Healthcare question for you liberals
#1
Why are you liberals as a party opposed to Americans being able to buy healthcare a crossed State lines, small businesses joining together and negotiating group health care costs,  healthcare tort reform, and having the FDA expediting the process to get generic drugs on the market which will lower cost?

 So why is your party so opposed to these things that would lower healthcare costs?
Reply
#2
(03-13-2017, 10:54 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: Why are you liberals as a party opposed to Americans being able to buy healthcare a crossed State lines, small businesses joining together and negotiating group health care costs,  healthcare tort reform, and having the FDA expediting the process to get generic drugs on the market which will lower cost?

 So why is your party so opposed to these things that would lower healthcare costs?

This "Liberal" is not opposed to insurance companies offering services in all states. I think small business joining together and negotiating costs is a good practice. Healthcare tort reform could be a good thing: However the devil is in the details and one should be able to sue for malpractice. If the FDA is "dragging their feet" in allowing needed medications to reach the market, that should be corrected. But, remember thalidomide? Caution is important. 

So, the GOP has had 8 years to draft a healthcare plan. Now, they patch together a program that is debated hotly by various groups in the party. And THAT is the healthcare question for "you Conservatives". 
 
Reply
#3
Nothing you described will bring down costs. Why would any entity willingly take less than
They could absent market controls.
The rethug lie is that they are interested in bringing down costs.
Reply
#4
(03-13-2017, 11:34 AM)OWonky3 Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 10:54 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: Why are you liberals as a party opposed to Americans being able to buy healthcare a crossed State lines, small businesses joining together and negotiating group health care costs,  healthcare tort reform, and having the FDA expediting the process to get generic drugs on the market which will lower cost?

 So why is your party so opposed to these things that would lower healthcare costs?

This "Liberal" is not opposed to insurance companies offering services in all states. I think small business joining together and negotiating costs is a good practice. Healthcare tort reform could be a good thing: However the devil is in the details and one should be able to sue for malpractice. If the FDA is "dragging their feet" in allowing needed medications to reach the market, that should be corrected. But, remember thalidomide? Caution is important. 

So, the GOP has had 8 years to draft a healthcare plan. Now, they patch together a program that is debated hotly by various groups in the party. And THAT is the healthcare question for "you Conservatives". 
 

The items i mentioned above require 60 votes in the Senate to pass and have pretty much zero chance to get any dem support, the items in Ryan's house plan are all items that just need a simple majority to pass via reconciliation. Ryan's plan is phase one.  There are republicans that want the whole ball of wax included in their bill which would require 60 votes in the senate.
Reply
#5
(03-13-2017, 11:55 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 11:34 AM)OWonky3 Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 10:54 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: Why are you liberals as a party opposed to Americans being able to buy healthcare a crossed State lines, small businesses joining together and negotiating group health care costs,  healthcare tort reform, and having the FDA expediting the process to get generic drugs on the market which will lower cost?

 So why is your party so opposed to these things that would lower healthcare costs?

This "Liberal" is not opposed to insurance companies offering services in all states. I think small business joining together and negotiating costs is a good practice. Healthcare tort reform could be a good thing: However the devil is in the details and one should be able to sue for malpractice. If the FDA is "dragging their feet" in allowing needed medications to reach the market, that should be corrected. But, remember thalidomide? Caution is important. 

So, the GOP has had 8 years to draft a healthcare plan. Now, they patch together a program that is debated hotly by various groups in the party. And THAT is the healthcare question for "you Conservatives". 
 

The items i mentioned above require 60 votes in the Senate to pass and have pretty much zero chance to get any dem support, the items in Ryan's house plan are all items that just need a simple majority to pass via reconciliation. Ryan's plan is phase one.  There are republicans that want the whole ball of wax included in their bill which would require 60 votes in the senate.

