...about the funding cuts for Medicaid proposed by both Senate & House healthcare bills.
Without Medicaid, the healthcare systems in most states and particularly egregious in "red states", will not be able to provide medical services. Many Americans without health insurance go to their local ER when they get sick, (not necessarily injured to the point of actually needing emergency medical services). Many public and non-profit hospitals have an Urgent Care or even a family clinic adjoining their facility t which they send such patients. Additionally, all states have some type of state sponsored health care system for low income or indigent people where they subsidize health coverage with an insurer. Here in California, we have MediCal which will basically buy coverage from Blue Cross or Kaiser. These services are greatly dependent on Medicaid support.
By cutting Medicaid, this puts a huge strain on states economies. This also will put many millions of Americans out of access to healthcare altogether. They simply won't have anyplace reasonably convenient to go. People living in St. Louis aren't going to drive to Chicago for a check up.
People are not that stupid and when they lose their healthcare/coverage/access by this yet another greedy plan to cut taxes on the very wealthy to the detriment of the vast majority of Americans - well you get the picture.
...Trump, didn't they? Trump will blame Pelosi and the Dems, and the Trumptards will believe him.
Spending for Medicaid this year will be $368bn
Trump's budget for Medicaid will skyrocket to $524bn by 2027.
Explain to us how INCREASING Medicaid spending by approx $150bn over the next ten years is considered a "funding CUT?"
But the bill reduces the rate of increase in Medicare payments compared to the current plan to the point where a huge gap is created in the "out years" that will have to be made up by the states. Either that or people will simply get dumped. Here's the way the Times describes it:
"Like a House version of the legislation, the bill would fundamentally change the structure of Medicaid, which provides health insurance to 74 million disabled or poor Americans, including nearly 40 percent of all children. Instead of open-ended payments, the federal government would give states a maximum payment for nearly every individual enrolled in the program. The Senate version of the bill would increase that allotment every year by a formula that is expected to grow substantially more slowly than the average increase in medical costs."
The bill is VERY similar to the House version, so we can assume the CBO will score it similarly. Then we'll see what happens.
Bottom line, while the bill does NOT "cut" Medicaid spending, it does GUT the program itself. So anyone who's cool with gutting a program that insures 74 million Americans, including 40% of all kids should be happy as a clam.
There is no need to lie about the situation but when has that ever stopped the lib media, Dems and a few soft R moderates from being straight up?
No offense to Mr Huck, but he gets caught up in the hysteria and repeats the nonsense here.
Jake, the program is going bankrupt. Medicare/Caid, per the trustees, will be insolvent by 2028.
Worse than that, somewhere between 2032 and 2044 spending for Social Security, federal health care and interest on the debt will exceed ALL tax revenue and Politifact concedes it may really be the closer of those two years.
So if you REALLY give a shit about the program being "gutted", you would be calling for tough, hard choices and cut backs now, to save the program for the future.
Obama's self appointed, bi-partisan Debt Commission came back with numerous ideas to protect our entitlements. Barry took those recommendations and promptly threw them in the toilet.
This problem is way bigger than Obama, and numerous R's have a hand in this mess too, but lets stop demagoguing it, lying about it and crying about "the kids."
If anyone really gave shit about the kids they would stand up now to demand an entire overhaul of our entitlements.
Entitlements are like our teeth, Jake...
Ignore them, and they will go away.
This turkey is not that. It is mostly (at least in the financial sense) a vast transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich.
I'm sure I'll enjoy my lower Capital Gains rate even though I don't really need it.
Let them eat cake!
the poor..disabled and elderly are taking it full throttle up the ass..
...about the funding cuts for Medicaid proposed by both Senate & House healthcare bills.
They can change it and fuck it up even more than the current fucked up ACA, and then pay the price at the ballot box. But the bottom line is that now BOTH major parties are in favor of national health care. And once the Reps are swept out of control of Congress (which will happen as surely as night follows day) the Dems will come in and change the law.
Even McConnell, in his book of last year, conceded this in a different way when he explained why he wanted nothing to do with health care:
"In his 2016 memoir, “The Long Game,” he noted that, as minority leader, he went out of his way to make sure that one party owned the health care issue. “I wanted a clear line of demarcation — they were for this, and we were against it,” he said. Perhaps he is not excited to let that one party now be his own."
