ACA Replacement

[Quetzal]

A few days ago someone posted a thread regarding the ACA and a few moments ago another news story popped up on my feed. But... I still haven't heard about what the replacement actually is. What will be different about it? How will it be paid for? etc. If anyone has some light to shed from sources we might have missed, I would love to hear it. As I stated before, the removal of the ACA is fine, so long as they are ready with something else that is more efficient.

Let's try to stay on topic. This isn't an Obama/Hillary/Trump bashing, let's stay focused and try to be rational here. Thanks!

 

[Revoltingest]

A few days ago someone posted a thread regarding the ACA and a few moments ago another news story popped up on my feed. But... I still haven't heard about what the replacement actually is. What will be different about it? How will it be paid for? etc. If anyone has some light to shed from sources we might have missed, I would love to hear it. As I stated before, the removal of the ACA is fine, so long as they are ready with something else that is more efficient.

Let's try to stay on topic. This isn't an Obama/Hillary/Trump bashing, let's stay focused and try to be rational here. Thanks!

Here's what I'd do to replace Obamacare.......

I'd hire a division of IBM which does health care analysis to design a new system from scratch.
I'd get all legislators to agree in advance to abide by whatever decision they reach.

Sounds dangerous & exciting, eh?

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me the repeal of the ACA wasn't done in order to replace it with anything better. Rather, it was done to benefit the health insurance industry. If it had been done to replace it with something better, we'd already have a replacement. But you don't have to replace it to benefit the health care industry, so it was not necessary to repeal it with a replacement in place.

The Republicans have had years to come up with a better health care package than the ACA. They haven't done so in all that time because their intention is to benefit the health care industry, not provide better health care to millions of people.

 

[Quetzal]

Sounds dangerous & exciting, eh?

Joke's on you because this would never happen vvvvv

I'd get all legislators to agree in advance to abide by whatever decision they reach.

Heck, they can't agree with each other what would you do to get them to- you know what, I don't wanna know. I just know you have your ways.

 

[Revoltingest]

Joke's on you because this would never happen vvvvv

Oh, I well know that this is a loopy fantasy.
It's just fodder for discussion.

Heck, they can't agree with each other what would you do to get them to- you know what, I don't wanna know. I just know you have your ways.

Perhaps an advanced & violent authoritarian alien race
could imposed it upon an unwilling government..

 

[Quetzal]

Perhaps an advanced & violent authoritarian alien race
could imposed it upon an unwilling government..

I'll see what I can do.

In the meantime, anyone have any predictions of when they might have a suitable replacement? I am thinking 6 months? Maybe a year?

 

[Laika]

Here's what I'd do to replace Obamacare.......

I'd hire a division of IBM which does health care analysis to design a new system from scratch.
I'd get all legislators to agree in advance to abide by whatever decision they reach.

Sounds dangerous & exciting, eh?

So you're going with privatising the legislative process?

How Anarcho-Capitalist of you.

 

[Neo Deist]

Make Congress take the same insurance as everyone else and the crap will get fixed overnight.

 

[Revoltingest]

...anyone have any predictions of when they might have a suitable replacement? I am thinking 6 months? Maybe a year?

At least a year.

 

[Augustus]

Make Congress take the same insurance as everyone else and the crap will get fixed overnight.

They should also apply something similar to wars.

In the past, leaders who went to war would be at the head of the army. If politicians think it is worth risking other people's lives to protect vital national interests, then they should have no problem doing their patriotic duty and signing up for service.

I'd guess we'd see a lot fewer of the weaselly little 'hawks' who like to talk the tough talk and play the big man, but only from the safety of their luxury surroundings.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you're going with privatising the legislative process?
How Anarcho-Capitalist of you.

The health care system is too important to let politicians actually design it.
We don't let legislators design rockets, buildings, computers or planes, do we?
Of course not....they're typically lawyers, whose business is wrecking rather than building things.
Obamacare is pretty consistent with my claim.

 

[Augustus]

. I still haven't heard about what the replacement actually is. What will be different about it? How will it be paid for?

If they start by not getting robbed by big pharma they would save a fortune. At the moment you massively overpay for many drugs compared to other countries.

By reducing the extreme compensation culture and ludicrous lawsuits another small fortune could be saved.

The rest of it I have no idea though.

