Poll: Americans Split Evenly Over Repeal Of Obamacare

800px-Capitol_Building_Full_ViewWith the rollout of the new GOP health care law, a new CNN/ORC poll shows that the nation remains deeply divided on the issue. Indeed, little has changed since Obamacare was first passed by a handful of votes.  Some 50% of people oppose the removal mandatory health care coverage while 48% are in favor of such a change.  While some have called the new plan “Obamacare-lite,” it is clearly a repeal and massive change in the existing law.  The thumping heart of Obamacare is the individual mandate and this plan would drive a stake through it.

Notably, some 87%, support maintaining Obamacare’s protections for those with pre-existing conditions, which is indeed preserved in the GOP plan.  Likewise, people like (by a 61% showing) the expanded Medicaid program.  That is preserved for now but could present the greatest challenge for sponsors since it would eventually end.  Indeed, key Republicans have already signaled that they could bolt from the voting bloc over the Medicaid issue.

The polling numbers show a recognition by most Americans that there are serious problems with Obamacare, but an even split on whether Congress should go a different direction. This plan is a different direction in pursuing tax credits rather than mandated programs through state exchanges.

The good news for the GOP is that  53% express dissatisfaction with the price they pay for health care. That is up from 48% in 2009.  Personally, my family’s health care costs have risen sharply and our level of care seems to have fallen. However, overall millions have gained coverage under the law.  The Republicans have worked hard to assure people that there will be no sharp cutoff of covered people but many are looking at that Medicaid horizon with unease.

I find it remarkable that the country is not only split evenly but that these numbers look much like the numbers at the birth of Obamacare.

 

138 thoughts on “Poll: Americans Split Evenly Over Repeal Of Obamacare”

  1. “Personally, my family’s health care costs have risen sharply and our level of care seems to have fallen. However, overall millions have gained coverage under the law.” The millions who have gained coverage include those who lost their health insurance because of Obamacare. In addition, they include those with pre-existing conditions with a gap in coverage who were excluded before and the poor who were not on Medicaid or Medical.

    This bill was touted to improve access to healthcare for the poor, as well as those with pre-existing conditions. But instead of sticking with those almost universally accepted areas that need improvement, they monkeyed around with everyone’s healthcare. So the cost and quality went down for everyone, while the poor got substandard health insurance, while they STILL could not get access to the good doctors, because they do not accept it. Those who didn’t have health insurance before, or who are subsidized and don’t pay the real bill, have nothing to compare it to.

    I absolutely support improving access to healthcare for those two groups. I do NOT support taking access to healthcare away from other groups to do it.

    There are several reasons why people are split over Obamacare:
    1) Most Democrats support it as a matter of policy
    2) Those hardest hammered by Obamacare are individual, middle class, non subsidized policy holders. Most others have employer policies or subsidized ones. So the ones that actually experience the full glory and price of Obamacare usually hate it, and most good doctors do not accept it, because it represents a 30% pay cut. Those who most feel the employer policy costs are the employers, who are also in a minority, and we all know the Democratic Party hates them.
    3) When poll questions are crafted, they are done in such a way that they either include the couple of good things in Obamacare (such as pre-existing conditions), or those polled worry about taking coverage away from those who are currently on subsidized policies. Funny, no one seemed to care in the Democratic Party about taking my wonderful, affordable, high benefit plan away.

    What the poll also reveals is that Americans STILL have not taken the trouble to learn about Obamacare. Case in point, according to the polls, 1/3 Americans still do not understand that Obamacare is the same as the ACA.

    I believe that one of the areas where we went wrong with spiraling healthcare costs was in the design of insurance. Health care is no longer market priced. Treatment and therapies would not cost a fortune if most people couldn’t pay a fortune. In a way, insurance drove the cost of healthcare far above what was affordable, which then created a crisis when people didn’t have insurance. It was not designed to take into consideration healthcare costs. So, perhaps, insurance should only be one arrow in the quiver to deal with access to healthcare.

    1. Just remember, there are only two ways that insurance can really control the cost of health care – one is to ration it according to cost, and another is to ration it according to availability.

      If you had to pay a minor, $20 copay to go to the doctor’s office, then you will be less likely to go when you know you have a virus and there’s really no point to going anyway, plus there will be less overuse of antibiotics given for viral infections, which do nothing to help but do promote antibiotic resistance. You will ration your own use of benefits by asking yourself if you really need to go.

