New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#1 2017-08-20 19:45:04

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 10,262

Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

Much of the time for the Trump Presidency has been wasted on repeal of Obamacare rather than fixing what is wrong with it and not trying to ram down the throat of the people Trumpcare....I am sure we have a few post in the political topic that apply.

2 Maps Show The Big Obamacare Crisis Republicans Keep Citing Isn’t Actually That Big It’s a real issue for some parts of the country. But it’s not so hard to fix.

Current state maps of insurance:
5995ce871400001f002c3491.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale

One must remember that this is for the exchnage and not what is available by private curriers in the state to which each state says whom can operate within there borders to provide insurance.

All I did was google for a list of NH healthcare insurance companies

Hoops for private
http://www.nh.gov/insurance/consumers/healthinscos.htm

exchange
https://www.healthinsurance.org/new-hampshire/

So a state that only has 1 exchange insurer means they are greedy for profits and not being there as a provider.

From the only posted comment on the exchange page:

Gerald Demers
im in very good health. and ill take the credit for that. im looking for a health care plan that will keep the goverment off my back, and thats putting it up too high. show me the cheepist policy there is. its all i need to waste my money on.

This was due to the penaly for not having insurance but the exchange is offering complete all in insurance and not Catastrophic Health Insurance Plans. Even thou the insurers are playing games with what is covered for the whole body such as dental and vision care which are seperate policies.....

Offline

#2 2017-08-21 16:26:14

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 10,262

Re: Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

For those that are not on an employer insurance plan you would start your look at sites like this one: http://www.governmenthealthinsurance.co … bw_mobile=

entering the zipcode forwards to state issuers of which when you go to that page starts to put you into risk management groups for pricing....

Do you have any of the following health conditions?
    AIDS/HIV
    Bipolar Disorder
    Cancer
    Cirrhosis
    Depression Requiring
    Hospitalization
    Diabetes Type I
    Erythematous
    Heart Disease
    Kidney/Renal Failure
    Muscular Dystrophy
    Schizophrenia
    Systemic Lupus
    Transplant History

$$$ for the policy....

Offline

#3 2017-08-21 17:32:44

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 10,262

Re: Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

McConnell: Next Steps on Obamacare are ‘Somewhat Murky’

Well, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell the next steps for Congress on health care reform will require more than just talks with Democrats to see what sort of measures the two parties might be able to agree on as its got to do no harm to the people which are counting on its benefits to be there.

Offline

#4 2017-08-21 21:53:48

RobertDyck
Member
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 4,921
Website

Re: Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

If you Google, you can find other websites that find health insurance. I tried the one you provided. It popped-up a window, which gets stuck on "We are collecting your search results." and "- Loading -".

Offline

#5 2017-08-22 17:06:46

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 10,262

Re: Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

Only one county in (Ohio) US remains without an Obamacare insurer for 2018

That's a big change from earlier this summer when at different times a total of 82 counties lacked commitments from insurers who sell individual health plans for 2018.

And the continued decline in "bare counties" provides more ammunition for Obamacare advocates arguing against Trump administration claims that the health-care program is failing and needs to be replaced immediately.

The latest potential bare area to get coverage offered for next year was Menominee County in Wisconsin, where just 47 people buy Obamacare plans on the federal marketplace HealthCare.gov.

What was there only 48 in the state that needed it?

Insurance is still to costly for the benefits recieved when you need to use it and the rules from one to the next plus for the place of service all need to astrologically align for you to get the most out of it.

Offline

#6 2017-08-23 13:18:30

RobertDyck
Member
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 4,921
Website

Re: Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

In the Politics thread, I suggested America adopt Canadian Healthcare. Again, it's not free, there's a premium. But it's a lot less expensive.

Offline

#7 2017-08-23 16:10:05

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 10,262

Re: Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

A little further back in the topic I meantioned how the low income afforded there healthcare by going to the mobile units:
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 65#p139865

GW Johnson wrote:

What do you expect from for-profit operators who DID NOT sign the Hippocratic Oath? 

Between that and duplicated overhead, our insurance-mediated health care delivery system is the least cost-effective in the entire civilized world.  And for no reason except to toe the line on ideology. 

GW

Yes I remember GW...

The same is true for the drugs that can be gotten just north of the border in canada as well.

Having a lower cost would mean that more would be willing to go an get the insurance in the first place.

In fact supplemental insurance would be affordable as well for the excessive costs sometimes incurred....

Offline

#8 2017-08-24 11:03:00

kbd512
Member
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 1,074

Re: Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

SpaceNut,

Politics

You know as well as anybody that liberals will oppose anything President Trump says or does, no matter how practical, economical, logical, or moral.  If anybody had a solution that was politically tenable, it would've materialized by now.  Socialists think that if only the government program is "too big to fail", then somehow it won't.  Conservatives rightly point out that pretty much every large or poorly defined government-run program has been a failure, if results achieved in terms of dollars spent is in anyway involved in the calculus of a determination of success.