Here's what I'd do to replace Obamacare.......

I'd hire a division of IBM which does health care analysis to design a new system from scratch.
I'd get all legislators to agree in advance to abide by whatever decision they reach.

Sounds dangerous & exciting, eh?

As an arch free-marketeer, how do you think it is possible to solve the problem of profiteering within the system?

In profit focused healthcare, you encourage hospitals/doctors to charge patients as much as possible through longer stays, more and more expensive medicines, unnecessary procedures, etc. Patients also tend to care little if their costs are covered by insurers.

This results in worse healthcare and more expensive premiums.

Really, you need doctors to be incentivised (within reason), to avoid treating patients unless necessary and favouring the cheaper options if all things are equal.

 

[Revoltingest]

As an arch free-marketeer, how do you think it is possible to solve the problem of profiteering within the system?

Is "arch" ever a complimentary prefix?
Anyway, I don't see profit as the problem, so it needn't be solved.
Eliminating it would still leave a cumbersome & wasteful system.
That's what needs to be addressed.

In profit focused healthcare, you encourage hospitals/doctors to charge patients as much as possible through longer stays, more and more expensive medicines, unnecessary procedures, etc. Patients also tend to care little if their costs are covered by insurers.

This points to a highly distorted market being the problem.
Analogy time....
Computer companies also want to charge as much as possible, yet prices are falling as quality increases.
This is because the consumer shops in a free market.

Really, you need doctors to be incentivised (within reason), to avoid treating patients unless necessary and favouring the cheaper options if all things are equal.

That would be nice, but this doesn't address fundamental problems.
This is why people who are in the business of health care practice,
analysis & design should be the designers. Not lawyers who
design things to benefit lawyers.

 

[Laika]

The health care system is too important to let politicians actually design it.
We don't let legislators design rockets, buildings, computers or planes, do we?
Of course not....they're typically lawyers, whose business is wrecking rather than building things.
Obamacare is pretty consistent with my claim.

Can I ask if you believe people have a "right" to healthcare? As that would make it in the public interest for the government to provide it/ensure universal access to it even if it were private.

 

[Quetzal]

As that would make it in the public interest for the government to provide it/ensure universal access to it even if it were private.

My big beef with some private health care providers is their choice to drop their coverage on folks because they get sick. Then, competitors will refuse to take them on due to pre-existing conditions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can I ask if you believe people have a "right" to healthcare?

You may ask.
Is this something you might do?
<snicker>
I don't believe it is a right.
But I'm politically pragmatic, & recognize that it will be treated as one to some extent.
So the real issue is how to best go about it.

As that would make it in the public interest for the government to provide it/ensure universal access to it even if it were private.

Government isn't always the cheapest or best provider of a service or product.
But whether one agrees or disagrees with that, I don't see this country heading
towards elimination of private industries from health care. The organization I
recommended would be (IMO) best qualified to design something for us.

 

[tytlyf]

My big beef with some private health care providers is their choice to drop their coverage on folks because they get sick. Then, competitors will refuse to take them on due to pre-existing conditions.

That's what this is all about. Republicans in congress are lobbied by these insurance companies to remove laws that hurt their bottom line. In this case, the regulation of forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is their biggest beef. So these companies want republicans to remove that mandate. When capitalism gets to a certain level, it's all about greed.

 

[buddhist]

If they replace it, the replacement should be an opt-in system.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The health care system is too important to let politicians actually design it.

That's just a problem with our system. Education is flooded with, and about to be helmed by, those with a lack of experience as educators. In terms of DeVos, she has zero experience in dealing with public education and favors the private/Christian schools, where we sometimes find curriculum that is so horrifying that it actually justifies racial segregation and it's just the way things are for a woman to be totally housebound and submissive. And, of course, rampant science denial where students don't become smart enough to launch their own scientific inquiry but come out dumb enough to point out the obvious of "it's just a theory," as if it's a challenge to it's existence as a theory. The same goes for science, diplomats, and even now the president. We expect experience for things that aren't really that big of a deal and can and should be learned on the job, often creating barriers towards employment, but with **** that matters very much we have no standards.

 

[tytlyf]

If they replace it, the replacement should be an opt-in system.

They won't replace it. They've been lying for years about a replacement. Which is why they have no replacement.