      If, however, it’s all free (except you pay a whole lot in taxes to pay for it), like in Canada, then they have to ratio its availability, otherwise they would be swamped and collapse. So if you need to have a procedure, you are going to wait for so many months that concierge services will pop up to give better access to health care by flying people to the US or private surgical centers. Or they may simply deny the treatment completely.

      And for anyone who criticizes the upheaval or pain of going through this transition, please take care to remember that Obamacare was failing all on its own, under an 8 year Democratic President. It was down to a single insurer in many Exchanges, and when those insurers left, it was done. In the opposite of competing for quality, insurers left Exchanges because they hemorrhaged money. Drug formularies shrunk, and if your badly needed medication was not on the list, then you could bankrupt yourself paying for it, and it still wouldn’t have applied to your max cap spending limit. Most of the good doctors, cancer treatment hospitals, and specialists wouldn’t accept the pay cut that it represented, and would only accept employer policies. (I used to take photos of all the “we do not accept Obamacare” signs at doctors offices and text it to those who doubted me.

      So if you don’t like the changes, or any negatives associated, then please blame those who lied to us deliberately to pass a bill that failed all on its own, which left us with the onerous task of fixing it. If you worry about those who may lose their insurance, then remember that your vote caused millions of us to lose our insurance, and you frankly didn’t care. And remember that it’s all due to those who crafted a failure of a bill that disrupted the entire healthcare industry, put cancer remission out of reach of those who did not happen to live near a covered cancer treatment hospital in network that actually accepted the Obamacare pay cut, and they did it for nothin because the entire scheme collapsed.

      So put the blame where it squarely lies, at politicians like Nancy Pelosi, who said what will live on as one of the battiest quotes in political history, “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it.”

      Now, do you think that the American public, and politicians, will at least take the trouble to read, and trouble shoot, the replacement policy?

      I do.

      Which means we’re already ahead.

      Imagine, American citizens and politicians actually reading the bill and pointing out where it could be improved.

      Too bad we didn’t do that the first time. But then again, at 6 feet stacked tall, it was designed to be impenetrable.

  2. Penalizing people for not maintaining continuous care is a much larger dollar amount for noncompliance than the mandate was/is. Also, a tax credit means little to the poor (those who need healthcare help the most). And a “health savings account” simply means YOU PAY for everything. Under Obamacare, many friends of mine went to the doctor for the first time in years to address problems they could not pay for in the past, some preventative in nature, some life-threatening. The expanded Medicaid and subsidies have saved lives–and in my case, was the nudge I needed to discover a tiny melanoma growing in my eye. The pre-existing condition exception, so beloved by insurance companies, stopped people from going to the doctor so as not to be diagnosed with something that would come back to bite them. People will revert back to showing up at the ER–and letting people die outside the hospital, which some mean-spirited legislators would like to see, will hopefully never be acceptable.

    1. Jack W.
      A HSA, coupled with a high deductible policy, does not me that “YOU pay for everything”.
      The per capita health care costs in the U.S. are now c.
      $10,000.
      In one way or another, almost EVERYONE pays for that.
      Subsidies, wherever it’s from Obamacare subsidies, a Trumpcare subsidy, etc. are about cost shifting, not cost containment.
      A person with subsidies of c.$400 of her $600 monthly insurance premium actually thought the cost of insurance dropped by over 65% under Obamacare.
      The premium did NOT drop…..somebody else is paying two thirds of her premium, and that’s an important distinction.

      1. Using the ER for first line medical care is the most expensive of all.

        1. Agreed, Jack. ER visits are costly.
          “Contrary to goals, ER visits INCREASE under Obamacare”.
          That’s from USA Today, but there are numerous articles on that subject.
          THEORETICALLY, Obamacare was going to reduce ER visits by previously uninsured, or underinsured, patients.
          In practice, that has not happen.

  3. The time has come for single payer. I don’t have a plan in front of me. This new republican plan appears to be a worse version of Obamacare. Doubt it will pass so why not single payer?