Too late now, Mitch!
...private insurance co. profits were removed from the equation ?
I believe we are focused on the wrong problem. It's not the cost of insuring against the cost of health care that is the biggest problem, it's the spiraling cost of healthcare itself that is the problem that we need to address.
Capitalism in large part has made this country great, why do so many people believe the only answer to health care is socialism?
What we have now is neither capitalism or socialism, we have a bastardized combination of the worst of both systems which is one of the reasons the cost of American health care is approaching 5% of WORLD GDP. Does anyone really believe that is sustainable?
We also are finding more and more ways of treating conditions and extending life both of which are good, but also increase costs vs history. But severely limiting malpractice claims I think would be a good step. Granted an occasional mistake might be made, but do we all want to pay for keeping that right?
...Most states have put a cap on punitive damages. California has a limit of $250,000. on punitive damages if a doctor makes a mistake and cuts off your left leg instead of your right leg. In the old days, a plaintiff may have been awarded $10 million. That may have gotten the doctor's attention so that he wouldn't make the same mistake again. With a limit of 250K, it's just a cost of business that's covered by insurance and the doc is free to keep on butchering people. Did I ever tell you that I despise doctors almost as much as cops?
Tell me, DUANE, what "steps" would you take to "severely" limit malpractice claims? Would you limit the ACTUAL damages a person has suffered because of a doctor's malpractice? If a 30 year old plumber making 50K a year can no longer work because of a doctor's malpractice, would you not compensate him for his 35 years of potential lost earnings? Would you tell him "Tough shit! Mistakes happen!" Is that how you would "severely limit" malpractice awards? Righty morons parrot talking points without thinking - they have no solutions.
-- Modified on 6/23/2017 11:51:19 AM
well their is malpractice and malpractice. A blatant mistake like your example, yes there should be some compensation. But suits for a misdiagnosis, seems very different to me. People can make mistakes. But if you want to keep paying for endless tests and malpractice insurance so you can sue any time a doctor doesn't get it right, fine. Just don't complain to me about your insurance cost.
At least in part, but it's nice to see you making progress. Where you're wrong is in your assumption that putting more capitalism back into health care would be the solution. If that's true, please tell us how well we were doing until 2014 when the ACA launched? As you well know, health care in the US was a disaster then. And don't argue that by then the mere passage of the act had screwed things up. The act was passed in March, 2010 and things were screwed up then, too.
I say we switch to a single-payer system and go full socialist. And we also regulate the piss out of the health care industry. I'm generally not for more regulation but these guys have earned it.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/cost-is-foremost-healthcare-issue-for-americans.aspx
Obummercare has languished in the 45% area, on average. So much for it being a "disaster" back then. No, It wasn't perfect, but an approval rating of out 8 of 10 was fantastic in comparison to the ACA years.
If that wasn't bad enough, you now have come to the conclusion you think the answer is MORE big government injected into our HC system?
Take a look at what single payer looks like in my link below. MUCH higher taxes on businesses and individuals which is exactly what the economy needs. Vermont and Colorado both shelved it as the costs were too high and California is finding out the same thing as they try and go down that road, now.
And let me know how that "full socialist" works when people have to wait 3-10 months for many treatments, as they do in Canada:
Do you really think the land that complains if there delivered pizza isn't on there door step within 30 minutes is going to like a HC system that makes them wait many months for relief of their condition?
WTF does ANYTHING I said above have to do with the approval ratings of the ACA or health care in general? NOTHING. This is a classic red herring on your part, a slick (sarcasm alert) debating trick you and GaGa often use when you know you've lost the argument.
As for single payer, I actually agree it may not solve the underlying problems but it seems to have worked pretty well in the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Well, most of it.
That said, if you can come up with a good way to keep health care costs in check I'll be happy to listen. But it sure ain't this abortion the Congress is trying to foist on us.
Righties like you should be raising holy hell over it because this pig will drown your party with the voters, if not in 2018 then in 2020 or 22. Why do you think the Reps have the full impact on hold until 2026? They'll all be retired or dead by then, when the mob comes for the Reps with pitchforks and torches.
