Posted on 02/22/2016 10:13:10 AM PST by Olog-hai
Health care for all. It's a goal that tugs at the heartstrings of Democrats, but pursuing it usually invites political peril.
Now Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are clashing over this core question for liberals, making it a wedge issue in the party's presidential primary. [...]
Signed almost six years ago, Obama's health overhaul is the starting point for Democrats who would succeed him. About 16 million people have gained coverage, and the uninsured rate has fallen to 9 percent, a historic achievement. Economic recovery helped, but the biggest increases in coverage came after the health law's insurance markets and Medicaid expansion got going in 2014.
Nonetheless, 28.8 million remain uninsured, and many are still struggling to pay for care even though they have coverage. A government survey estimated that 44.5 million people under age 65 were in families with problems paying medical bills. On top of that, "Obamacare" is mind-numbing to many consumers, a program that combines two of the most complicated areas: insurance and taxes. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
The result being that "Health Care" will soon cease to be of any interest to the Democrat Party.
Obamacare hasn’t been a disaster for me - I haven’t been sick.
There are so many things WRONG in this “news report”. First, Obamacare, no matter how many “fixes” or exceptions may be made, is a total money pit and is rapidly collapsing of its own weight. The supposed “additional” coverage that was supposed to be extended is a farce and a hoax. a shimmering phantom that disappears the moment it is invoked, with co-pays and deductibles so high, it poses virtually no real benefits at all until the situation is catastrophic. Besides which, the very problems with enrollment have made any policy issued under this program a dicey thing to even obtain in the first place, as many people who thought they had an active policy, find, to their great dismay, that no such policy was ever issued. Finally, there are those who would rather pay the fine and “go bare” with no policy whatsoever, this being cheaper and in many ways a better deal than actual purchase of coverage.
Herself and The Bern are arguing something akin to how many angels may dance on the head of a pin. A totally hypothetical argument about a reality which is meaningless to mere mortals.
Associated Press left-wing bias on display.
A historic disaster would be more accurate.
“struggling to pay for care”
How about policies with:
1. no deductible
2. Office visits
a. in-network: $10/$20/$20/$40/$40 physician assistant/GP/Ob-Gyn/specialist/physical therapy co-pay
b. out-of-network: insurer pays 50% of Medicare amount
3. Inpatient care
a. in-network: $500/day patient co-pay
b. out-of-network: for each admission, insurer pays the least of:
A. 90% of the Medicare amount, less $500/day
B. its nearest in-network hospital amount, less $500/day, reduced by 10% and then rounded down to a multiple of $200
C. its second nearest in-network hospital amount, less $500/day, reduced by 10% and then rounded down to a multiple of $200
4. Outpatient care
insurer pays 80% of the Medicare price
Since that doesn’t include drug coverage, hospitals could sell such coverage themselves, cutting out the middleman.
If you need a broad network because you travel nationwide, then buy an insurance company policy.
Optional drug coverage could be sold nationally.
Drug co-pays set by insurer between 20% and 30% of list price of drug. Drug makers may make no-interest credit available for co-pays if buyer pay 10% of list price upfront.
“Herself and The Bern are arguing something akin to how many angels may dance on the head of a pin. A totally hypothetical argument about a reality which is meaningless to mere mortals.”
It was pointed out in the debate on HillaryCare, that any health care system could be any combination of only two of the following:
-low cost.
-high quality.
-cover a large number of people.
The problem with the democrat proposals is that they believe it can be all three.
I got into just such an argument with a college student. She was arguing in favor of 0bamacare, before it passed. I kept telling her that you don’t get universal coverage AND outstanding research at the same time. Ditto for universal coverage and outstanding care.
Marx said that “what one achieves, all cannot.”
She didn’t get it.
That should have read that “EVEN Marx said....”
We say à la guerre comme à la guerre. We do not promise any freedom nor any democracy.And anyone who blathers the phrase "democratic socialist" needs to be reminded that the original name of the CPSU was the Social Democratic Labor Party of Russia, and Lenin was talking "democracy" non-stop before he attained absolute power.
Trump supports single payer...cant get worse can it? England has a fine system he said.
I wasn’t sick until I did my 2015 taxes and found I have to repay $12,024.00 in APTC that Healthcare.gov said I qualified for when I signed up in 2014, but now do not qualify for since I made too much money in 2015. This is INSANE!...........
What great divide?
Hillary wants to continue going with the program and get us to single payer slowly. Bernie just wants to cut to the chase.
“She didn’t get it.” because she didn’t want to “get it”.
“Ditto for universal coverage and outstanding care”. Well, you can get both, but you want get it cheap. You can have universal coverage and cheap but it won’t be outstanding. You can have it outstanding and cheap, but coverage will not be universal.
Plus many if the new “insured” are under Medicaid. Medicaid is a minefield. Poor coverage and the threat of losing everything when you die.
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.