    1. Anon….
      -Here are a few numbers to consider re Medicare for all.
      ( I’m rounding off some numbers. And I went into more detail about this a year or so ago in a comment
      here….won’t replay that 1,000 word marathon.)
      About 55 million people are currently covered by MC.
      That’s c. 17% of the U.S. population.
      MediCare has a budget of c. $650 Billion currently.
      The payroll tax rate, which has increased astronomically over the 50 years of Medicare ( .7% on the first $6600 of income in 1966, now 2.9% with no ceiling, pay for part of MC.
      The original $3 Part B premium in 1966 is now c.$105.
      Even WITH these increases, payroll taxes and Part B premiums pay for about half of the cost of the MC program.
      Over 40% of MC funding comes from general revenues. Taxpayer dollars.
      So currently, we have a c. 650$ Billion program, covering about 17% of the population, only half funded by the massively larger payroll tax and Part B premium.
      In addition to the Part B premium, many Medicare recipients pay and extra $200-300+ per month for MC supplement plan and Part D drug coverage.
      So the “true cost” to someone on MC can be $300-$400+ per month in Part B, MC supplement, and
      Part D premiums.
      Keep in mind the current Medicare budget covers c.
      17% of the population.
      The current c. 650$Billion MC budget would likely quadruple, at least, by enrolling the remaining 83% of the population into the program.
      That has to be financed, somehow.
      And discussion of that “cost part” of the ledger is usually missing by the Medicare for all” advocates.
      Or the realistic costs of the MC for all program are vastly understated.

  4. The catastrophe of Obamacare was not going to be seen in the first few years. Initial problems – the bureaucratic snafus and resulting cost increases – can be fixed, to some degree. But people won’t know the real damage until later. Obamacare will result in an extension of health care treatment – by our existing force of providers – that is unsustainable. We’ll pay more for it but, worst of all, there will not be AVAILABLE the same level of quality care that we have had, when the marketplace was (relatively) free to determine the market price. That means that quality professionals will not choose it for a lifetime career. The Progressives won’t be satisfied until ALL Americans get the same quality care; namely, what we get at VA hospitals today.

      1. Anon…
        – There are numerous suggestions of “Medicare for all”.
        And I think Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein proposed that.
        What I rarely see are realistic projections of the cost of Medicare for all.
        If Medicare for all is a new, or additional, $2 Trillion entitlement program, how will it be funded?
        Specifically, is a 10% additional payroll tax acceptable?
        15%? 20%?
        That side of the ledger
        …the cost side….rarely accompanies the Medicare for all proposals.
        And the few proposals I have seen that do address funding this massive new entitlement program are unrealistic.
        Bernie Sanders claimed that the average family would save $3500 per year under a Medicare for all system.
        Those who believed that Obamacare would save the average family $2500 per year might fall for Sanders’ estimate.
        If we get to the point where the Medicare for all proposals gain widespread traction, I hope that a realistic discussion of the costs/ taxes of that program are included in the debate.

          1. The needle does seem to have moved in that most Americans support government sponsored healthcare.and the republicans now realize it. Let’s give people the “beautiful healthcare” Trump bragged about rather than this garbage bill.

  5. I just posted a comment and then had to sign in. The sign in to Word-scam was accepted.

    Where’s the comment ?

    PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM YOU MAILING LIST. THIS ISSUE REMAINS UNCORRECTED.

  6. The Dems created an entitlement in the middle of the night on a party line vote. You can’t do away w/ an entitlement w/o committing political suicide. So, this new program will keep some good stuff, get rid of bad stuff, give people some CHOICES, but it will still suck. We need a dual system. A healthcare system run by the govt. and one for people willing to pay for nongovernmental healthcare.

      1. I think Nick’s idea is excellent. One implementation would be to expand Medicare and Medicaid to do exactly that . There are others just as good. But the general idea is great and, if as efficient as Medicare, or the programs in most other economically advanced countries (which almost all have bronze/silver/gold type private plans for the well to do), would bring down costs enormously.

  7. The fact that we won’t have to pass it to find out what’s in it bodes well I think.

    1. AARP has come out against it as it increases the costs for those over plus it damages Medicare.

            1. The GOP measure introduces a provision that requires “continuous coverage.” Anyone who goes without insurance for two or more months and then tries to sign up for coverage again will be required to pay 30 percent more on their premiums for the next year.

          1. “Higher cost and less coverage”.
            That’s what we have now. Didn’t you read Professor Turley’s article?

      1. Anon, do you have a link for the claim that it will damage Medicare? Not being critical, just interested.

  8. Since the Affordable Care Act was Obama’s signature achievement and legislation, I’m especially curious how Trump’s result will compare.

