Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 125 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-21-2017 9:12 AM
446 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 799,028 Year: 3,634/21,208 Month: 2,029/1,605 Week: 229/376 Day: 19/113 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Author Topic:   Republican Healthcare Plan
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 151 of 165 (798965)
02-06-2017 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by RAZD
02-06-2017 4:27 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
RAZD writes:

both parties are in the healthcare (hospitals, big pharm, insurance, etc) pockets so it doesn't matter what the people want.

The other problem is that our healthcare system is a trillion dollar system, so changing its course will be like a tug boat against a flotilla of container ships. You can't do it all in one go, but constant change over time will get it moving in the wrong direction.

In 2009 the Blue Dog Democrats from conservative states were the downfall of the public option. Support for the public option in liberal states was overwhelming. As they say, all politics are local.

The poll you posted is also a bit misleading.

"Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?"

That question does not specifically point to the type of federally funded single payer system we are talking about. Some people being polled could take that question to mean that it's the responsibility of the government to make sure everyone has access to private insurance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2017 4:27 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2017 7:53 AM Taq has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18134
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 152 of 165 (799068)
02-07-2017 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Taq
02-06-2017 5:59 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
... Support for the public option in liberal states was overwhelming. As they say, all politics are local.

The poll you posted is also a bit misleading.

Agreed, I couldn't find the poll I had read recently (2016 during primaries)

There may be good news for liberal states, especially if they declare themselves sanctuary states (see California) as that would enable them to set up state universal healthcare.

Personally I would like to see a coalition of liberal states going this route. Vermont started it, and several liberal states have pledged to fill the gaps in healthcare created by the GOP. Massachusetts already has Romneycare.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Taq, posted 02-06-2017 5:59 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Taq, posted 02-07-2017 10:58 AM RAZD has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 153 of 165 (799096)
02-07-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by RAZD
02-07-2017 7:53 AM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
RAZD writes:

Personally I would like to see a coalition of liberal states going this route. Vermont started it, and several liberal states have pledged to fill the gaps in healthcare created by the GOP. Massachusetts already has Romneycare.

It isn't the perfect solution, but no solution is. With that in mind, there are some obvious flaws in that system. First, it will be hard for small states to negotiate prices down, especially when it comes to drugs. If smaller states can band together with larger states then they will have more bargaining power. Second, what happens when you get sick outside of your state of residence? That sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare. Third, what happens to people in stridently conservative states (like the one I live in) who refuse to create these healthcare systems?

The real problem is cost, not how to pay for private insurance. We could still have a system with multiple private insurers and federally controlled healthcare prices. We do the very same thing with utilities, where states control how much companies can charge for things like electricity.

As I said before, no plan is perfect, and a state by state mish mash of systems would be better than no plan at all. We will have to see what the Republicans come up with. I am guessing it will be almost indistinguishable from the ACA, but we will see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2017 7:53 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2017 8:02 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 154 of 165 (799134)
02-07-2017 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by JonF
02-06-2017 12:20 PM


The ACA in 2009/2010 and JonF
quote:

Again I notice your reply has no connection with the points I made.
Are you in favor of back billing?

Given that the Republicans will not initiate or raise any taxes, do you think they will produce a plan under which nobody loses meaningful insurance? (I'm not including meaningless plans that guarantee bankruptcy if you get any moderate to severe illness).


My reply does have more to do with than you think.

Look at the history of ObamaCare.

Max Baucus and Charles Grassley proposed "ObamaCare" in 2008 BEFORE Obama was elected (But without a "Public Option" and with massive cuts to services). They feel that "ObamaCare" (I'll continue to use the anachronistic name) will become law regardless of which party wins the White House.

Obama and his economic team (mainly led by the asshole Ezekiel Emmanuel plus Peter Orzog) came into the picture in January 2009. Orzog and Emanuel were on the page with Baucus/Grassley and claimed that there was over $700 billion per year (yes YES YES: per year!) that could be cut in healthcare expenses.

Obama, in May 2009, met with Grassley and Baucus (along with a bipartisan group of Senators)and Grassley was enthusiastic about everything except he had concern with the "Public Option". Grassley, Baucus, etc. wanted massive "cost controls" like slashes in medical equipment coverage by Medicare.