PS: You are some slick debate whiz, Duncey.
...agree on something, socialized medicine will be the future for America when all of these complicated secret systems fail. Of course private industry should be left on it's own competitive path, but our health should never considered as a private for profit industry, capitol profits do nothing but take resources away from a field where those uncontrolled incentives do little to improve this nations health. I believe expanding the Medicare system is the most expeditious way begin to get American's health in better shape. Health problems in our nation are at least partially our own doing many years of poor diet, smoking, alcohol abuse, lack of exercise, & over use of drugs both prescribed & recreational have left many Americans requiring way more healthcare resources than others, if we could just get some of these bad health habits under control our healthcare system would cost us much less.
Can you expound on that for me? Wont expanding it only speed up its demise?
Medicare, aka single payer system, is not socialist. The UK single payer system is socialist. Sounds the same, but clearly different. You need to know the difference.
...to the TRUE definition of socialism.
Did you miss that day in high school?
Here you go.............
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Capitalism_vs_Socialism
Scroll down to economic system. That description is a KEY tenet of Socialism. Take America's most famous Socialist. For Bernie Sanders to claim he is a Socialist, he must believe in that very basic economic concept. If he doesn't, then he is just an obnoxious progressive.
...Well riverboy I know very well the meaning of socialism you are the one that created the confusion by trying to show how government controlled healthcare is not a socialistic program, so if you have nothing positive to contribute just go to sleep on your keyboard.
there are certainly profits in Health Care, but at least this source says the insurance profit margin is pretty low at 3-4% which after eyeballing some revenues might mean there is 25 billion or so annual profits - but this is a very quick guess. More profits in the drug sector. but if you are looking for hundreds of billions I don't think it is there.
The current medicaid system and the ACA in general is unsustainable. The programs do not work. The new senate bill offers cuts that are required now to stop the reckless spending.
The bill provides an overhaul to the medicaid system, program cuts, stops its expansion and gives less federal funding. It allows subsidies based on age, income and cost of coverage. I like the removal of individual and employer mandates. Certain taxes have been eliminated as well. They kept the pre-existing conditions clause which is highly popular and good IMO.
I would have liked them to go a step further and allow the purchase of healthcare insurance plans across state lines. This may introduce competitiveness in the industry, reduce cost and give folks more options.
I think we can all agree that the reckless spending needs to stop. We need a huge overhaul on all entitlement programs. I would like to see the welfare system and social security on the chopping block as well.
...A note to H.C. this newly proposed system won't work ether, why because it's a hybrid program between government & private industry & private industry profits will just continue to take too many resources out of the field & government controls will take service incentives away & after this debacle is past it will take two years for people to discover how bad it is & we get to start all over.
but I agree, I haven't even seen the Senate bill, but for the EXACT reasons you cite, I am sure it's going to be a VERY flawed bill as is the House Bill.
My only slight disagreement with your assessment is the length of time before people "discover" how bad it is and we get to start over again. Just like with ObamaCare "some of us" knew from day one it was a flawed system and doomed to fail, but it took several years for the masses to figure out just what a bill of goods they had been sold and even today, with the proof staring them in the face "some" people still think ObamaCare can be "fixed"
Just like ObamaCare, many if not most of the changes won't even be rolled out until well after the midterms so it will take more than a couple of years to prove just how little (if at all) the GOP bill/s have improved on ObamaCare. At least I will personally benefit by no longer being subject to the mandate and having my capital gains rates go back to where they were pre ACA. I guess that's "something" but health care in this country will still be broken with no real fix anywhere on the horizon.
I am sorry to "mainly" agree with you, I know how that ruins your day. lol
...as a matter of fact I am still basking in the glow of spending time with a gorgeous women yesterday so not much anyone could type could ruin my day. The reason I expect the voting public to be more discriminating against this bill sooner than the current ACA law is exactly that,because of the mistrust for almost any healthcare legislation the government comes up with. Which is good reasoning for expanding Medicare, just ask anyone over the age of 65 they love it,it covers 80% of their expenses & supplemental policies that cover most of the rest are reasonably priced. the other good thing about Medicare is it controls expenses (it could do better at that) but at least we would be starting out with a trusted system that has been proven to work & could then be adjusted to better fit the economy.