    Should be easy to place the two results side by side and draw some conclusions…

    1. No need to go that far (though no reason not to either). You can safely bet both programs are or will be gigantic money extracting opportunities for insurance companies, big pharma and corporate medical administration and tort lawyers, though I would not like to see individuals no longer able (in any practical sense) to take doctors or hospitals to task for other than token sums rather than the gigantic bills, or life altering mistakes they are victims to.

      Already, removing state oversight and regulation is an ominous signal that any new system is strictly for the purpose of ever more profit squeezing.

      One good thing is that we sweep away the mandate to subsidize profligate private enterprise or face a government stick. That is a nasty relationship that the Clintons, the Bushes and Obama (and many many others, such as John Boehner – neoliberalism is a bipartisan economic ideology) were totally behind.

      The other is that a new system devised by President Trump and his team looks like it will be easier to dismantle when the time comes (which it inevitably will). Obama Care almost collapsed under the weight of it’s own administrative complexity but was forced to make work regardless of cost and now has so many tentacles going every which way that putting an end to it is going to be remarkably difficult.

  9. I would love it if it even barely resembled what it was putported to be, rather than a slick deal with the insurance and pharma companies. I believe in universal basic care, I would happily subsidize something legitimate.

    I could give you all a laundry list of reasons why it has been a joke for us, I won’t waste your time. If nothing else, though, penalizing people financially for choosing not to participate is Mao-level stuff, and as it is, if one isn’t terminally ill or the self-victim of chronic bad habits, it is nigh impossible to meet the deductibles, we may as well not have insurance (and if you are in that category, hopefully it is a relief). How any of that promotes health or helps regular people is a straight up mystery.

    I personally would love to see it reformed, though I don’t have great faith that the republicans are taking the actual citizenry into account and are instead focused on their real constituents: those same insurance and pharma companies.

    1. The Democrats, having passed Obamacare practically by themselves, had those same constituents apparently.

      I am not defending the Republicans, by the way. I am still ticked with both parties for being sell-outs and corporatists.

  10. I liked insurance being available for everyone under ObamaCare, and removing the penalty for pre existing conditions.

    But until the COST of health care goes down, I’ll consider any measure insufficient.

    1. The billions people spend on healthcare in the US will not decrease until we improve our diets, decrease stress, sleep better, and avoid chemicals and hormones that disrupt our bodies’ functioning.

      1. Medical care is a service and like any service, it’s consumption is influenced by price signals (which are currently disrupted). While we’re at it, the share of the population over 15 who smoke cigarettes has gone from 48% to 14% over the last 50 years, while the share of total commodity output attributable to hospitals and nursing homes has quadrupled.

        1. DSS….
          You mean that nonsmokers and those with healthy diets will eventually get sick?
          And maybe even DIE?
          And rack up medical expenses along the way?
          😉

        2. So what if there has been a big decrease in cigarette smoking. There is an even bigger increase in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and autoimmune diseases–all tied to diet and lifestyle. Kids are now getting type II diabetes and hypertension and non-alcoholic steathosis requiring a liver transplant–pretty much all caused by a crappy diet and all are expensive is a big part of the cost increases. People do not start getting more healthcare when the price is low just like they buy more steak when it is on sale; they get more when their health is worse.

          I do not dispute assertions that for-profit hospitals and insurance companies, etc are part of the problem. That said, much of our health, for good or ill, is under our control.

          1. There is an even bigger increase in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and autoimmune diseases–all tied to diet and lifestyle.

            The age-adjusted death rate for cardiovascular disease fell by 70% over the period running from 1963 to 2010 and the share of deaths attributable to cardio-vascular disease fell from 60% to 31%. Of the four major risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease, excess weight is the only one more prevalent now than it was in 1961. Hypertension has fallen by 1/3 in prevalence and high cholesterol levels by 60% since 1961.

            The crude rate of cancer diagnoses is higher than it was in 1970 (0.5 per 1000 v. 0.25 per 1000, leaving aside skin cancers), but the crude death rate from cancer hasn’t increased at all (and the mortality rate of cancer patients has tanked; leaving aside skin cancers annual probability of death has declined from 0.63 to 0.32). No clue how you got the idea that it was an established fact that ‘diet’ or ‘lifestyle’ plays much of a role in the genesis of the generic cancer (as opposed to the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, which is quite established).

            There’s some indication that rheumatoid arthritis may be more common now than it was 20 years ago (roughly 25% more common among women, about the same among men). No clue why you attribute this to ‘lifestyle’.