The Health Insurance lobby is enthusiastically in favor of "ObamaCare" in the early days (May 2009-July when Obama accepts the individual mandate PLUS the hope that so-called "cost controls" seem a possibility ie. massive cuts to coverage plus going after co-called "Big Pharma" and such) when it looked like it would be steam-rolled with massive cuts to American healthcare. They didn't like the Public Option at all though..

NOW THE RELEVANCE.

Olympia Snow (Republican from Maine who loved "ObamaCare) got concerned when Obama decided to oppose too many cuts in medical coverage (against the wishes of his economic team plus Baucus and Grassley), and she didn't like it being funded by taxes. She still voted for ObamaCare in committee, but ended ip opposing the floor vote when Harry Reid opposed allowing amendments.

Grassley got hell over "Death Panels" (though the issue was muddied with many other things like end-of-life-care counciling issues) in August of 2009, and decided to vote against final passage (though he was a fundamental player in shaping the legislation).

You talk about "meaningful insurance" but ObamaCare only resulted in meaningful insurance because Obama decided to not go after even deeper Medicare cuts (he only cut funding but not services as everybody else wanted to do) like negotiation of prescription drug prices, draconian cuts to funds for Oxygen machines for those with COPD, etc. (which the insurance industry wanted to see happen to Medicare patients).

ObamaCare should concern us all because this nation escaped, by the skin of its teeth, permanent destruction of healthcare.

Peter Orzag wanted $700 billion per year cut out of health coverage (especially from Medicare and Medicaid but also lots of cuts related to what hospitals are able to but in terms of equipment) and the GOP/Democratic congress agreed with him.

Back billing might be a cost savings proposal that can be reversed, but a lot of other things will be irreversible. Find a single nation in Europe that has reversed damaging "cost controlling" measures like policies that prevent pharmaceutical companies from making even tiny profits (all prescription drug profits come from the U.S.A. and they aren't huge)Look at the terrible shortage of screening equipment in those nations.

Think "back billing" is dangerous? Look at what will happen with "tort reform". Arrogant doctors are a problem today (like when a man gains 50 pounds in 2 weeks and is very sick, yet no doctor takes his requests seriously - then the death, only days later, causes an autopsy which shows that there was an infection in the bladder/intestinal area that caused the guy to fill with shit and die from sepsis)but will be 1 trillion times worse of the insurance industry gets its way on this one and ends the possibility of accountability via a POSSIBLE (today!) lawsuit.

Back billing is nothing compared to what both Republicans and Democrats (and the insurance industry) want.

Worry about the $400 billion in paperwork costs that the insurance industry adds o the healthcare bill.

Worry about the fact that U.S.A. doctors now spend over 50% of their time on paperwork issues for the insurance industry.

Worry about the 1.5 million health insurance workforce that sees their parasitic livelihood at stake if they don't spread smear propaganda about the evils of "BigPharma" (which only has about $40-$50 billion in profits a year - which encourages trailblazing research that can potentially reduce costs in the long run if not already) and "wasteful health spending" like oxygen machines and preventive care machines that detect cancer.

The health insurance behemoth is slandering away at the movers and shakers for science and research which we vitally need. And they own the congress.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by JonF, posted 02-06-2017 12:20 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by JonF, posted 02-07-2017 7:46 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1318
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 155 of 165 (799145)
02-07-2017 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by JonF
02-06-2017 12:20 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
Again I notice your reply has no connection with the points I made.
Are you in favor of back billing?

He doesn't seem to be trying to answer you.

I don't know what back billing is, could you explain a little more about it, please?

thanks.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by JonF, posted 02-06-2017 12:20 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by JonF, posted 02-07-2017 7:54 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3410
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 156 of 165 (799147)
02-07-2017 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by LamarkNewAge
02-07-2017 4:01 PM


Re: The ACA in 2009/2010 and JonF
Again I notice your reply has no connection with the points I made.
Are you in favor of back billing?
Given that the Republicans will not initiate or raise any taxes, do you think they will produce a plan under which nobody loses meaningful insurance? (I'm not including meaningless plans that guarantee bankruptcy if you get any moderate to severe illness).

My reply does have more to do with than you think.

Immediately followed by a long post in which there is no mention of the issues my questions raised. Quite a performance.

You make it clear you are in favor of bankrupting poor Americans by back billing and unaffordable meaningful health insurance. Pretty vile.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-07-2017 4:01 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-08-2017 10:14 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3410
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 157 of 165 (799149)
02-07-2017 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Tanypteryx
02-07-2017 7:29 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
Back billing (AKA balance billing) is incredibly despicable.

