Liz Gets Real: Single-Payer Is The Answer

[Mr.Blonde]

"However, other things are rarely equal -- whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each -- is unclear…When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated...”

Ezekiel Emanuel (yes Rahm Emanuel's brother)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/ezekiel_emmanuels_reaper_curve.html#ixzz4lJ9S0Ho5

These are the people who are going to design the system

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"However, other things are rarely equal -- whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each -- is unclear…When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated...”

Ezekiel Emanuel (yes Rahm Emanuel's brother)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/ezekiel_emmanuels_reaper_curve.html#ixzz4lJ9S0Ho5

These are the people who are going to design the system

Zeke also talked about "untermenschen". Great guy that, Zeke, reminds me of Soros

 

[IResist]

Of course single payer is the answer. I can imagine it would draw greater than 17% support, too.

 

[bendog]

As long as you can overlook those signs in the Doctors offices stating they do not take Medicaid patients.

Medicaid does pay less per procedure that Medicare and private insurance. THAT is why the gop plan would kill rural hospitals and providers because they have more Medicaid patients. Cut those rates, and people will die.

It all depends on the state, yet if Medicaid is cut back hundreds and hundreds of hospitals would close

Yes, the gop's plan will literally kill people in rural states.

How did any of us survive before Obama care passed 8 years ago?

The question should have been how many died from lack of insurance before the ACA?

From what I've read, the cost savings of preventative care have not really been there. That is, screening many to find very few with actual early days illnesses may not save much money. It does save some lives though. That's why the Obamacare Medicaid expansion has been unquestionably beneficial in states that did it. There are problems with it, and I started a thread on that, but it accomplished a goal.

It would be nice if our pols could reach a bipartisan consensus on how to reach the goal without the negatives, but .... then that would defeat the purpose of the gop cutting a trillion in taxes to give a few a tax cut.

 

[easyt65]

On the campaign train in 2008, Senator Barak Obama reportedly declared he preferred 'single payer'. Snowflakes rabidly disputed he said such a thing.

Obama went on to destroy the existing health care, burning it to the ground so there would be no going back, the Democrats ramming their Socialist-agenda-driven, Obama administration-mandated monstrosity into law against the majority will of the American people.

Within months it began collapsing, and Harry Reid publicly declared the ACA was 'ALWAYS MEANT TO FAIL', to be a 'stepping stone to single payer'. Snowflakes rabidly denied that.

Gee, now look at where we are....those same snowflakes are declaring 'Single Payer Is The Answer'.

 

[nat4900]

The ACA has many,many flaws that SHOULD be fixed......

HOWEVER, these TWO immoral and cruel aspects of our former HC delivery system were fixed:

Before the ACA, one could never get coverage if one had a pre-existing condition....

Before the ACA, one had to deal with a fixed amount that a private insurance company was willing to pay for your condition....Once that maximum was reached, , you were screwed.......basically, one was in the hands of a "death panel."

Replacing the ACA WITHOUT those 2 issues, will cause the downfall of the current GOP nitwits.

Prior to the ACA at were the policy limits?

The Affordable Care Act prohibits health plans (including grandfathered ones) from placing a lifetime dollar limit on the amount of covered health expenses they will pay for, which was a common practice before the law’s enactment. Health plans with a lifetime limit would stop paying for an enrollee’s health care expenses after they reached a certain amount over the entire life of the policy, potentially leaving the sickest patients responsible for extremely high costs thereafter. This prohibition is one of the key ways in which the ACA benefits people.

 

[nat4900]

Want a visual as to WHO benefits from the Senate's HC bill???

 

[bendog]

The ACA has many,many flaws that SHOULD be fixed......

HOWEVER, these TWO immoral and cruel aspects of our former HC delivery system were fixed:

Before the ACA, one could never get coverage if one had a pre-existing condition....

Before the ACA, one had to deal with a fixed amount that a private insurance company was willing to pay for your condition....Once that maximum was reached, , you were screwed.......basically, one was in the hands of a "death panel."