            Diabetes is a great deal more common than it was 60 years ago and deaths from diabetes about 1/2 again as common. Diabetes still accounts for only about 3% of all deaths.

            You like biking, fruit juice, and granola, that’s your thing.

            1. “You like biking, fruit juice, and granola, that’s your thing.”

              Nope. Fruit juice can contribute to diabetes and NASH, see pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Robert Lustig’s Sugar:The Bitter Truth. Granola also tends to pack a ton of sugar and grain fattens people nicely just like it does cows. Biking is fun when I have a chance, which is not often enough.

              Dr. Sarah Ballantyne has written an excellent book on the dietary and lifestyle factors that contribute to autoimmunity: The Paleo Approach. Dr. Terry Wahl’s gave an excellent TEDx talk called Minding My Mitochondria and is currently conducting clinical trials focused on the treatment of MS using a specific dietary protocol and other non-pharma interventions (which is how she put her own secondary progressive MS into remission).

              CVD is still the number one killer, but of the top ten, 7 are due to chronic disease which are affected by diet.

              Cancer can begin when mitochondria do not initiate apoptosis when they are supposed to, leading instead to proliferation and cell malfunction.

              Mitochondria and other organelles will not function properly if they are missing important elements like magnesium, zinc, vitamin D, etc, leading to epigenetic alterations– autoimmune genes get turned on, cancer genes get turned on, etc.

              “Overall, our findings support the notion that an adolescent and early adulthood diet characterized by high intake of sugar-sweetened and diet soft drinks, refined grains, red and processed meat, and margarine, and low intake of green leafy vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, and coffee may increase the incidence of premenopausal breast cancer. Cancer Res; 77(5); 1179-87. ©2017 AACR.”

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28249935

              This study is one example.

              Lousy diet, low stomach acid, gut dysbiosis, hormone imbalances from lousy sleep affecting cortisol, to chronic stress affecting cortisol, low Vitamin D due to being inside too much, exposure to a wide array of toxins–it all adds up.

              1. No she hasn’t. She’s produced a trade book which is likely derived from some cherry-picked research if it’s derived from anything at all.

              2. She was at one time a researcher is some esoteric branch of cell biology, though she did not publish much. It’s a business with her, and part of the latest wave of diet books. Herman Tarnower, Martin Katahn, Robert Atkins, yada yada.

                1. DSS,
                  Read Dr. Ballantyne’s book before casting judgment. Dr. Lustig, Dr. Wahls, Dr. Davis, Dr. Perlmutter, Dr. Osborne, Dr. Axe, Dr. Myers, Dr. Wentz, and others have plenty of clinical experience and research that back what I said.

                  Tarnower died in 1980 and probably thought eating fat and cholesterol caused heart disease. Read Gary Taubes’ Good Calories, Bad Calories for good information on that hypothesis. The government is even walking back their stance on fat and cholesterol since it is being discredited as a cause of heart disease.

                  Katahn is also writing from the 70s and 80s and focused on calories.

                  The issue is not weight loss with a “diet”. Diet does not solely mean cutting calories and starving; it means what you choose to eat. The Standard American Diet is full of garbage. Changing one’s diet to real foods will effect real changes in a person’s health beyond weight loss. I have seen it happen.

                  Preventing diseases from occurring will lower costs. Diet and lifestyle (sleep, exercise, toxin exposure, stress) do heavily contribute to chronic disease. As people learn about how such things affect their health, they will make changes. Many already have.

                  Nate wants the cost of healthcare to go down. Not needing to pay for medication because it isn’t needed anymore because an individual made changes in his own life sure decreased the cost of healthcare for that individual. That’s also one less person needing to use insurance frequently to pay for increased doctor’s visits and medication due to chronic poor health.

                  Everyone should be interested in the care and upkeep of their own bodies. Who else should be? The government? No, thank you.

                  However, since we are all paying for other’s healthcare under ObamaCare, Medicaid, and Medicare, it has become all our problem. I’d rather people become educated about how what they eat (real food vs. processed food) and their lifestyle factors (stress, poor sleep, etc.) affects their health and make their own choices rather than the government start trying to control things.

              3. You’re obsessed with what you eat, and you seem to fancy everyone else should be. Your obsessions are your problem, not anyone else’s.