Say a hospital's standard charge for a procedure is $10,000. But your insurance company has negotiating power and forces them to accept $8,000 when they do the procedure on you.

Back billing allows the hospital to bill you for the "missing" $2,000. Makes the hospital happy. Ensures that any major illness will bankrupt you whether or not you have health insurance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2017 7:29 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2017 8:11 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1318
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


(3)
Message 158 of 165 (799151)
02-07-2017 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by JonF
02-07-2017 7:54 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
Back billing (AKA balance billing) is incredibly despicable.

Incredibly despicable indeed. Thanks for the info.

I have been lucky so far and not had that happen. In 2012 I was very ill with a gangrenous gall bladder and septicemia and ended up spending about 3 weeks in the hospital. The bill was enough to cause sticker shock but the insurance paid it all, luckily. Since then, every few months I get letters from the hospital wanting me to make charitable donations to their foundation. It is probably the most profitable business in our area and they want donations? I am about as likely to donate to them as I am to the NFL.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by JonF, posted 02-07-2017 7:54 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18134
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 159 of 165 (799223)
02-08-2017 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Taq
02-07-2017 10:58 AM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
... With that in mind, there are some obvious flaws in that system. First, it will be hard for small states to negotiate prices down, especially when it comes to drugs. If smaller states can band together with larger states then they will have more bargaining power. ...

That's why it needs to be a coalition of blue states, willing states, but certainly even a small state like RI would have more bargaining power than small companies and even some of the medium and larger ones. We have some 1.06 million people as of 2015. Combining with MA, CT, NY would of course help.

... Second, what happens when you get sick outside of your state of residence? ...

What happens now when you get sick out of country (in Canada say)?

... Third, what happens to people in stridently conservative states (like the one I live in) who refuse to create these healthcare systems?

They get to enjoy the rewards of their ideology. As republicans keep saying people need to take responsibility for their actions, because actions have consequences.

We can already see differences between extreme red states and blue states -- such as Wisconsin vs Minnesota. It used to be bible belt states that had high poverty and poor health. Bernie talked about the differences in life expectancy that was due to where you lived.

The real problem is cost, not how to pay for private insurance. We could still have a system with multiple private insurers and federally controlled healthcare prices. We do the very same thing with utilities, where states control how much companies can charge for things like electricity.

Indeed. In my opinion all insurance related, health related, utility related business should either be public or non-profit. It is immoral in my opinion to make profit from the suffering of people.

We will have to see what the Republicans come up with. I am guessing it will be almost indistinguishable from the ACA, but we will see.

The republicans will create a system that benefits the corporations at the expense of the people. People will die. Coal miners will die.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Taq, posted 02-07-2017 10:58 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-08-2017 10:39 AM RAZD has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 160 of 165 (799231)
02-08-2017 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by JonF
02-07-2017 7:46 PM


Re: The ACA in 2009/2010 and JonF and this "back billing" issue.
quote:

Immediately followed by a long post in which there is no mention of the issues my questions raised. Quite a performance.

You make it clear you are in favor of bankrupting poor Americans by back billing and unaffordable meaningful health insurance. Pretty vile.


That was "clear" to you?

Thanks for admitting that I am "clear" anyway.

You then said:

quote:

Back billing (AKA balance billing) is incredibly despicable.
Say a hospital's standard charge for a procedure is $10,000. But your insurance company has negotiating power and forces them to accept $8,000 when they do the procedure on you.

Back billing allows the hospital to bill you for the "missing" $2,000. Makes the hospital happy. Ensures that any major illness will bankrupt you whether or not you have health insurance.


ObamaCare had lots of changes. There is an issue of the hospital "chargemaster" fees (where all of those $500 aspirin pills come in) which hospitals charge those without insurance, but insurance companies never ever pay (if I remember the issues correctly).

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), in the Max Baucus (D Montana) Committee, got an amendment passed that enabled people to get the "chargemaster" fee eliminated and reduced to the same level insurance companies pay. I forget the exact details (I'll look into it and see if I can get my phone to do long posts on EvC) but it would have eliminated most health care bankruptcies from previous years.

