In no particular order... Automakers built cars for decades with separate emissions equipment for 49 state and California because for a long time it was cheaper to build 49 state compliant cars and California was the outlier standards-wise and the cost of the cars sold in CA was higher. Yes, insurance is regulated state by state. I can buy business insurance and other insurance from companies not headquartered in my state. Not true for health insurance. This is why you have Blue Cross of every state but not State Farm Insurance of every state. This and mandated minimum coverage levels make the barrier to entry for new competitors very high. There is less competition due to this much to the liking of the health insurance companies. The ACA mandates coverage levels beyond what a lot of people would like to purchase, me included. With other types of insurance we have more coverage level options and exclusions.
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Just now, keepthefaith said: Yes, insurance is regulated state by state. I can buy business insurance and other insurance from companies not headquartered in my state. Not true for health insurance. This is why you have Blue Cross of every state but not State Farm Insurance of every state. Entirely incorrect. While Blue Cross might be in every state, the insurance offerings are not the same, because they have to meet state regulations. Blue Cross is headquartered in Chicago and has many multi-state affiliates - if you want to get nitpicky, they technically do sell across state lines, in that regard - but they have to package and market different types of plans in each state, and those plans are only portable across state lines to the degree that they meet different states' regulatory requirements. 1
Foxx Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, njbuff said: People are still talking about this “low IQ” broad? no, they have gone off on a tangent regarding insurance. oh and she is referred to as, 'Crazy Eyes', now
Nanker Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 On 7/29/2018 at 12:19 PM, Dr.Sack said: Japan has 127 million, Germany 83 million, France 67 million, the UK 66 million, South Korea 51 million. It would work here very much the same way Medicare works now, except the idea is to expand it to cover everyone while also providing vision, dental, long-term care while also eliminating the Part D prescription drug donut hole. You can consolidate Medicaid, while keeping the VA system separate. It would lower costs $17 Trillion over a decade compared to our current system. And there wouldn’t be 30 million people without coverage. That $17 Trillion in economic savings would be very deflationary to our economy so it would be necessary to spend that money elsewhere like; regime change wars, more Wall Street bailouts & imprisoning 25% of the world’s prisoners despite only having 5% of the world’s population. In reality we can spend much of those savings back into the commons; infrastructure, sustainable energy, transportation, schools, hospitals, airports, high speed rail. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/study-medicare-bill-estimated-326-trillion-56906940 "The Mercatus study takes issue with a key cost-saving feature of the plan — that hospitals and doctors will accept payment based on lower Medicare rates for all their patients. The study found that the plan would reap substantial savings from lower prescription costs — $846 billion over 10 years — since the government would deal directly with drugmakers. Savings from streamlined administration would be even greater, nearly $1.6 trillion. But other provisions would tend to drive up spending, including coverage for nearly 30 million uninsured people, no deductibles and copays, and improved benefits, including dental, vision and hearing. After taking into account current government health care financing, the study estimated that doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not fully cover the additional costs.
keepthefaith Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 41 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Entirely incorrect. While Blue Cross might be in every state, the insurance offerings are not the same, because they have to meet state regulations. Blue Cross is headquartered in Chicago and has many multi-state affiliates - if you want to get nitpicky, they technically do sell across state lines, in that regard - but they have to package and market different types of plans in each state, and those plans are only portable across state lines to the degree that they meet different states' regulatory requirements. You're splitting hairs and missing the point which is that 50 sets of state regulations overlayed by additional fed regulations (and health insurance is more heavily regulated than most other forms of insurance) reduces competition and adds to the cost of coverage. Each of these "affiliates" has its own executive staff and any number of duplicate functions from one state to another. It's costly and all the red tape makes it harder or nearly impossible for competitors to enter markets with different/alternative insurance products. I'm able to buy auto insurance or business or life insurance pretty closely tailored to my needs. Can't do it with health insurance. I'm forced to buy coverages I don't want as are our employees. Now with state restrictions in place if we got the federal government out of the way, we might see some states adopt easier rules that could make greater insurance options available.