            2. Darren,
              Could you check the filter? My reply got eaten. No cusswords were used and only 1 link.

  11. Medical Monopoly Capitalism.
    That is what makes America Great! Right Donald?

  12. Michael Aarethun:
    “I would have to add in the cost of tort actions in two ways. Attorneys fees and associated costs and unlimited penalty fees. As long as the ambulance chasers are involved that will drive up the cost of liability insurance. and probably raise that students figure above 50%”

    ***********************
    As someone involved in the process regularly let me tell you that medical malpractice premium costs in no way influence medical costs and aren’t tied to litigation in any meaningful way. The culprit is for-profit medical care, corporate greed and a well-heeled customer base. Read for yourself:

    http://www.aswllp.com/content/images/medmal-justthefacts.pdf

    1. Like anything else, it’s the sum of tiny things.

      One problem you have is inefficiencies driven by disrupted price signals. Another is hypertrophied administrative costs and bad time allocations (with doctors doing what clerical employees should be doing). But much of it is driven by changes in consumer preferences over five decades. As you grow more affluent in a real sense, your consumption bundle changes. This can be true on macro scales. Megan McArdle has pointed out that you’ve seen a similar revolution in consumption of veterinary services, which remains a cash-on-the-barrelhead fee-for-service business. Also, medical care is now more contextually important for your overall health than was once the case. The revolution in life expectancy over the last 200 years was (up until about 40 years ago) driven by improved nutrition and sanitation, with medical care playing only a modest role, As recently as 1925 or thereabouts, the array of services under the heading of ‘medical care’ (as distinct from nursing care or surgery) was quite circumscribed. Improvements in life expectancy were derived largely from reductions in infant and early childhood mortality. Well, you’ve seen life expectancy at birth increase by 8 years in this country since 1970. However, you’ve seen life expectancy at age 65 increase by 4 years in that time. That’s something quite novel.

  13. I would have to add in the cost of tort actions in two ways. Attorneys fees and associated costs and unlimited penalty fees. As long as the ambulance chasers are involved that will drive up the cost of liability insurance. and probably raise that students figure above 50%

    The second point is cost of medicine and that goes straight back to liability insurance and the first paragraph.

    Doctors and other medical providers have one way out which keeps them going but does not serve the other half of the issue – what about when their is malpractice or poorly tested thalidomide type drugs?

    In my short life I’ve had docters look directly at the front cover of my medical records that had No Penicillin in two inch high letters and then prescribe ampicillin. But on the other hand one of the major reasons I spend a great deal of my time south of the border is out of pocket costs for medicines are less than 40% of the USA costs and require no insurance government, private or other wise. When a prescription is needed for example nitroquik where the basic medicines metoprolol and clortalidone do not the fee might be 500 pesos. (divide by 20 for US Dollars.) The difference is I don’t need as $200 to $400 physical because I changed locations.

    Medical abuses are a third area . Ever get a bill from the Doctor On Call who just wais in case one of the surgeons falls dead during surgery. And how many surgerys are in progress at the one time the one on call MD is there? Ever get a bill for a second reading of an xray? The list is endless and all spurred by liability.

    i have cataracts. They are not quite at size three needed for the operation. But again I have to go through two layers of medical bills and examinations to tell me the two minute measurement part. Optometrist and then Opthamologist. South of the border I just go into the surgeons office make an appointment and pay out of pocket for less than half the price in the USA and all the people are trained in the USA using the latest equipment. I’ve seen people at age 19 get lazik.

    In each of those instances the dreaded liability insurance and it’s big brotheer tort actions lurks.

    Is USA health insurance so bad it needs that kind of club behind it to ensure it’s properly done?

    So the Doctors can take all of their personal assets car , house, etc. even bank accounts and place them in a trust administered by an LLC and that’s called asset protection, part of estate planning.

    If they want to lower the cost so people can afford medicine fix those areas otherwise they are just playing congressional games and screwing us over again and again.

    And then there is the public who abuses the system and takes the kid to the emergency room for a bandaid.

    $200 plus instead of $5 at a first care facility or learning to buy and apply a bandaid.

    But that’s enough. Add these to your own list and ask Congress while they are fixing that garbage ACA by killing it 100% completely why not fix the rest of the issues.

    Then find out how much money the medical and insurance business pay them. Pelosi didn’t get to be worth 78 million on a congressional salary.

    Did anyone check the House Majority leaders offices and support staff areas for bugs by the way. Or the one in the Senate Majority leaders office? Now there’s a reason for liability….