Grassley won re-election in 2016, so he would control the Senate Finance Committee, unless he moved somewhere else. He would raise hell if anybody wanted to do this "back billing" issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by JonF, posted 02-07-2017 7:46 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 02-08-2017 1:31 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 161 of 165 (799233)
02-08-2017 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by RAZD
02-08-2017 8:02 AM


The ACA in 2009/2010 and drug prices.
quote:

"With that in mind, there are some obvious flaws in that system. First, it will be hard for small states to negotiate prices down, especially when it comes to drugs. If smaller states can band together with larger states then they will have more bargaining power. ... "

That's why it needs to be a coalition of blue states, willing states, but certainly even a small state like RI would have more bargaining power than small companies and even some of the medium and larger ones. We have some 1.06 million people as of 2015. Combining with MA, CT, NY would of course help.


Billy Tauzan (the former Louisiana congressman)represented the prescription drug industry during ObamaCare. His industry agreed to take $80 billion out of their profits and GIVE THEM to Obama so he could close the "donut-hole" in the 2003 Bush-era prescription drug bill. That bill cost the government less than the CBO projected in 2003. The former director of the CBO (Douglas Holtz-Aiken or something spelled like that) pointed out in 2010 that the Bush prescription drug plan only cost about $70 billion per year, and that it was under budget.

So there was a "free" closing of the donut hole.

An even sweeter deal.

Did you know that a 25 cents tax on sugary drinks would pay at least half (and perhaps 2/3rds) of the total cost of the TOTAL 2003 Bush law AND COMBINED ADDITIONAL COVERAGE from ObamaCare?

A 0.5% payroll tax (matched by the employer) would cover the entire benefit for the elderly. Senior citizen coverage accounts for most prescription drug costs. That same payroll tax would cover close to 100% of prescription drug bills for those not on Medicare and Medicaid.

ObamaCare costs 6% of income for poor people and has $6000 deductibles, and everybody thinks it is such a wonderous policy.

And it isn't the prescription drug industry that causes doctors to spend 50% (instead of 10% to 20% as it should be) on medical paperwork.

Want the doctor shortage to end? (in addition to the cost explosion)

Go after the insurance companies, not the drug industry.

Even Dr. Howard Dean wants the left to stop going after the vital prescription drug industry and he will tell you how small their costs really are. (his concern is research and development being harmed severely)

Billy Tauzin took his job as the drug industry's lobbyist because he was told by a doctor that he had an anal caner that gave him less than a 1% chance to live. Then a drug just came out. He was attacked by Obama during the 2008 campaign (Tauzin was named in an Obama ad as a corrupt congressman who wrote the 2003 prescription drug coverage law then went on to join the drug lobby for $2 million a year). But then he funded Pro-Obama Care ads (in the summer of 2009 and after) as part of his industry's appreciation that even more severe laws weren't part of ObamaCare.

Tauzin was asked by a reporter about Obama'a previous attack on him. He laughed and said that those sorts of things "just roll off of my back", and that Obama's 2008 attack ad left out the fact that he got a grim cancer diagnosis (with the miraculous life saving pill that came out just in time) BETWEEN HIS WRITING OF THE 2003 PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT LAW AND THEN HIS ACEPTING OF THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG LOBBY JOB!

His industry closed the Medicare "donut-hole" (which now saves seniors about $2000 a year in bills!) for free. And his industry gave more free benefits to fulfill the $80 billion over 10 years it have given to fund ObamaCare (in fact the entire ObamaCare bill over 10 years was $826 billion, so that was 10% right there).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2017 8:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2017 4:15 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3410
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 162 of 165 (799254)
02-08-2017 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by LamarkNewAge
02-08-2017 10:14 AM


Re: The ACA in 2009/2010 and JonF and this "back billing" issue.
That was "clear" to you?

Thanks for admitting that I am "clear" anyway.


Your intentions are clear. Your posts are not.

ObamaCare had lots of changes. There is an issue of the hospital "chargemaster" fees (where all of those $500 aspirin pills come in) which hospitals charge those without insurance, but insurance companies never ever pay (if I remember the issues correctly).

You do not remember correctly. The ACA made it illegal to charge chargemaster fees in some cases . However that portion was never implemented because rules were never published in the Federal Register. There's a lot of disagreement as to why.

