MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
Now that Republicans have withdrawn Mr. Ryan’s bill from consideration, attention shifts to what comes next. In an earlier column, I suggested that Mr. Trump has the political leverage, which President Obama did not, to jettison the traditional Republican approach in favor of a form of the single-payer health care that most other countries use. According to Physicians for a National Health Program, an advocacy group, “Single-payer national health insurance, also known as ‘Medicare for all,’ is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.” Christopher Ruddy, a friend and adviser of the president, recently urged him to consider this option.
...
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of total operating expenditures, less than one-sixth of the rate estimated for the private insurance industry. This difference does not mean that private insurers are evil. It’s a simple consequence of a difference in the relevant economic incentives.
American health care outlays per capita in 2015 were more than twice the average of those in the 35 advanced countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Yet despite that spending difference, the system in the United States delivers significantly less favorable outcomes on measures like longevity and the incidence of chronic illness.
But advertising expenses and administrative costs are not the most important reason the United States spends so much more. The main difference is that prices for medical services are so much lower in other countries. In France, for example, a magnetic resonance imaging exam costs $363, on average, compared with $1,121 in the United States; an appendectomy is $4,463 in France, versus $13,851 in America. These differences stem largely from the fact that single payers — which is to say, governments — are typically able to negotiate more favorable terms with service providers.
In short, Medicare for all could deliver quality care at much lower cost than private insurers do now. People would of course be free to supplement their public coverage with private insurance, as they now do in most other countries with single-payer systems, and as many older Americans do with Medicare.
[Paranoid some ...]
[Trump does not give a shit about anyone ... least of all foreigners. He is a socio/pcyho-path.]
[Oh, the Medicaid expansion ... fuck 'em! Let them die.]
Behind Blue Eyes after the Bill was Killed.
http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com/2017/03/behind-blue-eyes-after-bill-was-killed.html
The Who - Behind Blue Eyes
http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com/2017/03/behind-blue-eyes-after-bill-was-killed.html
The Who - Behind Blue Eyes
Last edited:
Since he got screwed by the far right it is not far fetched that he may go to single payer.
I did see an interview in which he praised single payer in Canada.
They don't mind telling the country that they intend to kill the poor by taking healthcare from them.
What they don't understand is that most Americans are not as jaded and want healthcare for all.
This is the beginning of the end for the gop. Either they change or slowly become irrelevant to the political discussion.
[Flynn Flip ... Please ...]
[Not if the objective was cause immeasurable suffering and kill.]
The House speaker is more identified with AHCA than anyone else, and had greater control than anyone else of its moving parts. It was his bill, his plan, his preferred timing. But he produced one of the worst pieces of major legislation in memory—and his reputation as a policy professional and legislative tactician may never recover. Given the opportunity to reshape critical pieces of America’s health care safety-net, Ryan might have led an effort to craft a conservative, but incremental bill consistent with President Trump’s economic populist rhetoric. He might have proposed more modest cuts on the most needy, smaller tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, and tried harder to accommodate the needs of Republican governors, interest groups and citizens who rely on the Affordable Care Act in their daily lives.
He didn’t. Instead, he and his allies crafted a poorly constructed and radical bill that would sharply cut support to low-income Americans and those with serious health conditions, while enacting big tax cuts for the wealthy. The payout to the top 400 families alone was estimated to exceed total ACA subsidies in 20 states and the District of Columbia. All of this was wildly out of step with American voters—only 17 percent of whom supported this bill.
The House speaker is more identified with AHCA than anyone else, and had greater control than anyone else of its moving parts. It was his bill, his plan, his preferred timing. But he produced one of the worst pieces of major legislation in memory—and his reputation as a policy professional and legislative tactician may never recover. Given the opportunity to reshape critical pieces of America’s health care safety-net, Ryan might have led an effort to craft a conservative, but incremental bill consistent with President Trump’s economic populist rhetoric. He might have proposed more modest cuts on the most needy, smaller tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, and tried harder to accommodate the needs of Republican governors, interest groups and citizens who rely on the Affordable Care Act in their daily lives.
He didn’t. Instead, he and his allies crafted a poorly constructed and radical bill that would sharply cut support to low-income Americans and those with serious health conditions, while enacting big tax cuts for the wealthy. The payout to the top 400 families alone was estimated to exceed total ACA subsidies in 20 states and the District of Columbia. All of this was wildly out of step with American voters—only 17 percent of whom supported this bill.
[Follow the $$$]
[Connecting ...]
DedLift
New Member
Jus playin
And neither did you, despite all your promises to replace Obamacare with “something terrific” because you wanted everyone to be covered.
Instead, you sold the D.O.A. bill the Irish undertaker gave you as though it were a luxury condo, ignoring the fact that it was a cruel flimflam, a huge tax cut for the rich disguised as a health care bill. You were so concerned with the “win” that you forgot your “forgotten” Americans, the older, poorer people in rural areas who would be hurt by the bill.
This is the danger of having a narcissistic megalomaniac in the highest office in the land.
He must be removed from office. Our country has never been in greater danger than we are today.
