Posted on 03/02/2016 8:46:57 PM PST by SeekAndFind
And studies are finding that drug abuse raises the risks of mental illness. Not to mention, there’s a lot of money in concocting a new kind of ‘mental illness’. They do it by ‘vote’. There’s nothing scientific in the pychiatry racket. They just meet at a table and vote on the newest forms of mental illness.
Mental illness ‘diagnosis’ has been mushrooming.
By offering options, such as only recognizing the kinds of mental illness that were categorized at a certain date [such as 1988 for example] — which weeds out most of the fake versions — and/or only treating mental illness patients who never smoked pot in the last seven years [since a single hair can reveal if you smoked it in the last seven years], etc. ... you cut costs tremendously.
Which laves us where?
Obama Care needs to go and something needs to fill the void - they had already imposed so many regulations and so much control over the industry to take away competitiveness that set the stage for Obama Care to get shoved down our throats.
We all want Obama Care gone, but enough damage has been done by it that there is no easy back to the drawing board solution - have you heard anyone with another plan that seems to make more sense? If so, please point me in the right direction.
This issue also describes the uphill battle anyone on our side will have to fight on almost all of the issues we care about - there will be resistance from both parties because they have become so corrupt they like things to be screwed up.
It's amazing how Trumpsters love to ignore the details.
Why do we need to fill the void? If Obamacare goes away then so do the regulations and the controls it imposed. And once it is repealed then no alternate solution should be imposed.
If the goal is for everyone to have healthcare then that isn't going to be done without a one-payer solution, and in the long run that would be disastrous. Any toe-dipping into a government solution, any program designed to kind of/sort of cover everyone is only going to make the situation worse. Ted Cruz has the right idea - repeal, period. Any other solution is no solution at all.
Why do we need to fill the void? If Obamacare goes away then so do the regulations and the controls it imposed. And once it is repealed then no alternate solution should be imposed.
If the goal is for everyone to have healthcare then that isn’t going to be done without a one-payer solution, and in the long run that would be disastrous. Any toe-dipping into a government solution, any program designed to kind of/sort of cover everyone is only going to make the situation worse. Ted Cruz has the right idea - repeal, period. Any other solution is no solution at all.
____________________
The regulation of healthcare before obamacare was monsterous. Mandates on what each state considered minimum in policies, price fixing, elimination of competition by the blues in many states... I could go on and on.
Would be nice to see a competitive marketplace with many options for levels of insurance needs. This would also start dropping the fixed and abnormally high costs of medical care and procedures.
Regulations are only one of the reasons why selling across state lines won't work. The major reason is how the insurance companies do business.
The question is HOW does this get realized without government coming to the picture?
____________
I am not sure that there wont be some health welfare. there are those who cannot take care of themselves and have no one. I think the aid block grant to be administered by the states are the way he is suggesting to manage this.
He talked about it on an interview a short while back - no Nation will let folks die in the streets due to lack of health care. The poor have to have some way for treatment (not with as large a menu as those who can afford to pay for insurance) and we need to take care of our veterans - it's obnoxious that we need "charities" like Wounded Warrior or Paralyzed Vets to help make end meet for them and get them the care they deserve.
He has his head in reality and would open it up to let the market do what the market does when you remove Federal obstacles to the process.
Knee-jerk reactions w/o getting the full info are going to kill us - we become the lo-info voters we sneer at on the Left.
I read it on his website. Surely that should be what we base our discussion on, wouldn't you agree?
The poor have to have some way for treatment (not with as large a menu as those who can afford to pay for insurance)...
And according to his website he is proposing on expanding Medicare and Medicaid to do that. Well Medicare is for people 65 and older only. Any poor person unable to afford healthcare is covered at 65 regardless of income. And an expansion of Medicaid was one of the provisions of Obamacare, and about half the states in the country opted out of doing so. Why would Trump's plan cause them to change their minds?
...and we need to take care of our veterans - it's obnoxious that we need "charities" like Wounded Warrior or Paralyzed Vets to help make end meet for them and get them the care they deserve.