Tax-Exempt Status For Nonprofit Hospitals Under The ACA: Where Are The Final Treasury/IRS Rules?:

quote:
The ACA reformed the procedures and standards applicable to tax-exempt hospital financial assistance programs, historically a core activity of tax-exempt hospitals, and one that takes on special importance in states that, to date, have failed to implement the Medicaid adult expansion. The ACA amendments (26 U.S.C. §501(r)(4)(A)) make several key reforms: they limit the charges that can be leveled against patients eligible for financial assistance; they require hospitals to establish written policies specifying financial eligibility criteria, how patients can qualify for assistance, and hospital collection practices in the event of non-payment; and they require that policies be “widely publicize[d] within the community served by the organization.”

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), in the Max Baucus (D Montana) Committee, got an amendment passed that enabled people to get the "chargemaster" fee eliminated and reduced to the same level insurance companies pay. I forget the exact details (I'll look into it and see if I can get my phone to do long posts on EvC) but it would have eliminated most health care bankruptcies from previous years.

The only such reference I can find is to the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, not an amendment, which never passed and was not associated with the ACA. It was intended to be a comprehensive health care reform bill. Obama refused to endorse it because it would add $900 billion to the deficit over the next ten years.

The ACA eliminated most medical bankruptcies.

Grassley won re-election in 2016, so he would control the Senate Finance Committee, unless he moved somewhere else. He would raise hell if anybody wanted to do this "back billing" issue.

VP Price wants to do just that. Neither of us know what Grassley would do. Would he fall into line? Maybe.

The Republican plot to devour retirees' nest eggs

quote:
A great many medical providers adjust their prices based on how defenseless the patient is, and bleed the weakest ones for every last red cent, often with preposterously inflated charges for things like aspirin and bandages. A 2015 study looked at the worst price gougers in the country and found 50 hospitals that charged uninsured people roughly 10 times the actual cost of care.

Key to this practice is something called "balance billing," and it's why the American Medical Association is strongly supporting Donald Trump's pick of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Medicare. Balance billing is forbidden for Medicare enrollees, but Price wants to allow it — thus allowing doctors and hospitals to devour the nest eggs of thousands of American seniors.

So what is balance billing? It's the practice of billing the patient for the difference between the sticker price and what insurance will pay. So if a hospital visit costs $1,000, but your insurance will only cover $300, some providers will "balance bill" you for $700.

For unscrupulous providers, the method of exploitation is obvious: When doing any sort of expensive procedure, take a rough estimate of the absolute maximum the patient can pay, and jack up the price so the balance hits it. Or if you're short on time, just bill them into the stratosphere, and you'll get whatever the patient has during the bankruptcy proceeding.

Balance billing is basically illegal for Medicare patients, and heavily restricted for Medicaid patients. It was restricted under the Affordable Care Act as well, but only partially. Out-of-network care — increasingly common as insurance networks get narrower and narrower — can still be balance billed even if it is for an emergency, both for ACA plans and employer-provided ones, and doesn't have to be counted toward out-of-pocket limits. People being blindsided by immense out-of-network bills — going to an in-network hospital that employs an out-of-network surgeon they conveniently failed to tell you about, for example — is an increasingly common experience. That is why ObamaCare failed to stop people being bankrupted by medical debt (though it did slow medical bankruptcies substantially).

...

That brings me back to Tom Price and the AMA. In 2011, Price (an orthopedic surgeon himself) introduced a Medicare "reform" bill in Congress that, among other things, would have brought balance billing to the program. This would greatly increase provider and physician revenues, and the AMA eagerly lined up behind it.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-08-2017 10:14 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-10-2017 3:47 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18134
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 163 of 165 (799265)
02-08-2017 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by LamarkNewAge
02-08-2017 10:39 AM


Re: The ACA in 2009/2010 and drug prices.
Did you know that a 25 cents tax on sugary drinks would pay at least half (and perhaps 2/3rds) of the total cost of the TOTAL 2003 Bush law AND COMBINED ADDITIONAL COVERAGE from ObamaCare?

Sugary drinks should also include sugar substitutes ... because they are even more unhealthy than high sugar consumption.

And make it $0.50 so it can cover medicaid expansion

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-08-2017 10:39 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-10-2017 3:33 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 164 of 165 (799483)
02-10-2017 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by RAZD
02-08-2017 4:15 PM


Re: The ACA in 2009/2010 and drug prices.
quote:

Sugary drinks should also include sugar substitutes ... because they are even more unhealthy than high sugar consumption.

