The Stockholm is strong with some of these folks.
The Stockholm is strong with some of these folks.
Without all-payer rate setting, health care is fucking expensive, and tons of 60 year olds are on non-generic daily prescription drugs.
Someone should run on a platform of implementing all-payer rate setting, but not on federal funding for health care. Keep the insurance companies, but require standardized pricing set by the government. Much of this would take care of itself, without a huge hike in taxation (in fact, you could do this and lower payroll taxes for Medicare/Medicaid at the same time).
E&C has finished markup, W&M finished the morning. Trumpcare is rolling
why? then its just essentially a gov't mandated program carried out by insurers.
how would this work with diff types of plans? what kind of competition could even thrive in this environment if there's a ceiling? would cadillac plans be acceptable?
i have a hard time envisioning this as anything close to functional. either set the rate too high and watch everyone fail to afford it or set it too low and watch insurance companies crumble. i think its pretty much impossible
You guys are missing the most important part of the new medical bill
ACA replacement will Repeal the Indoor Tanning Tax, A loss of roughly $78M/year
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opin...-cost-money-an
Of course Trump wants that shit removed...
Trump's never even seen a tanning bed before. He's all about that spray on dye.
I don't think you know what all-payer rate setting is - it's where a single entity (the government) decides what doctors and hospitals and device manufacturers and drug companies can charge for their products and services. Then insurance companies can compete within that framework by offering more or less robust plans (services covered, size of hospital/doctor network, size of deductible/copay). And if people want to pay cash, they can do that too - it would cost them exactly what anyone else pays.
A number of countries (France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and Switzerland) have all-payer rate setting, and it can be implemented without the additional tax and spend elements of all-encompassing government health care plans.
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/9/8001173/...r-rate-setting
Of course, most doctors and hospitals and device manufacturers and drug companies would hate it, because they wouldn't get to charge as much for their products and services.
Politically, it's a way to actually push down medical care expenses in a clear and straightforward way, without having the tax boogeyman hovering over your shoulder - and if you do it while cutting taxes somewhat you could probably generate more support. Of course, the aforementioned medical providers would lobby like a motherfucker to stop it though.
Damn, they really marked it up good
![]()
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...house-bill/676
(actually exists, of course submitted by a democrat. I hope this takes off among Trump's base on Twitter)
So were any amendments approved in the markup sessions? Any decent article breaking down what has changed (has anything changed?)
It sounded like the whole markup was Dems proposing shit to make Republicans look bad and getting shot down, not Republicans actually amending anything, but I dunno.
The most frustrating part about this is once again people who have no fucking clue about medicine are making choices about fucking medicine.
feels like we're following the kakistocratic philosophy with everything else so why not
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b054a0ea67574d
One of the people who attended Jason Chaffetz's infamous town hall is now running against him in Utah, raised a quarter of a million for her campaign in a matter of days.
Speaking of Partisan Hacks
I hope McMullin runs against Chaffetz too. The man is a useless coward and that iPhone comment is going to be great for some early fundraising.