We have a whole cabinet department dedicated to that.
He has his head in reality and would open it up to let the market do what the market does when you remove Federal obstacles to the process.P> He has his head somewhere; I'm not sure I would go with reality. And it's because the market will do what the market does that means that his proposals to sell across state lines won't do much, if anything, to reduce prices.
Knee-jerk reactions w/o getting the full info are going to kill us - we become the lo-info voters we sneer at on the Left.
Like I said I base my opinions on what Trump put on his website. How much more info can I get?
Regulations are only one of the reasons why selling across state lines won’t work. The major reason is how the insurance companies do business.
_____________
I guess it is time for them to change their business model from crony capitalism to a competitive model.
Insurance companies, like any company, want to make a profit. In order to do so they establish networks of physicians and hospitals and pharmacies and negotiate set prices for the services and goods they will bill the insurance company for. It controls their costs and allows them to gauge their risk and price their product accordingly. I, like all consumers, want to get the best possible service for the lowest possible prices. In order to do so I will prefer to use doctors and hospitals and pharmacies that are in my insurance company network because they tell me ahead of time what I can expect to pay for medical care and doctors visits. That is, I believe, a competitive model that benefits both sides. Or would you disagree?
So if Trump removes the barriers between buying insurance across state lines, where is the benefit to me? Say I find a company in Texas that doesn't currently do business in Missouri, why should I buy from them? You say I might be able to get a lower premium, which may be true. But the insurance company does not have a network established in Missouri; why should they since they have never done business there? Any medical care I get, any claims I file will be "out of network". Using my current coverage as an example my costs go up. Instead of a $15 co-pay for a doctor's visit I will pay 30% of what the doctor charges. Instead of a $1000 deductible I would have $4,000. Instead of a modest co-pay for prescriptions I would pay list price. Instead of having physicals, well-woman exams, mammograms and the like 100% covered I would pay 30% of whatever they cost. In short my costs go from predicable to unpredictable and my out-of-pocket expenses are higher. Why would I want to buy from them?
And from the insurance company's standpoint why would they want to sell to me? They have no network, like I said, so they would have to pay far higher costs for my claims than they would for claims they get from Texas customers. They could establish a network I suppose, but going around Missouri signing up doctors and negotiating prices is an expensive and time-consuming endeavor and why should they go through that for one customer? Their pricing model is based on their known risk; I'm an unknown risk that their insurance premiums don't factor in. So they would have to tailor a premium specifically for me. Given all that then it's highly unlikely that they would make any money off of me, so if I come calling why would they not say "Thanks, but not interested" to my business?
That's why the whole selling across state lines will probably do nothing to lower costs. Several states have examined it, a couple of states like Wyoming and Georgia have tried it, and all failed because of lack of interest on the part of the insurance companies to participate. How do you solve that?
In order to do so they establish networks of physicians and hospitals and pharmacies and negotiate set prices for the services and goods they will bill the insurance company for. It controls their costs and allows them to gauge their risk and price their product accordingly. I, like all consumers, want to get the best possible service for the lowest possible prices. In order to do so I will prefer to use doctors and hospitals and pharmacies that are in my insurance company network because they tell me ahead of time what I can expect to pay for medical care and doctors visits.
______________________________
Ah there lies the rub. If providers provide the same price network or not, then healthcare would be affordable, as well as competitive. As a provider, I would find this most attractive.
Are you saying that every industry in the country should also do that? Sell their products for the same price under all circumstances? No discounts for volume customers. No wholesale pricing. Just one price regardless of customer?
No, I am saying if providers provide the same price without networks, healthcare would be affordable. Networks do not push volume unless crony capitalism is involved.
Why wouldn’t it be one price for healthcare procedures? It would be real pricing versus the inflated pricing otherwise.
I don't know a single industry where businesses do not try and work out preferred pricing with their suppliers. Why should healthcare be any different? Isn't it all about the Art of the Deal?
Maybe with widgets.
I don’t see it in service industries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.