Fiscal Reality

If anyone here can name off a large government program that is successful in terms of results achieved per dollars spent, I'd love to read about it.  Pretty much everyone here thinks we spend too much money and the only real disagreement is over what it's spent on.  In terms of budget, only the defense budget is comparable to what the US spends on entitlement programs and there are no shortage of critics of our defense spending, even within DoD.  My critiques of questionable DoD spending are pretty well known to people who have read what I've written.

Actual Results

In any event, our insurance premiums have just about tripled under the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare), but quality of service has not tripled, access has not tripled, and services covered have not tripled.  If anything, our deductibles are higher, coverage is less than what it was prior to implementation of the ACA, and access has most assuredly not improved.  Our experience is not in any way unique.  I haven't conversed with any Texans who actually use require health care services who also noted an improvement in any of the named areas, apart from people who had never paid into health care insurance to begin with.

Intractable Problems

All those medical conditions you named off are what I categorize as intractable problems because little to no real effort is being made to cure or otherwise create permanent solutions to correct those medical conditions.  A decade ago, I honestly believed we were well on our way to curing and vaccinating against HIV/AIDS, but such was and is not the case.  Apart from rare forms of cancer, prototypical cancers should've been something we cured decades ago, too.  Excepting certain forms of treatment that can be effective when the cancer is detected at an early stage, no real progress has been seen in this critical area of medical capability in decades.

In certain areas, we're clearly much further along than we were even a decade ago.  However, there's a one to two decade lag between the time a cure (chemical compound, gene therapy, radiation therapy) is discovered and the time it's implemented on a mass scale.  Laser vision correction surgery has only recently become available and affordable to the common person and results are more or less guaranteed.

We now have designer drugs that can completely reverse brain damage, DNA degeneration, and muscular degeneration, but those drugs have literally become available in the past year or two and it'll be another decade before science admits that they work in a general sense and then makes them widely available.

Questions

Does anyone here have any solutions they'd like to try that have been determined through actual implementation elsewhere to improve outcomes, reduce costs, and generally improve upon the feasibility of the system currently in place?  If so, then please share.  It's fairly evident that nobody in our government (and I include both Democrats and Republicans here) has any realistic solutions.

Offline

#9 2017-08-24 16:23:06

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 2,340

Re: Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

In answer to your last question, I have heard that Belgium is generally held to have the best system in terms of health outcomes and fiscal efficiency.  It's quite complex, surprisingly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcar … l_security

It is a kind of compulsory contribution system but with competition between insurance providers as far as I understand it.

The problem with the NHS in the UK, is that it is basically the sole provider.

Personally I would like the UK to move to a health voucher system - where every citizen's health voucher allows them to "buy" their health care from a provider, who would have to meet minimal contract standards (but could offer more).  The health voucher system also allows you to incentivise healthy behaviour through rebates.

Our health systems reflect our cultural values. American culture is far more individualistic than all European societies - but there is a lot of variation within Europe as well.


kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,

Politics

You know as well as anybody that liberals will oppose anything President Trump says or does, no matter how practical, economical, logical, or moral.  If anybody had a solution that was politically tenable, it would've materialized by now.  Socialists think that if only the government program is "too big to fail", then somehow it won't.  Conservatives rightly point out that pretty much every large or poorly defined government-run program has been a failure, if results achieved in terms of dollars spent is in anyway involved in the calculus of a determination of success.

Fiscal Reality

If anyone here can name off a large government program that is successful in terms of results achieved per dollars spent, I'd love to read about it.  Pretty much everyone here thinks we spend too much money and the only real disagreement is over what it's spent on.  In terms of budget, only the defense budget is comparable to what the US spends on entitlement programs and there are no shortage of critics of our defense spending, even within DoD.  My critiques of questionable DoD spending are pretty well known to people who have read what I've written.

Actual Results

In any event, our insurance premiums have just about tripled under the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare), but quality of service has not tripled, access has not tripled, and services covered have not tripled.  If anything, our deductibles are higher, coverage is less than what it was prior to implementation of the ACA, and access has most assuredly not improved.  Our experience is not in any way unique.  I haven't conversed with any Texans who actually use require health care services who also noted an improvement in any of the named areas, apart from people who had never paid into health care insurance to begin with.

Intractable Problems

All those medical conditions you named off are what I categorize as intractable problems because little to no real effort is being made to cure or otherwise create permanent solutions to correct those medical conditions.  A decade ago, I honestly believed we were well on our way to curing and vaccinating against HIV/AIDS, but such was and is not the case.  Apart from rare forms of cancer, prototypical cancers should've been something we cured decades ago, too.  Excepting certain forms of treatment that can be effective when the cancer is detected at an early stage, no real progress has been seen in this critical area of medical capability in decades.

In certain areas, we're clearly much further along than we were even a decade ago.  However, there's a one to two decade lag between the time a cure (chemical compound, gene therapy, radiation therapy) is discovered and the time it's implemented on a mass scale.  Laser vision correction surgery has only recently become available and affordable to the common person and results are more or less guaranteed.

We now have designer drugs that can completely reverse brain damage, DNA degeneration, and muscular degeneration, but those drugs have literally become available in the past year or two and it'll be another decade before science admits that they work in a general sense and then makes them widely available.