Replacing the ACA WITHOUT those 2 issues, will cause the downfall of the current GOP nitwits.

Prior to the ACA at were the policy limits?

The Affordable Care Act prohibits health plans (including grandfathered ones) from placing a lifetime dollar limit on the amount of covered health expenses they will pay for, which was a common practice before the law’s enactment. Health plans with a lifetime limit would stop paying for an enrollee’s health care expenses after they reached a certain amount over the entire life of the policy, potentially leaving the sickest patients responsible for extremely high costs thereafter. This prohibition is one of the key ways in which the ACA benefits people.

But that was one of the things about Obamacare that seemed insensible to me. Medicaid was created to place the risk of those who get really sick or really injured, like quadriplegic or sever birth defects, and it works pretty good. I understand that people who got cancer, then recovered, but likely faced another cancer were deemed uninsurable, but that could be fixed with not letting people be excluded from insurance for prior existing conditions.

 

[bendog]

"However, other things are rarely equal -- whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each -- is unclear…When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated...”

Ezekiel Emanuel (yes Rahm Emanuel's brother)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/ezekiel_emmanuels_reaper_curve.html#ixzz4lJ9S0Ho5

These are the people who are going to design the system

oooooh Death Panels rears it's ugly head. LOL

 

[Lakhota]

Liz is right.

 

[Doc1]

The ACA has many,many flaws that SHOULD be fixed......

HOWEVER, these TWO immoral and cruel aspects of our former HC delivery system were fixed:

Before the ACA, one could never get coverage if one had a pre-existing condition....

Before the ACA, one had to deal with a fixed amount that a private insurance company was willing to pay for your condition....Once that maximum was reached, , you were screwed.......basically, one was in the hands of a "death panel."

Replacing the ACA WITHOUT those 2 issues, will cause the downfall of the current GOP nitwits.

Prior to the ACA at were the policy limits?

The Affordable Care Act prohibits health plans (including grandfathered ones) from placing a lifetime dollar limit on the amount of covered health expenses they will pay for, which was a common practice before the law’s enactment. Health plans with a lifetime limit would stop paying for an enrollee’s health care expenses after they reached a certain amount over the entire life of the policy, potentially leaving the sickest patients responsible for extremely high costs thereafter. This prohibition is one of the key ways in which the ACA benefits people.

Try again, you were talking about before the ACA.

 

[Lakhota]

TRUMPCARE FLATLINES: ONLY 17% SUPPORT BILL

Time for Single-Payer!

 

[WillowTree]

On the campaign train in 2008, Senator Barak Obama reportedly declared he preferred 'single payer'. Snowflakes rabidly disputed he said such a thing.

Obama went on to destroy the existing health care, burning it to the ground so there would be no going back, the Democrats ramming their Socialist-agenda-driven, Obama administration-mandated monstrosity into law against the majority will of the American people.

Within months it began collapsing, and Harry Reid publicly declared the ACA was 'ALWAYS MEANT TO FAIL', to be a 'stepping stone to single payer'. Snowflakes rabidly denied that.

Gee, now look at where we are....those same snowflakes are declaring 'Single Payer Is The Answer'.

And the assholes took 970 billion dollars from Medicare to fund it!

 

[Lakhota]

We need Single-Payer! Time to join the civilized world.

 

[WillowTree]

We need Single-Payer! Time to join the civilized world.

Well ewe and youse buddies need to start paying big taxes!

 

[Rustic]

We need Single-Payer! Time to join the civilized world.

Washington Redskin, you progressives can keep it, leave the the millions of us that want nothing to do with it out.

Single payer equals forcing people that want nothing to do with it into it and will never use it, to pay for the people that want to be involved in it.

 

[Ame®icano]

One government insurer would be “more effective” at controlling costs, the billionaire says.

Warren Buffett Makes The Case For Single-Payer Health Care

I agree!

Yeah, after fucking up every entitlement program there is, we should give them another one, biggest of all.