  14. I wished I would have saved this college students name and dissertation. However the premise from her research that 50% of every medical dollar that leaves our pocket, goes to the insurance companies. And only the remaining 50% goes to the clinics, hospitals, Drs, nurses, extra.
    So we should slice our premiums in half, and put the clinic affiliated with its hospitals, etc, on the direct receiving end of our medical dollar pool to draw from. Voila.
    Of course that would mean a million paper shufflers out of a job, and the CEO of the insurance companies not collecting their 11 million $ salary.

    1. Ter ber

      That sort of logic doesn’t work in this oligarchy. In a true democracy, yes, but not in the US, an oligarchy. The oligarchs don’t want the money flow compromised.

      That’s why we will continue to pay for parasitic predators who buy and sell our candidates, charge as much as, ‘the market will bear’. That’s why we won’t see a ten percent Cr*p tax on alcohol, tobacco, Twinkies, etc to offset the costs of the ingestion of this stuff. That’s why we won’t progress to a higher level of intelligence. Other countries are progressing but not the US. The battle cries of half the population is “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”, “Why don’t you move there?”, etc.

        1. What’s wrong with staying with the country you are born in and try to make it better?

          1. Ter ber

            I stay in the US because I have lived here since the 80s, made a choice to become informed and participate, eventually deciding and choosing to become a citizen. Above and beyond that, I remain a Canadian as well, informed. However, over all of that I am a person of the world that appreciates intelligence where ever it is found and is irritated by stupidity where ever it is found. Finding myself a citizen, by choice, of the US I am appreciative of all that is great in this country and irritated by its sometimes and hopefully momentary lapses into ignorance and stupidity; case in point the present administration. These are backward steps being taken by America, these days. The worst has come crawling out from behind the woodwork. But the country is great enough to survive this imbecility. With intelligent people like Obama even the damage done by the three stooges and the treasonous GOP was not enough to stop this country. Perhaps it is best to regard DDT and his fellow idiots as some sort of perverse black humor. So, I’ll stay; I like it here.

          2. Terber….
            – Having perfected Canada, Isaac may feel an obligation to to create an American utopia.
            And I don’t think he’s likely to give up the chronic bitching and whining about the country he chose to reside in.
            That’s a core benefit for him.

            1. Everyone whines and bitches, especially you tnash. This blog is a smorgasbord of whining and bitching, as it should be. It all comes down to what one whines and bitches about. You whine and bitch about any affront to your illusions of grandeur. I whine and bitch about those illusions which prevent America from being truly grand. It’s all about moving forward, progressing, evolving, or hadn’t you heard?

              1. However issac, what you haven’t yet learned is what made our constitutional republic work is the idea we have only one melting pot, one recipe and one dish we serve to secure rights equally to all our citizens. Along come the progressives and they believe the recipe is old, that it needs modernizing to serve the various tastes of whomever we allow in. In the progressive’s effort to serve everyone they actually end up only serving themselves. Looking at what progressives have done to this country, it would be insane to let them anywhere near the kitchen again. We’ll instead let the Mad Chef do his work. 🙂

              2. Isaac….
                -I don’t hold a candle to you in the whining and bitchy departmemt.
                Very, very few who comment here can compete with you in that area.
                When I do whine and bitch, it’s about different issues; you are obsessed about one issue.
                And if you have the capacity to present fresh material on that one subject, you conceal it well.
                Eliminate DDT, three stooges, midget cowboy, olivarchy, “yeoman’s job”, etc. from your posts, and 90% of your “ideas” disappear.
                Yes, it does “all come down to what one bitches and whines about”, and you are are a broken record harping on the same few subjects, repeating the same hackneyed phrases and themes.

    2. the premise from her research that 50% of every medical dollar that leaves our pocket, goes to the insurance companies. And only the remaining 50% goes to the clinics, hospitals, Drs, nurses, extra.

      That’s errant nonsense. The insurance sector accounts for 2.8% of gross output. Health care and social assistance accounts for 6.9% of gross output.

      1. I have no idea why you would mix
        Social assistance with a broken leg that needs to be fixed by a doctor.
        Because that is apple and oranges.

        1. The categories are assembled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The ‘social assistance’ portion is less than 10% of the whole and it’s a reasonable wager they included it because it’s on the continuum which includes nursing homes.

Comments are closed.