Koko78 Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Nanker said: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/study-medicare-bill-estimated-326-trillion-56906940 "The Mercatus study takes issue with a key cost-saving feature of the plan — that hospitals and doctors will accept payment based on lower Medicare rates for all their patients. The study found that the plan would reap substantial savings from lower prescription costs — $846 billion over 10 years — since the government would deal directly with drugmakers. Savings from streamlined administration would be even greater, nearly $1.6 trillion. But other provisions would tend to drive up spending, including coverage for nearly 30 million uninsured people, no deductibles and copays, and improved benefits, including dental, vision and hearing. After taking into account current government health care financing, the study estimated that doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not fully cover the additional costs. Didn't California drop its efforts at universal coverage after figuring out that covering everyone would cost something like double the state's entire current budget?
row_33 Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 1 hour ago, keepthefaith said: You're splitting hairs and missing the point which is that 50 sets of state regulations overlayed by additional fed regulations (and health insurance is more heavily regulated than most other forms of insurance) reduces competition and adds to the cost of coverage. Each of these "affiliates" has its own executive staff and any number of duplicate functions from one state to another. It's costly and all the red tape makes it harder or nearly impossible for competitors to enter markets with different/alternative insurance products. I'm able to buy auto insurance or business or life insurance pretty closely tailored to my needs. Can't do it with health insurance. I'm forced to buy coverages I don't want as are our employees. Now with state restrictions in place if we got the federal government out of the way, we might see some states adopt easier rules that could make greater insurance options available. well done nobody has ever thought of the problems of interstate commerce before it doesn't seem very efficient, does it? we should make it go away, BAM!!!, like that...
PearlHowardman Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2018/07/study_medicare_for_all_projected_to_cost_326_trillion.html Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, requiring historic tax hikes, says a study released Monday by a university-based libertarian policy center. That's trillion with a "T." The latest plan from the Vermont independent would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, according to the analysis by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. Doubling federal individual and corporate income tax receipts would not cover the full cost, the study said.
Foxx Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Didn't California drop its efforts at universal coverage after figuring out that covering everyone would cost something like double the state's entire current budget? lol. they don't have enough revenue to cover their existing state budget. maybe that is why they are considering breaking off into 5 separate states. don't worry O, we'll get to 57 at some point... Edited July 30, 2018 by Foxx
Nanker Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Koko78 said: Didn't California drop its efforts at universal coverage after figuring out that covering everyone would cost something like double the state's entire current budget? Yes. Yes they did. The annual price tag for single payer health care in the Golden State would be a whopping $400 billion. The total amount of money allocated for the California state budget for the coming fiscal year is $179.5 billion But what's a few billion really, especially when it's other people's money. There's no end to the good that can be done with other people's money. Just ask a "Progressive".
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 2 hours ago, keepthefaith said: You're splitting hairs and missing the point which is that 50 sets of state regulations overlayed by additional fed regulations (and health insurance is more heavily regulated than most other forms of insurance) reduces competition and adds to the cost of coverage. Each of these "affiliates" has its own executive staff and any number of duplicate functions from one state to another. It's costly and all the red tape makes it harder or nearly impossible for competitors to enter markets with different/alternative insurance products. I'm able to buy auto insurance or business or life insurance pretty closely tailored to my needs. Can't do it with health insurance. I'm forced to buy coverages I don't want as are our employees. Now with state restrictions in place if we got the federal government out of the way, we might see some states adopt easier rules that could make greater insurance options available. I'm not splitting hairs. States regulate insurance. That's not hair-splitting, that's an important point. And while you may be able to tailor other insurance types to your needs, you can't do it outside state regulatory requirements, and you can't buy an out-of-state insurance plan. You can't live in Florida and buy a homeowner's policy in MD, because the MD policy won't meet Florida regulations. When you buy insurance, no matter what you buy, you are buying a policy that is in some way tailored for your state. No matter the insurance. Feel free to go to Nationwide and check how the auto insurance policies differ from state to state. Then consider how they handle the different requirements for claims processing and complaints from different states. Or peruse how the different states regulate life insurance policies and claims. And furthermore, how do you get around the simple fact, when "selling health insurance across state lines," that health insurance is heavily tied to networked providers these days? How marketable is that cheap North Dakota plan in Georgia, when all the providers are in friggin' North Dakota? That's the same problem the "single payer" idiots never consider: health care is delivered locally, and health insurance is structured to reflect that.
reddogblitz Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 On 7/28/2018 at 6:47 PM, Deranged Rhino said: No one is worried about her. People are laughing at her and that she's being pushed as the new face of the party. She was a good story at first, but is now suffering from over exposure. Sort of like Nasty Nate in the Chargers game. At least Coach McDermott had sense to put a stop to it at half time. 1
Recommended Posts