Political pundits are suggesting that there are at least 4, perhaps 6, Republican senators who will not vote for what Ryan sends up. 
The GOP is splintered, lost in the weeds, and have a president who only reluctantly accepted the Republican brand. This bunch have a majority in congress, sympathy from the SCOTUS, and the oval office. The Freedom Caucus alone, some 42 members of the house, will clog the system. Rand Paul is a no vote, senator Cotton will gum up the works, and senator McCain will vote HIS way. 
The gang that can't vote straight.
Reply
#6
(03-13-2017, 11:45 AM)bbqboy Wrote: Nothing you described will bring down costs. Why would any entity willingly take less than
They could absent market controls.
The rethug lie is that they are interested in bringing down costs.

I agree, insurance does not bring down the health care cost.
There are people to be paid in the insurance industry. That money comes from health care dollars.
If you want to lower healthcare cost, we need free schooling for nurse and doctors and pharmaceutical technicians.

Supply and demand rule on this one.

Also cut down patent protection time on new drugs.
Help subsidies drug research in the form of tax credits
Reply
#7
The common objection to selling insurance across state lines is that currently insurance is regulated at the state level. If we in Oregon buy insurance from a provider in (for instance) Alabama and have a disagreement with them we'd be pretty much screwed. Unless you have deep enough pockets to take them to court yourself, assuming there isn't a mediation clause, you have no recourse.

Currently we may be able to call the Oregon Insurance Division and enlist their help to hold the insurance companies feet to the fire to get satisfaction. I think they only have jurisdiction over companies doing business in state though. Of course this all depends on just what your beef with them is.

I'd be all for small company co-ops for insurance.

As for tort reform and new or generic drug approvals, as Wonky said the details make all the difference.
Reply
#8
(03-13-2017, 06:28 PM)Cuzz Wrote: The common objection to selling insurance across state lines is that currently insurance is regulated at the state level. If we in Oregon buy insurance from a provider in (for instance) Alabama and have a disagreement with them we'd be pretty much screwed. Unless you have deep enough pockets to take them to court yourself, assuming there isn't a mediation clause, you have no recourse.

Currently we may be able to call the Oregon Insurance Division and enlist their help to hold the insurance companies feet to the fire to get satisfaction. I think they only have jurisdiction over companies doing business in state though. Of course this all depends on just what your beef with them is.

That's the same regulatory board that approves the cost increases the industry requests, and gets blamed for being greedy. Without approval the increases can't happen. So wouldn't it make more sense to deal with the regulatory board?
Reply
#9
(03-13-2017, 06:32 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 06:28 PM)Cuzz Wrote: The common objection to selling insurance across state lines is that currently insurance is regulated at the state level. If we in Oregon buy insurance from a provider in (for instance) Alabama and have a disagreement with them we'd be pretty much screwed. Unless you have deep enough pockets to take them to court yourself, assuming there isn't a mediation clause, you have no recourse.

Currently we may be able to call the Oregon Insurance Division and enlist their help to hold the insurance companies feet to the fire to get satisfaction. I think they only have jurisdiction over companies doing business in state though. Of course this all depends on just what your beef with them is.

That's the same regulatory board that approves the cost increases the industry requests, and gets blamed for being greedy. Without approval the increases can't happen. So wouldn't it make more sense to deal with the regulatory board?

Not sure I'm following you. Come again?
Reply
#10
(03-13-2017, 06:35 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 06:32 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 06:28 PM)Cuzz Wrote: The common objection to selling insurance across state lines is that currently insurance is regulated at the state level. If we in Oregon buy insurance from a provider in (for instance) Alabama and have a disagreement with them we'd be pretty much screwed. Unless you have deep enough pockets to take them to court yourself, assuming there isn't a mediation clause, you have no recourse.

Currently we may be able to call the Oregon Insurance Division and enlist their help to hold the insurance companies feet to the fire to get satisfaction. I think they only have jurisdiction over companies doing business in state though. Of course this all depends on just what your beef with them is.

