Socialized medicine

[deadheadskier]

I'm sorry that refusing to look at cost benefit analysis is so challenging for you hatter. Not like there aren't dozens of examples out there. Sad.

[madhatter]

here's some more data for you to get emotional over

Under Trump, Obamacare premiums down second year in a row

Obamacare premiums for midlevel plans will fall by 4% next year, bucking predictions that premiums would soar after the Trump administration and congressional Republicans made changes to the healthcare law.

The drop in 2020 premiums, announced Tuesday, marks the second consecutive year that premiums will go down under President Trump. To go along with the decrease, more insurers are joining Obamacare exchanges, offering customers more options. A total of 175 insurers are offering plans across the U.S., an increase of 20 from the year before.

The trend begins to reverse double-digit premiums and mass insurer exits seen during former President Barack Obama's last two years in office.

"The bottom line under President Trump: Costs are down and options are up," said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar in a phone call with reporters Monday.

The outcomes are despite the latest changes to the healthcare law. As part of the tax law, Republicans zeroed out, starting in 2019, the fine for going uninsured, known as the "individual mandate," and the Trump administration is allowing people to buy plans outside of Obamacare's rules. Democrats and pro-Obamacare groups warned these actions would have a devastating effect on the marketplace, but those predictions appear to have been off the mark.

"The president who was supposedly trying to sabotage the law has been better at running it than the guy who wrote the law," Azar said.


Still, the Trump administration is facing other criticisms over Obamacare. The number of people without health insurance has risen under Trump, and the administration is also siding with Republican states in a lawsuit asking an appeals court to invalidate Obamacare in response to the individual mandate having been zeroed out. A decision on the case is expected in the coming weeks and may confuse customers when they go to sign up for coverage.

Despite the favorable news out Tuesday, health officials stressed in the phone call with reporters that health insurance premiums still priced out too many people.

The rates announced apply to silver plans, which are the midlevel plans on the healthcare.gov exchange. In dollar amounts, they are expected to cost an average of $388 a month, a total that does not include out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles.

The exchange was created under Obamacare to allow people who don't get health insurance through a job or a government program to buy private coverage. How much people pay for coverage is determined by where they live, how much they make, their age, whether they smoke, and what type of plan they pick. Some people are even able to buy plans for $0 a month because of how much the government kicks in.

But middle-class people are priced out of getting subsidies if they make just over about $48,600 a year for an individual. People below that income threshold generally get subsidies from the federal government that make premiums less expensive and that protect them from price increases.

Many of those who make more choose to go uninsured or to go with options the Trump administration provided outside of the law, which are less expensive but don't require that insurers cover sick people or charge them the same amount as healthy people.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma took credit for the reduction in premiums and the entrance of new insurers, saying it was due to the administration's "tireless work to mitigate the damage caused by Obamacare."

One of the main ways that the administration was able to lower premiums was by approving reinsurance plans in a dozen states. The plans, which are supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, funnel federal dollars to pay for high medical claims. As a result, premiums fall for everyone on a healthcare plan.

The shopping period to sign up for health insurance will run for most states from Nov. 1 to Dec. 15, and starting a week before customers will be able to window-shop to see what plans will be available.

[madhatter]

I'm sorry that refusing to look at cost benefit analysis is so challenging for you hatter. Not like there aren't dozens of examples out there. Sad.

it's hard to tell which of your only character traits are more repulsive, the obnoxious? or the oblivious to reality partisanship...

[deadheadskier]

I'm sorry that refusing to look at cost benefit analysis is so challenging for you hatter. Not like there aren't dozens of examples out there. Sad.

it's hard to tell which of your only character traits are more repulsive, the obnoxious? or the oblivious to reality partisanship...

It's a partisan position that dozens of healthcare systems in the developed world perform better and at a lower cost than ours?

what's obnoxious is your warped ideology blinds your ability to see that.

[madhatter]

I'm sorry that refusing to look at cost benefit analysis is so challenging for you hatter. Not like there aren't dozens of examples out there. Sad.

it's hard to tell which of your only character traits are more repulsive, the obnoxious? or the oblivious to reality partisanship...

It's a partisan position that dozens of healthcare systems in the developed world perform better and at a lower cost than ours?

what's obnoxious is your warped ideology blinds your ability to see that.

Under Trump, Obamacare premiums down second year in a row

how is that "warped ideology"??? ... compared to your constant cries about the "rest of the developed world" that echo every socialist candidates $30T trope.....


you have zero self awareness... your absolute religious devotion to your ideology makes it impossible for you to comprehend reality....

all I want is to be free from the likes of you and your stupid brilliant gruber-like ideas...but you have zero tolerance of "infidels"...

you might want to start picking out a costume...

[XtremeJibber2001]

I think the best argument against socialized medicine is the idea that it will inhibit or restrict access to innovation in medicine. I think it's a real concern, but I also think there are ways to mitigate that issue.