 

[debbiedowner]

"However, other things are rarely equal -- whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each -- is unclear…When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated...”

Ezekiel Emanuel (yes Rahm Emanuel's brother)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/ezekiel_emmanuels_reaper_curve.html#ixzz4lJ9S0Ho5

These are the people who are going to design the system

Take the over 65 crowd out of your equation, most of them on Medicare.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

TRUMPCARE FLATLINES: ONLY 17% SUPPORT BILL

Time for Single-Payer!

plus he doesn't even have a path to the White House

 

[debbiedowner]

On the campaign train in 2008, Senator Barak Obama reportedly declared he preferred 'single payer'. Snowflakes rabidly disputed he said such a thing.

Obama went on to destroy the existing health care, burning it to the ground so there would be no going back, the Democrats ramming their Socialist-agenda-driven, Obama administration-mandated monstrosity into law against the majority will of the American people.

Within months it began collapsing, and Harry Reid publicly declared the ACA was 'ALWAYS MEANT TO FAIL', to be a 'stepping stone to single payer'. Snowflakes rabidly denied that.

Gee, now look at where we are....those same snowflakes are declaring 'Single Payer Is The Answer'.

And the assholes took 970 billion dollars from Medicare to fund it!

Read this good now:

Obamacare 'robbed' Medicare of $700B, says Huckabee

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee accused "illegals, prostitutes, pimps, (and) drug dealers" of freeloading off the Social Security system during the Aug. 6 GOP primary debate.

Huckabee's provocative comment concluded a wonkish back-and-forth between him and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie about entitlement reform. Christie defended his plan to raise the retirement age and change benefits for Social Security and Medicare, but Huckabee stressed that Uncle Sam was to blame.

"If Congress wants to mess with the retirement program, why don't we let them start by changing their retirement program, and not have one, instead of talking about getting rid of Social Security and Medicare that was robbed $700 billion to pay for Obamacare?" Huckabee said.

This claim -- that the Affordable Care Act is funded by plundering the health care program of seniors -- is an old Republican talking point, dating back to the 2010 midterm elections. We’ve checked out many versions of this claim, which contains some truth but is misleading.

Obamacare doesn’t literally "rob" Medicare. But the Affordable Care Act does include provisions that reduce future increases in Medicare spending. In other words, the law slows down the rising costs of Medicare.

It’s also important to note that the savings come at the expense of insurers and hospitals, not beneficiaries. (The $700 billion figure is also old, from a 2012 report by the Congressional Budget Office. It’s now updated to about $800 billion.)

Under President George W. Bush, private insurers began to run a subset of Medicare plans with the idea that more competition produced lower costs. However, those plans grew to cost more than traditional Medicare, so the Affordable Care Act pared down the payments to private insurers.

Hospitals would also find their checks docked when they failed to to meet benchmarks for patient care.

On the flip side, the Affordable Care Act also funds illness prevention benefits, expands preventive care benefits, and provides $48 billion for prescription coverage.

It’s possible that some beneficiaries could experience additional costs, reductions in service, or fewer hospitals that accept Medicare.

"While ‘robbed’ is a bit loaded, the idea that Medicare beneficiaries are getting less generous benefits in order that the ACA can offer health benefits to younger people isn’t outrageous," said Andrew Biggs, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

But that’s a potential impact and a less direct effect of Obamacare than the claim suggests. The prior critiques of the claim "remain relevant," the head of Medicare and Medicaid under George H.W. Bush told PolitiFact in 2014.

Our ruling

Huckabee said, "$700 billion was robbed (from Medicare) to fund Obamacare."

It’s an old claim and an old figure. The law does reduce Medicare spending, but not in the way Huckabee suggests. The Affordable Care Act aims to cut future Medicare costs by reducing payments to private insurers and hospitals, not beneficiaries, though this could indirectly squeeze beneficiaries.

The claim is partially accurate but leaves out important context. We rate it Half True.