That's the same regulatory board that approves the cost increases the industry requests, and gets blamed for being greedy. Without approval the increases can't happen. So wouldn't it make more sense to deal with the regulatory board?

Not sure I'm following you. Come again?
The insurance companies can't just arbitrarily raise the rates, they have a process to follow and present their rate increases to the regulatory board for approval. So if you don't like your increase in premiums blame the regulatory board for approving them, not the carriers for following procedure. It's as if you guys don't know how it works.
Reply
#11
(03-13-2017, 07:16 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 06:35 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 06:32 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 06:28 PM)Cuzz Wrote: The common objection to selling insurance across state lines is that currently insurance is regulated at the state level. If we in Oregon buy insurance from a provider in (for instance) Alabama and have a disagreement with them we'd be pretty much screwed. Unless you have deep enough pockets to take them to court yourself, assuming there isn't a mediation clause, you have no recourse.

Currently we may be able to call the Oregon Insurance Division and enlist their help to hold the insurance companies feet to the fire to get satisfaction. I think they only have jurisdiction over companies doing business in state though. Of course this all depends on just what your beef with them is.

That's the same regulatory board that approves the cost increases the industry requests, and gets blamed for being greedy. Without approval the increases can't happen. So wouldn't it make more sense to deal with the regulatory board?

Not sure I'm following you. Come again?
The insurance companies can't just arbitrarily raise the rates, they have a process to follow and present their rate increases to the regulatory board for approval. So if you don't like your increase in premiums blame the regulatory board for approving them, not the carriers for following procedure. It's as if you guys don't know how it works.
The McCarran-Ferguson Act provides that even though the insuring or provision of healthcare may be national in scope, the regulation of insurance is left to the states. Likewise, the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Act provides that HMO's or health service plans are regulated by the states.

And, if think the insurance companies don't cook the books to make their case, you are wrong. In fact, making their case is easy enough given the cost of "retail" care when insurance is not paying.
Reply
#12
Wasn't there an upper cap on what an insurance company can profit, over actual cost of services.
If the insurance company collected too much, they had to return a rebate.

I bet that gets thrown out.
Reply
#13
(03-13-2017, 07:16 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 06:35 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 06:32 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 06:28 PM)Cuzz Wrote: The common objection to selling insurance across state lines is that currently insurance is regulated at the state level. If we in Oregon buy insurance from a provider in (for instance) Alabama and have a disagreement with them we'd be pretty much screwed. Unless you have deep enough pockets to take them to court yourself, assuming there isn't a mediation clause, you have no recourse.

Currently we may be able to call the Oregon Insurance Division and enlist their help to hold the insurance companies feet to the fire to get satisfaction. I think they only have jurisdiction over companies doing business in state though. Of course this all depends on just what your beef with them is.

That's the same regulatory board that approves the cost increases the industry requests, and gets blamed for being greedy. Without approval the increases can't happen. So wouldn't it make more sense to deal with the regulatory board?

Not sure I'm following you. Come again?
The insurance companies can't just arbitrarily raise the rates, they have a process to follow and present their rate increases to the regulatory board for approval. So if you don't like your increase in premiums blame the regulatory board for approving them, not the carriers for following procedure. It's as if you guys don't know how it works.

That's just the point. Out of state insurance companies would be outside the jurisdiction of the Oregon regulatory process. That's the whole point of out of state insurance sales. Those companies would only be regulated by their own state's regulatory body and they wouldn't much care about anyone outside their own state. Oregon would have no influence.
Reply
#14
(03-13-2017, 07:23 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 07:16 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 06:35 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 06:32 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 06:28 PM)Cuzz Wrote: The common objection to selling insurance across state lines is that currently insurance is regulated at the state level. If we in Oregon buy insurance from a provider in (for instance) Alabama and have a disagreement with them we'd be pretty much screwed. Unless you have deep enough pockets to take them to court yourself, assuming there isn't a mediation clause, you have no recourse.