One reason I don't like the idea of Medicare for all is that it will put a single entity in control of paying for everyone's health care. The U.S. is too big and diverse for that, and I think we should instead set up multiple competing quasi-public entities to provide health benefits. That way there is some level of competition. I believe this sort of thing has been done in other places (Israel, for instance).

Another concept is to put each state in charge of medical care for their own citizens, though have 50 separate bureaucracies seems like overkill. But this is sort of already done with medicaid right now, so the infrastructure may to some degree already be in place.

Bottom line though is I think we need to put professionals with actual knowledge in charge of this process, both in coming up with a plan and in implementing that plan.

It's not an 'idea' that it will inhibit or restrict access. It does inhibit / restrict access today. A person in the UK will not have access to the same innovative therapies as someone in the USA. This is primarily because the UK's NHS picks and chooses, based on a variety of parameters, which therapies UK citizens can access.

[Kpdemello]

The thing about health care premiums decreasing under Obamacare is actually an interesting thing to look at. First of all, it shows you that this kind of thing can work to reduce premiums, regardless of whatever arguments partisans are trying to make. Second, lets take a look at some of the reasons behind the decrease in premiums:

One of the main ways that the administration was able to lower premiums was by approving reinsurance plans in a dozen states. The plans, which are supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, funnel federal dollars to pay for high medical claims. As a result, premiums fall for everyone on a healthcare plan.

Ok, so the reason your premiums are being lowered is because you're kicking in more federal money to pay for the high medical claims? Is this supposed to be an argument against socialized medicine or for it? Because it sounds a lot like how socialized medicine is actually supposed to work. You know, with government paying for health care costs.

Source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... r-in-a-row" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madhatter]

I think the best argument against socialized medicine is the idea that it will inhibit or restrict access to innovation in medicine. I think it's a real concern, but I also think there are ways to mitigate that issue.

One reason I don't like the idea of Medicare for all is that it will put a single entity in control of paying for everyone's health care. The U.S. is too big and diverse for that, and I think we should instead set up multiple competing quasi-public entities to provide health benefits. That way there is some level of competition. I believe this sort of thing has been done in other places (Israel, for instance).

Another concept is to put each state in charge of medical care for their own citizens, though have 50 separate bureaucracies seems like overkill. But this is sort of already done with medicaid right now, so the infrastructure may to some degree already be in place.

Bottom line though is I think we need to put professionals with actual knowledge in charge of this process, both in coming up with a plan and in implementing that plan.

It's not an 'idea' that it will inhibit or restrict access. It does inhibit / restrict access today. A person in the UK will not have access to the same innovative therapies as someone in the USA. This is primarily because the UK's NHS picks and chooses, based on a variety of parameters, which therapies UK citizens can access.

^^^INFIDEL^^^

[Kpdemello]

It's not an 'idea' that it will inhibit or restrict access. It does inhibit / restrict access today. A person in the UK will not have access to the same innovative therapies as someone in the USA. This is primarily because the UK's NHS picks and chooses, based on a variety of parameters, which therapies UK citizens can access.

Sure, but that's one particular system. Are they all like that? Is there some way we could enjoy the benefits of socialized medicine without the problems the particular implementation in the UK has?

[deadheadskier]

I think the best argument against socialized medicine is the idea that it will inhibit or restrict access to innovation in medicine. I think it's a real concern, but I also think there are ways to mitigate that issue.

One reason I don't like the idea of Medicare for all is that it will put a single entity in control of paying for everyone's health care. The U.S. is too big and diverse for that, and I think we should instead set up multiple competing quasi-public entities to provide health benefits. That way there is some level of competition. I believe this sort of thing has been done in other places (Israel, for instance).

Another concept is to put each state in charge of medical care for their own citizens, though have 50 separate bureaucracies seems like overkill. But this is sort of already done with medicaid right now, so the infrastructure may to some degree already be in place.

Bottom line though is I think we need to put professionals with actual knowledge in charge of this process, both in coming up with a plan and in implementing that plan.

It's not an 'idea' that it will inhibit or restrict access. It does inhibit / restrict access today. A person in the UK will not have access to the same innovative therapies as someone in the USA. This is primarily because the UK's NHS picks and chooses, based on a variety of parameters, which therapies UK citizens can access.

Yeah,

It's a two way street though. I can tell you for a fact that new radiology, anesthesia and cardiac monitoring technology hits the market in the EU as well as many South American and Asian countries often 2-4 years ahead of the US. This is true even for large American medical technology companies such as GE. The path for introducing technology abroad in many locations is quicker.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I think the best argument against socialized medicine is the idea that it will inhibit or restrict access to innovation in medicine. I think it's a real concern, but I also think there are ways to mitigate that issue.

One reason I don't like the idea of Medicare for all is that it will put a single entity in control of paying for everyone's health care. The U.S. is too big and diverse for that, and I think we should instead set up multiple competing quasi-public entities to provide health benefits. That way there is some level of competition. I believe this sort of thing has been done in other places (Israel, for instance).