I remember reading a Wall Street Journal issue (it must have been no later than 2015 when I could grab an issue for free every day at a Manhattan place)that Diet Pepsi had to change their formula because enough Americans were on to Aspartame. The article mentioned that Sucralose was even more toxic. Also, there was an Israeli study (that I copied from a health magazine) which showed increased glucose intolerance from Sucralose and other artificial sweeteners. (though the study didn't show Aspartame making glucose intolerance receptors weaker so it was let off the hook on that one)

The WSJ is one of the few publications that presents views like these however. The publication is even critical of mental health pills at times.

quote:

And make it $0.50 so it can cover medicaid expansion

I read in America's Bitter Pill that a sugary drink tax of 10% would have brought in $170 billion over 10 years, in 2009.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=america%27s+bitter+pill

I was calling for a tax that would bring in about $45 billion a year.

Your tax is $90 billion per year.

That would have covered the entire ACA without all the other changes.

Added to the ACA, it would seem to triple the amount of subsidies. The ACA was $826 billion over 10 years, but a lot of that included other things than insurance subsidies.

The Medicaid expansion only cost around $90 billion over the entire 10 years, your tax would be that much in just 1 year!

The entire NIH research budget is around $80 billion per year with $30 billion coming from the federal government (the rest from donations). The NIH can only fund grants to 1 in 6 applicants (it is a sad 1 in 10 for cancer grant applicants), and the average is $159,000 per grant. The Director Allen Francis (or Francis Collins, I forget his name) said that back in the year 2000, they were able to fund 1 in 4 grants (the 25th percentile) and those projects were just as successful as the 16th percentile as an average. He said that the NIH made it a point to study the effectiveness of expansive grant abilities to a larger number of research applicants.

I suppose $40 billion per year can bring things back up to the 25th percentile, like they were in 2000 when there was a larger amount of money.

It is ironic that we spend less than $1 billion per year on Alzheimer's and dementia research while it costs over $200 billion per year to the economy to treat. It will rise to $1.1 trillion in 2050.

Sugar harms brain health, so a tax would make sense. It sure does cause cancer.

Here is a link showing what we spend per year on drugs. The Chicago Tribune is first up on the recent IMS health estimates.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=americans+spend+pres...

quote:

By Tribune news services•Contact Reporter

April 14, 2016, 7:34 AM |Trenton, N.J.

U.S. spending on prescription drugs rose 8.5 percent last year, slightly less than in 2014, driven mainly by growing use of ultra-expensive new drugs and price hikes on other medicines.

A report from data firm IMS Health estimates patients, insurers, government programs and other payers spent a combined $309.5 billion last year on prescription medicines.

The IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics is forecasting that annual increases in U.S. prescription drug spending will slow to 4 to 7 percent through 2020, after rising around 10 percent in each of the past three years. It predicts spending will reach $370 billion to $400 billion in 2020.

The totals are based on net prices paid after deducting discounts and rebates that manufacturers give to insurers and other payers. In prior years, IMS based its report list prices before those deductions.


The costs are starting to jack up, I must admit.

Remember that Medicare and Medicaid (plus the VA) don't negotiate prices down , like private insurers do, plus they have sicker patients.

For now, I doubt non Medicare, non Medicaid spending is much more than $125 billion a year, but things are changing.

The ACA brought lots of new customers for Big Pharma and the hospitals, so that Obama was able to get $80 billion in taxes and rebates from the Pharm industry and $155 billion from hospitals (though Medicare and Medicaid cuts)to help pay the $826 billion deal called ObamaCare. That book I references showed some interesting details of the negotiations where the case was 100% clearly made that both industries would still come out ahead in net profits even after the cuts due to new customers and government funded insurance coming into play.

A prescription drug plan for everybody (not in Medicare or Medicaid) could perhaps get $10 billion or more a year in "givebacks" (like happened with the ObamaCare deal) from the industry in exchange for a universal coverage plan. I would like to see a national Prescription Drug plan that covers 95% of drug bills for those not on government programs. For now, it would only cost about $100 billion (or a little more) a year.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2017 4:15 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 165 of 165 (799486)
02-10-2017 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by JonF
02-08-2017 1:31 PM


Re: The ACA in 2009/2010 and JonF and this "back billing" issue.
JonF, I will try to post paragraphs from the book I referenced by Stephen Brill. (America's Bitter Pill see the google links in last post)

He wrote a piece for Time magazine that talked about the Obama White House not writing the exact rules for 2 years after the ACA passed. It should have only taken weeks.

I need to start to use my phone so I will have a lot more internet time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 02-08-2017 1:31 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017