Currently we may be able to call the Oregon Insurance Division and enlist their help to hold the insurance companies feet to the fire to get satisfaction. I think they only have jurisdiction over companies doing business in state though. Of course this all depends on just what your beef with them is.

That's the same regulatory board that approves the cost increases the industry requests, and gets blamed for being greedy. Without approval the increases can't happen. So wouldn't it make more sense to deal with the regulatory board?

Not sure I'm following you. Come again?
The insurance companies can't just arbitrarily raise the rates, they have a process to follow and present their rate increases to the regulatory board for approval. So if you don't like your increase in premiums blame the regulatory board for approving them, not the carriers for following procedure. It's as if you guys don't know how it works.
The McCarran-Ferguson Act provides that even though the insuring or provision of healthcare may be national in scope, the regulation of insurance is left to the states. Likewise, the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Act provides that HMO's or health service plans are regulated by the states.

And, if think the insurance companies don't cook the books to make their case, you are wrong. In fact, making their case is easy enough given the cost of "retail" care when insurance is not paying.
Who cares if they cooknthe books, they can't raise rates without approval from the regulatory board of Oregon. Let's not forget that the "failed" hmo was Ted Kennedy brain child.
Reply
#15
Free medical training (college) if they work for the Federal government in medical clinics. Like joining the military. An Army of doctors and nurses, medical personal of every field. Spanning across the great plains, up the purple mountains, from sea to sea , Make America healthy again.




I should run for office.
Reply
#16
(03-13-2017, 08:57 PM)chuck white Wrote: Free medical training (college) if they work for the Federal government in medical clinics. Like joining the military. An Army of doctors and nurses, medical personal of every field. Spanning across the great plains,  up the purple mountains, from sea to sea , Make America healthy again.




I should run for office.

You should.

I'd consider voting for you.... if you're not a crackpot.
Reply
#17
(03-13-2017, 08:57 PM)chuck white Wrote: Free medical training (college) if they work for the Federal government in medical clinics. Like joining the military. An Army of doctors and nurses, medical personal of every field. Spanning across the great plains,  up the purple mountains, from sea to sea , Make America healthy again.




I should run for office.

No thanks, we already have that, it's called the VA, and veterans are dieing to leave it.
Reply
#18
(03-13-2017, 09:06 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 08:57 PM)chuck white Wrote: Free medical training (college) if they work for the Federal government in medical clinics. Like joining the military. An Army of doctors and nurses, medical personal of every field. Spanning across the great plains,  up the purple mountains, from sea to sea , Make America healthy again.




I should run for office.

You should.

I'd consider voting for you.... if you're not a crackpot.

Maybe when I retire. Politics is something I would do as a hobby, not a career.
Reply
#19
(03-13-2017, 09:37 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 09:06 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 08:57 PM)chuck white Wrote: Free medical training (college) if they work for the Federal government in medical clinics. Like joining the military. An Army of doctors and nurses, medical personal of every field. Spanning across the great plains,  up the purple mountains, from sea to sea , Make America healthy again.




I should run for office.

You should.

I'd consider voting for you.... if you're not a crackpot.

Maybe when I retire. Politics is something I would do as a hobby, not a career.

As it should be     Laughing Laughing
Reply
#20
(03-13-2017, 09:40 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 09:37 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 09:06 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 08:57 PM)chuck white Wrote: Free medical training (college) if they work for the Federal government in medical clinics. Like joining the military. An Army of doctors and nurses, medical personal of every field. Spanning across the great plains,  up the purple mountains, from sea to sea , Make America healthy again.




I should run for office.

You should.

I'd consider voting for you.... if you're not a crackpot.

Maybe when I retire. Politics is something I would do as a hobby, not a career.

As it should be     Laughing Laughing
Couldn't be any harder than polishing rocks.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)