Another concept is to put each state in charge of medical care for their own citizens, though have 50 separate bureaucracies seems like overkill. But this is sort of already done with medicaid right now, so the infrastructure may to some degree already be in place.

Bottom line though is I think we need to put professionals with actual knowledge in charge of this process, both in coming up with a plan and in implementing that plan.

It's not an 'idea' that it will inhibit or restrict access. It does inhibit / restrict access today. A person in the UK will not have access to the same innovative therapies as someone in the USA. This is primarily because the UK's NHS picks and chooses, based on a variety of parameters, which therapies UK citizens can access.

Yeah,

It's a two way street though. I can tell you for a fact that new radiology, anesthesia and cardiac monitoring technology hits the market in the EU as well as many South American and Asian countries often 2-4 years ahead of the US. This is true even for large American medical technology companies such as GE. The path for introducing technology abroad in many locations is quicker.

Why does it hit EU faster than US? FDA slower than the EU equivalent(s)?

[Highway Star]

I'm sorry that refusing to look at cost benefit analysis is so challenging for you hatter. Not like there aren't dozens of examples out there. Sad.

I'm with her!!!

https://babylonbee.com/news/elizabeth-w ... -100-bills" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[deadheadskier]

I think the best argument against socialized medicine is the idea that it will inhibit or restrict access to innovation in medicine. I think it's a real concern, but I also think there are ways to mitigate that issue.

One reason I don't like the idea of Medicare for all is that it will put a single entity in control of paying for everyone's health care. The U.S. is too big and diverse for that, and I think we should instead set up multiple competing quasi-public entities to provide health benefits. That way there is some level of competition. I believe this sort of thing has been done in other places (Israel, for instance).

Another concept is to put each state in charge of medical care for their own citizens, though have 50 separate bureaucracies seems like overkill. But this is sort of already done with medicaid right now, so the infrastructure may to some degree already be in place.

Bottom line though is I think we need to put professionals with actual knowledge in charge of this process, both in coming up with a plan and in implementing that plan.

It's not an 'idea' that it will inhibit or restrict access. It does inhibit / restrict access today. A person in the UK will not have access to the same innovative therapies as someone in the USA. This is primarily because the UK's NHS picks and chooses, based on a variety of parameters, which therapies UK citizens can access.

Yeah,

It's a two way street though. I can tell you for a fact that new radiology, anesthesia and cardiac monitoring technology hits the market in the EU as well as many South American and Asian countries often 2-4 years ahead of the US. This is true even for large American medical technology companies such as GE. The path for introducing technology abroad in many locations is quicker.

Why does it hit EU faster than US? FDA slower than the EU equivalent(s)?

Correct

[XtremeJibber2001]

I think the best argument against socialized medicine is the idea that it will inhibit or restrict access to innovation in medicine. I think it's a real concern, but I also think there are ways to mitigate that issue.

One reason I don't like the idea of Medicare for all is that it will put a single entity in control of paying for everyone's health care. The U.S. is too big and diverse for that, and I think we should instead set up multiple competing quasi-public entities to provide health benefits. That way there is some level of competition. I believe this sort of thing has been done in other places (Israel, for instance).

Another concept is to put each state in charge of medical care for their own citizens, though have 50 separate bureaucracies seems like overkill. But this is sort of already done with medicaid right now, so the infrastructure may to some degree already be in place.

Bottom line though is I think we need to put professionals with actual knowledge in charge of this process, both in coming up with a plan and in implementing that plan.

It's not an 'idea' that it will inhibit or restrict access. It does inhibit / restrict access today. A person in the UK will not have access to the same innovative therapies as someone in the USA. This is primarily because the UK's NHS picks and chooses, based on a variety of parameters, which therapies UK citizens can access.

Yeah,

It's a two way street though. I can tell you for a fact that new radiology, anesthesia and cardiac monitoring technology hits the market in the EU as well as many South American and Asian countries often 2-4 years ahead of the US. This is true even for large American medical technology companies such as GE. The path for introducing technology abroad in many locations is quicker.

Why does it hit EU faster than US? FDA slower than the EU equivalent(s)?

Correct

Maybe that's because FDA is spending all its time ensuring new drugs are first to market.

[madhatter]

It's not an 'idea' that it will inhibit or restrict access. It does inhibit / restrict access today. A person in the UK will not have access to the same innovative therapies as someone in the USA. This is primarily because the UK's NHS picks and chooses, based on a variety of parameters, which therapies UK citizens can access.

Yeah,

It's a two way street though. I can tell you for a fact that new radiology, anesthesia and cardiac monitoring technology hits the market in the EU as well as many South American and Asian countries often 2-4 years ahead of the US. This is true even for large American medical technology companies such as GE. The path for introducing technology abroad in many locations is quicker.

Why does it hit EU faster than US? FDA slower than the EU equivalent(s)?

Correct

Maybe that's because FDA is spending all its time ensuring new drugs are first to market.

what will fix all of this is more bureaucracy... well that and a tax of course...and both should be limitless in scope and expansion so as not to constrain their greatness...