The Triumph of Trumpcare: 24 m to lose coverage

[_The CCC]

True FREEDOM from the governmental tyranny of Medicaid.
SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/woman-d ... k-to-work/

[_subgenius]

True FREEDOM from the governmental tyranny of Medicaid.
SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/woman-d ... k-to-work/

from the linked article
"But the Social Security Administration sent the 31-year-old Schnelle a notice in September that she was healthy enough to go back to work, but she was unable to afford the $1,200 monthly costs for the drugs she needed to avoid life-threatening seizures."

For those who are calendar challenged (*cough-cough, CCC) the election had not yet taken place and most people thought Hillary Clinton was winning...so, I suppose this one is on Obama's watch.

[_Chap]

True FREEDOM from the governmental tyranny of Medicaid.
SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/woman-d ... k-to-work/

from the linked article
"But the Social Security Administration sent the 31-year-old Schnelle a notice in September that she was healthy enough to go back to work, but she was unable to afford the $1,200 monthly costs for the drugs she needed to avoid life-threatening seizures."

For those who are calendar challenged (*cough-cough, CCC) the election had not yet taken place and most people thought Hillary Clinton was winning...so, I suppose this one is on Obama's watch.

But under Trumpcare she will be able to afford the drugs she needs, right? Right ... ?

[_EAllusion]

Ignore the overhead costs of the insurance industry for a second. I'm not sure how much experience everyone has with Medicare/Medicaid, but it's accurate to say the coverage, while not perfect, is quite good in that it is comprehensive in what it covers and it leaves little additional costs when you find providers. The problem is that it can be difficult to find providers from time to time. In my area, there's a all-out crisis level shortage of dental and psychiatric providers for people who have Medicare/MA for health insurance. If you have MA and don't have a dentist in my area, good luck getting one.

The reason that finding providers can be difficult is that the reimbursement rates tend to be lower than private pay. Some providers just won't accept it because they think it is beneath their cost of doing business or they'll only accept a limited amount as an act of quasi-charity. The numbers I've seen vary, but a quick and dirty summary is that the reimburse rate is something on the order of 80% on average what private insurers provide.

Suppose you say that this is because health care providers are being greedy and that money can be made up for in efficiencies, so there's nothing to worry about. Ok, but if we overnight sucked 20% of dollars flowing into the medical industry from private pay - a number so large it can be measured in % of GDP - it would have a devastating effect on that industry and the economy as a whole.

You simply can't do this without having a long, complex transition period or accepting some short-term economic devastation. My point is that it isn't as simple as making Medicare universal tomorrow. Likewise, Ajax thinking that you can end social welfare tomorrow and it wouldn't affect him is painfully naïve.

[_Kevin Graham]

It's not uncommon to find liberals asserting that you could "solve" healthcare tomorrow by signing a 1 page bill that universalizes Medicare. Bingo bango. Done.

Yeah, the health insurance industry is a huge sector of our economy. Putting them in collapse mode overnight would be very damaging to the economy. Very. You need a drawn-out transition plan if you hope to enact a policy like that.

Ending social welfare overnight would be even worse.

Yep, which is why the ACA was designed to be a step-one transition to single-payer. No one would say that, but many people knew it to be true.

[_EAllusion]

It's not uncommon to find liberals asserting that you could "solve" healthcare tomorrow by signing a 1 page bill that universalizes Medicare. Bingo bango. Done.

Yeah, the health insurance industry is a huge sector of our economy. Putting them in collapse mode overnight would be very damaging to the economy. Very. You need a drawn-out transition plan if you hope to enact a policy like that.

Ending social welfare overnight would be even worse.

Yep, which is why the ACA was designed to be a step-one transition to single-payer. No one would say that, but many people knew it to be true.

The ACA as a transition to single-payer would've made sense if there was a public option the federal government could gradually make more generous to out-compete private companies. As it actually exists, the ACA funneled a ton of money into the insurance industry, thus making them a more powerful political lobby and their success more integral to the overall well-being of the national economy.

[_subgenius]

But under Trumpcare she will be able to afford the drugs she needs, right? Right ... ?

I don't believe she needs any drugs now. ...

[_Kevin Graham]

The ACA as a transition to single-payer would've made sense if there was a public option the federal government could gradually make more generous to out-compete private companies. As it actually exists, the ACA funneled a ton of money into the insurance industry, thus making them a more powerful political lobby and their success more integral to the overall well-being of the national economy.

Right, and there was always room in the ACA for a public option. Obama argued for it numerous times but there was no chance of getting it, given the opposition. With private insurance companies running the show, of course they're the ones making all the money.

[_The CCC]

[quote="subgenius]

For those who are calendar challenged (*cough-cough, CCC) the election had not yet taken place and most people thought Hillary Clinton was winning...so, I suppose this one is on Obama's watch.[/quote]

Social Security Disability Insurance payments have been challenged for a long time. by the way I didn't blame Drumpf. I blamed the tyrannical Medicaid. Read for comprehension next time.