Questions

Does anyone here have any solutions they'd like to try that have been determined through actual implementation elsewhere to improve outcomes, reduce costs, and generally improve upon the feasibility of the system currently in place?  If so, then please share.  It's fairly evident that nobody in our government (and I include both Democrats and Republicans here) has any realistic solutions.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#10 2017-08-24 16:42:05

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 10,262

Re: Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

Questions asked for the insurance:

http://www.kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

Enter Information About Your Household
1. Select a State
2. Enter income as 2017 yearly or as a % of poverty
3. Enter your yearly household income (dollars)
4. Is coverage available from your or your spouse’s job?
5. Number of people in family
6. Number of adults (21 to 64) enrolling in Marketplace coverage
7. Number of children (20 and younger) enrolling in Marketplace coverage

1 state regulated providers and type of policies not being provided nation wide
2 subsidized levels not equal from one state to the next as table for povery is used are different for each state
3 Income to high will not allow for you to get insurance that might be lower in cost
4 another means to screen out lower costing policies for those that want too
5 a way to inflate risk costs for them but not to give benefits
6 risk pool level, I am surprised that they did not ask how many are over that age of 64 but then again that for medicare and medicade enrollments.
7 coverage type pool for risk


This is just the insurance company side of this complex problem...

Are we the united states or not as we should be able to get any provider in any state and have the same policies in all.....

Offline

#11 2017-08-24 23:04:28

RobertDyck
Member
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 4,921
Website

Re: Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

Text of the Canada Health Act. Could I suggest starting with this for a new American healthcare bill?

In Canada, healthcare started with Canadian equivalent of HMOs. Then provinces created a province-wide system, first one province then others. In 1966 the federal government passed a national healthcare act. It has evolved, the current system is based on a bill passed in 1984.

Key features

  • Public administration

  • Comprehensiveness

  • Universality

  • Portability

  • Accessibility

  • Additional conditions

    • federal Minister of Health is entitled to specific information

    • the province must "give recognition" to the federal government "in any public documents, or in any advertising or promotional material, relating to insured health services and extended health care services in the province"

Offline

#12 2017-08-25 04:20:11

Terraformer
Member
From: Atlantis
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 2,405
Website

Re: Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

louis wrote:

Personally I would like the UK to move to a health voucher system - where every citizen's health voucher allows them to "buy" their health care from a provider, who would have to meet minimal contract standards (but could offer more).  The health voucher system also allows you to incentivise healthy behaviour through rebates.

I'd prefer if they'd use the system already used for GP surgeries for hospitals. Privately operated (but probably non-profit) hospitals under contract to take NHS patients. There would be a list of how much the government is willing to spend for each treatment... which we already have, but it's done in a very haphazard manner between NICE (National Institute for Care Excellence) and individual NHS trusts. People would be free to top up their healthcare with their own money (so if the government will spend £20k/month on a treatment, and they want to use one which costs £30k/month, they would only have to find the extra £10k/month - at the moment they would have to find the full amount and go private). Prescription charges would be done away with (either completely, or have people paying cost with a price cap - my inhalers cost a lot less than the NHS charge me for them), and instead there would be an appointment copay (no more than £5), applicable when making a new appointment (so if the doctor tells you to come in a month, you wouldn't have to pay), which can be reclaimed by those on low incomes. The idea would be to encourage people to only come in if they're actually sick, which is a major problem GP surgeries face.

Accident and Emergency, though, should probably be treated as one of the emergency services, separate from primary healthcare and treatment of chronic illnesses.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#13 2017-08-25 11:32:24

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 2,581
Website

Re: Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

Louis mentioned the Belgian system,  and made it sound like a sort of blend of public and private stuff.  That blended approach is what the Australians use,  and to the best of my knowledge,  may be just about the best there is so far.  You can't fix or replace anything successfully if you don't go look at examples that offer better outcomes.  Then,  you "adopt,  adapt,  and improve",  as the old Round Table motto has it.  But nothing happens if you value ideology over fact.  Which is where we are.

GW


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#14 2017-09-12 20:08:39

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 10,262

Re: Healthcare for all, not Trump or Obama care

Pay attention to the proposal. Pay more attention to what he says about it. “Medicare-for-all” proposal.
Ready Or Not, Here Comes Bernie Sanders And His Single-Payer Plan

The Affordable Care Act has helped millions to get insurance, improving access to care and offering financial security many lacked before. It also created a political consensus behind the essential principle of universal coverage ― that everybody should have insurance, regardless of income or medical condition.

But the law has also fallen short of realizing that goal. Millions of Americans still don’t have insurance. Millions who do are stuck with high premiums or out-of-pocket expenses.

Sounds like a new grouping somewhere in between Medicaid and Medicare ....

Officials say they are collecting general demographic data for research, but the move has alarmed some state officials Federal Requests For Patient Info Raise Red Flags In States That Allow Medical Pot Use “With the anti-marijuana rhetoric coming from the Trump administration’s Department of Justice, you do have to wonder what the true motivation is here.”

“The intent is to provide factual information about the consequences of medical marijuana, “part of our mission to examine the impacts of medical and recreational marijuana.” which 29 states that have legalized marijuana for medical purposes.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB