Healthcare

[Brooklyn]

brookie,

didn't a Minnesota, young man die because he made too much to qualify for the cheap plan, made a whopping $36K. Rationed his insulin because you and your pretend liberals didn't give to craps about the poor and think it thru. Screw you guys are your faux concern. Obama is a wall street shill. End of story. HE DIED because you didn't care. Obama didn't care. We are sick of you pretends. Sick of the R and D game. TAATS. You hate the poor, brookie. you just do.

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/lifes ... ng-insulin

His mother helped him look for a health plan on the marketplace set up by the Affordable Care Act, but his options were expensive. To keep going to the same doctors, she says, he was looking at paying about $450 monthly, in addition to a high deductible of more than $7,000, which would mean months of paying out-of-pocket for most of his medical care. He opted to go without insurance, forgoing that expense to focus on paying for his insulin and supplies until he could find a better option.

Guess he should have learned to code.

Actually, it is your pals in Congress who are responsible for higher pharmaceutical costs:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... ay-n656836


By contrast,


Senator John McCain proposed a plan that focused on making health care more affordable. ... Barack Obama called for universal health care. His health care plan called for the creation of a National Health Insurance Exchange that would include both private insurance plans and a Medicare-like government run option.

History of health care reform in the United States - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ted_States



Had Obama's original plan been created by Congress that young man would still be alive today as would the tens of thousands who died when RepubliCON death ... oops, health coverage existed:

Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health. ... It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually. Previous estimates from the IOM and others had put that figure near 18,000.Sep 17, 2009
New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health ...


https://news.harvard.edu/.../new-study- ... -lack-of-h...



That's 900,000 in this needless holocaust over a twenty year period which means it's you delusional right wingers who hate the poor. By the way, as those who read my posts on the subject in our old forum well know, I have called for the same universal health care system in the USA that they have in Europe, in Japan, and in Israel which, strangely enough, is financed by USA taxpayers. Therefore, everybody knows that it is people like me who actually care for the poor unlike so many righties.

[Brooklyn]

Oh by the way, it is Minnesota Democrats who have fought to keep a hold on certain pharmaceutical prices:


https://www.inforum.com/news/government ... ulin-costs


So far, no help from the GOP but that's to be expected.


https://www.twincities.com/2019/02/19/m ... 350-in-us/


Let us use Canada's system which is so much better than Republicon care which has reduced the amount of Americans under coverage by 7 million since Trump came into the White House.

[CU77]

Trump admin joining the lawsuit to declare all of Obamacare unconstitutional.

Oh please please PLEASE let SCOTUS so declare! I want all Trump voters to get what they voted for.

[OCanada]

Misreading Norway is necessary because of you don’t you have little to stand on. Costs are far lower and healthcare outcomes far better. So distraction is a necessity

[foreverlax]

A Losing Health-Care Strategy
The latest ObamaCare lawsuit is bad law and high-risk politics.

An abiding mystery of the Trump Presidency is why it can’t stand prosperity. And right on time, after its victory on Russian collusion, the Administration decided this week to elevate a legal fight over health care that it is almost sure to lose.

The Justice Department this week reversed itself to support a decision by a federal judge in Texas invalidating the Affordable Care Act. The lawsuit Texas v. Azar is brought by roughly 20 GOP state attorneys general and led by Ken Paxton of Texas. Previously the Department had supported a legal outcome that invalidated certain provisions of the law such as the mandate on pre-existing conditions.

Recall that Chief Justice John Roberts upheld ObamaCare’s individual mandate as a tax in 2012 in NFIB v. Sebelius. But Congress zeroed out the penalty as part of tax reform in 2017. The lawsuit argues that therefore the mandate is no longer a tax and is thus unconstitutional, and the rest of the law must fall with it. Voila, no more ObamaCare. Judge Reed O’Connor embraced this logic in December, and an appeal is being heard at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

One problem is that Judge O’Connor missed the mark on the question of standing, which requires an injury, and the state AGs are challenging a provision that imposes no burden on them. But even if it survives standing, the lawsuit has other infirmities that will receive a withering gaze at even the right-leaning Fifth Circuit or Supreme Court.

One legal leap is Judge O’Connor’s ruling that because the mandate is unconstitutional, then the entire Affordable Care Act has to go. The Supreme Court’s longstanding “severability” doctrine holds that courts are supposed to show restraint in cashiering entire statutes based on a single illegal provision.

Judge O’Connor is right that Democrats claimed in 2010 that the mandate is crucial to the structure of ObamaCare. But Republicans repealed the penalty in 2017, not the entire law, and ObamaCare hasn’t crashed.

Unlike in 2012, millions of people also now rely on the law for health insurance. It’s often bad insurance but it is coverage. As a legal matter, this means the Supreme Court must take into account “reliance interests” if it is going to overturn NFIB v. Sebelius. One possible, even probable, outcome is that the lawsuit ends in a cul-de-sac when the Supreme Court declines to hear the case.

As for the politics, the White House calculation seems to be that a legal decision striking down the law would force Congress to act. President Trump said on Wednesday that “if the Supreme Court rules that ObamaCare is out, we will have a plan that is far better than ObamaCare.” The GOP and Democrats can then offer Americans their competing health-care visions in 2020, and may the best plan win.

But the White House had better hope it doesn’t have that debate after millions have lost their insurance in an election year due to a court case. The GOP couldn’t agree on a plan to replace ObamaCare when it ran all of Congress, and many of the GOP Members most knowledgeable about health care have retired. If there’s some new emerging GOP consensus, we haven’t heard about it.

Mr. Trump’s impulse to go on the health-care offense has its virtues, and it beats the defensive crouch the GOP adopted in 2018 after it failed to repeal and replace ObamaCare. Democrats used the Texas lawsuit, as it happens, to claim the GOP didn’t want to insure against pre-existing conditions.

But going on offense will require more than a vague promise of something good or running against Medicare for All. Democrats might even unite around something less radioactive than single-payer. The GOP will need ideas that can persuade Americans that choice and competition will provide better plans at more affordable rates than ObamaCare.


Despite the repeal-and-replace failure, the Trump Administration has a good record on increasing consumer choice. Zeroing out the tax penalty hasn’t ushered in the end times Democrats warned about. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services this week reported that ObamaCare enrollment is holding steady.

The Administration has written new rules that allow highly affordable short-term health insurance, as well as association health plans that offer group insurance across different risk pools than a single employer or the ObamaCare exchanges. The GOP can build on that base to offer a new campaign vision to take to voters. But better to do it without pursuing a legal strategy that is likely to fail and could blow up politically.

[foreverlax]

"A Losing Health-Care Strategy
The latest ObamaCare lawsuit is bad law and high-risk politics.

An abiding mystery of the Trump Presidency is why it can’t stand prosperity. And right on time, after its victory on Russian collusion, the Administration decided this week to elevate a legal fight over health care that it is almost sure to lose.

The Justice Department this week reversed itself to support a decision by a federal judge in Texas invalidating the Affordable Care Act. The lawsuit Texas v. Azar is brought by roughly 20 GOP state attorneys general and led by Ken Paxton of Texas. Previously the Department had supported a legal outcome that invalidated certain provisions of the law such as the mandate on pre-existing conditions.

Recall that Chief Justice John Roberts upheld ObamaCare’s individual mandate as a tax in 2012 in NFIB v. Sebelius. But Congress zeroed out the penalty as part of tax reform in 2017. The lawsuit argues that therefore the mandate is no longer a tax and is thus unconstitutional, and the rest of the law must fall with it. Voila, no more ObamaCare. Judge Reed O’Connor embraced this logic in December, and an appeal is being heard at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

One problem is that Judge O’Connor missed the mark on the question of standing, which requires an injury, and the state AGs are challenging a provision that imposes no burden on them. But even if it survives standing, the lawsuit has other infirmities that will receive a withering gaze at even the right-leaning Fifth Circuit or Supreme Court.

One legal leap is Judge O’Connor’s ruling that because the mandate is unconstitutional, then the entire Affordable Care Act has to go. The Supreme Court’s longstanding “severability” doctrine holds that courts are supposed to show restraint in cashiering entire statutes based on a single illegal provision.

Judge O’Connor is right that Democrats claimed in 2010 that the mandate is crucial to the structure of ObamaCare. But Republicans repealed the penalty in 2017, not the entire law, and ObamaCare hasn’t crashed.

Unlike in 2012, millions of people also now rely on the law for health insurance. It’s often bad insurance but it is coverage. As a legal matter, this means the Supreme Court must take into account “reliance interests” if it is going to overturn NFIB v. Sebelius. One possible, even probable, outcome is that the lawsuit ends in a cul-de-sac when the Supreme Court declines to hear the case.

As for the politics, the White House calculation seems to be that a legal decision striking down the law would force Congress to act. President Trump said on Wednesday that “if the Supreme Court rules that ObamaCare is out, we will have a plan that is far better than ObamaCare.” The GOP and Democrats can then offer Americans their competing health-care visions in 2020, and may the best plan win.

But the White House had better hope it doesn’t have that debate after millions have lost their insurance in an election year due to a court case. The GOP couldn’t agree on a plan to replace ObamaCare when it ran all of Congress, and many of the GOP Members most knowledgeable about health care have retired. If there’s some new emerging GOP consensus, we haven’t heard about it.

Mr. Trump’s impulse to go on the health-care offense has its virtues, and it beats the defensive crouch the GOP adopted in 2018 after it failed to repeal and replace ObamaCare. Democrats used the Texas lawsuit, as it happens, to claim the GOP didn’t want to insure against pre-existing conditions.

But going on offense will require more than a vague promise of something good or running against Medicare for All. Democrats might even unite around something less radioactive than single-payer. The GOP will need ideas that can persuade Americans that choice and competition will provide better plans at more affordable rates than ObamaCare.


Despite the repeal-and-replace failure, the Trump Administration has a good record on increasing consumer choice. Zeroing out the tax penalty hasn’t ushered in the end times Democrats warned about. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services this week reported that ObamaCare enrollment is holding steady.

The Administration has written new rules that allow highly affordable short-term health insurance, as well as association health plans that offer group insurance across different risk pools than a single employer or the ObamaCare exchanges. The GOP can build on that base to offer a new campaign vision to take to voters. But better to do it without pursuing a legal strategy that is likely to fail and could blow up politically."

[foreverlax]

Promises by candidate Trump

‘INSURANCE FOR EVERYBODY’
‘NO CUTS … TO MEDICAID’
‘NO ONE WILL LOSE COVERAGE’
‘NOBODY WILL BE WORSE OFF FINANCIALLY’
‘GET RID OF ARTIFICIAL LINES’
‘EVERYBODY’S GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF’

So, everyone is covered, no one loses coverage, not cuts to Medicaid, for less.

"I know the details of taxes better than anybody," the president told The New York Times. "Better than the greatest CPA. I know the details of healthcare better than most, better than most."

So he understands the issue...

Trump: Nobody Knew Health Care Could Be So Complicated

DJT 2/27/17

Maybe not...

“[The Affordable Care Act is] virtually, it’s on its last legs right now. [HHS Secretary] Alex Acosta has come up with incredible health care plans through the Department of Labor – association plans where you associate, where you have groups and you get tremendous health care at a very small cost. And it’s across state lines; you can compete all over the country. They compete. They want to get it. And, Alex, I hear it’s like record business that they’re doing.

“We just opened about two months ago, and I’m hearing that the numbers are incredible.”

DJT 7/26/18

He's got it now.

"I mean it 100 percent, I understand health care now, especially very well. A lot of people don't understand it, we are going to be, the Republicans, the party of great health care," said Mr. Trump in an Oval Office meeting with the interim first lady of Venezuela, Fabiana Rosales De Guaidó. "The Democrats have, they've let you down, they came up with Obamacare, it's terrible."

"If the supreme court rules that Obamacare is out, we will have a plan that is far better than Obamacare," Mr. Trump vowed.

03/27/19

Can't wait....which version is it?

Your last sentence.....such a softball. We'll have to pass it before we can read it. TAATS

Quipy.....the fact remains, the Rs have no plan.

[runrussellrun]

Brookie,

My friends? hate them all (mostly)

You know, I am having trouble finding the HR (bills/legislation) that you posted. Can't find McLames "proposal" in the Congressional record. Obama's universal plan? How did Congress vote on it? Please, help us out, I would like to read the bill. I'll be in the infinity waiting room.

Meanwhile, who drafted the ACA dollar amounts for medicaid? Who signed the bill? exactly. You posted fairly tales. I deal in reality.

[runrussellrun]

Foreever wrote:

Quipy.....the fact remains, the Rs have no plan.

The ACA is horrible. Expensive. Short window for signup. The list is long. If it were a home, it would have been condemned long ago. Do members of COngress own stock in health industries? Get nice donations for their "war chests" (so stupid to call it that ) Not going down the R's vs D's nonsense. TAATS is reality. But, if you insist, what have the D's done to address diabetics from dying? exactly

[foreverlax]

Foreever wrote:

Quipy.....the fact remains, the Rs have no plan.

The ACA is horrible. Expensive. Short window for signup. The list is long. If it were a home, it would have been condemned long ago. Do members of COngress own stock in health industries? Get nice donations for their "war chests" (so stupid to call it that ) Not going down the R's vs D's nonsense. TAATS is reality. But, if you insist, what have the D's done to address diabetics from dying? exactly

Are you a glass half empty everywhere else in your life or do you save all that negativity for just here?

There is plenty to complain about....sometimes you just have to be glad you have a glass and there is something in it.

[runrussellrun]

NIH is literally telling you how to scam the system and keep the welfare checks going.

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contra ... ing-funded

Included in this advice is coded language for the elite.

You need a solid track record demonstrating that you are qualified to conduct research in the new area.

How do the welfare gatekeepers determine "qualified" Does a STEM grad from the dirty elites like Yale, Stanford, etc. qualify, but not STEM grads from Trenton State or Frostburg State?????

Ah, healthcare.

[jhu72]

What do you expect any politician to do about any specific disease? The system as a whole at the present time is so f**ked up I can't imagine a rational response to any single disease. A response that would actually make a difference. Until you get the cost of healthcare issue, the delivery / distribution system, resolved, a war on any specific disease is futile. At this point in time, if researchers today had a magic pill to eradicate diabetes only the 1% could afford it, regardless of the true underlying costs of the pill. The more effective the pill, the more serious the disease, the more it costs, even if it costs nothing to produce!

[jhu72]

NIH is literally telling you how to scam the system and keep the welfare checks going.

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contra ... ing-funded

Included in this advice is coded language for the elite.

You need a solid track record demonstrating that you are qualified to conduct research in the new area.

How do the welfare gatekeepers determine "qualified" Does a STEM grad from the dirty elites like Yale, Stanford, etc. qualify, but not STEM grads from Trenton State or Frostburg State?????

Ah, healthcare.

I could and would explain this to you, but doing so is hopeless. Your hatred (inferiority complex?) in regards to the Ivy league (broadly defined) blinds you to reason.

[runrussellrun]

NIH is literally telling you how to scam the system and keep the welfare checks going.

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contra ... ing-funded

Included in this advice is coded language for the elite.

You need a solid track record demonstrating that you are qualified to conduct research in the new area.

How do the welfare gatekeepers determine "qualified" Does a STEM grad from the dirty elites like Yale, Stanford, etc. qualify, but not STEM grads from Trenton State or Frostburg State?????

Ah, healthcare.

I could and would explain this to you, but doing so is hopeless. Your hatred (inferiority complex?) in regards to the Ivy league (broadly defined) blinds you to reason.

As does your hatred of pubic schools, like the AG school down the road from Hopkins. And, the hatred is for Hypocrites. Not my fault that the Ivies are full of them.

[runrussellrun]

What do you expect any politician to do about any specific disease? The system as a whole at the present time is so f**ked up I can't imagine a rational response to any single disease. A response that would actually make a difference. Until you get the cost of healthcare issue, the delivery / distribution system, resolved, a war on any specific disease is futile. At this point in time, if researchers today had a magic pill to eradicate diabetes only the 1% could afford it, regardless of the true underlying costs of the pill. The more effective the pill, the more serious the disease, the more it costs, even if it costs nothing to produce!

specific disease? As usual, your superior intellect has you over thinking. What does any of your rant have to do with a $7000 deductable and a $450 a month health "plan"?

Eli Lilly stock has a nice "hockey stick" like rise, since 2009. Coincidence to when the ACA was passed. How much of Eli Lilly stock do YOU own.

This might help:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... -expensive

Insulin should cost as much as a gallon of milk. Dont you agree, pretend caring liberal. Profits over people. You go jhu72, you go

[runrussellrun]

Foreever wrote:

Quipy.....the fact remains, the Rs have no plan.

The ACA is horrible. Expensive. Short window for signup. The list is long. If it were a home, it would have been condemned long ago. Do members of COngress own stock in health industries? Get nice donations for their "war chests" (so stupid to call it that ) Not going down the R's vs D's nonsense. TAATS is reality. But, if you insist, what have the D's done to address diabetics from dying? exactly

Are you a glass half empty everywhere else in your life or do you save all that negativity for just here?

There is plenty to complain about....sometimes you just have to be glad you have a glass and there is something in it.

Point me to your happy, positive posts. (look in the mirror, guess when it's R's or tRump it's A-ok to be negative. )

As usual, your reply didn't address my question. Sure, the vast majority of posts are reflections and observations,life is negative, filled with prose that Obfuscate's those that waste their time reading them.

But , yeah, isn't this a good place to vent? In real face to face life, I am viewed as crazy, not negative. You?

[jhu72]

NIH is literally telling you how to scam the system and keep the welfare checks going.

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contra ... ing-funded

Included in this advice is coded language for the elite.

You need a solid track record demonstrating that you are qualified to conduct research in the new area.

How do the welfare gatekeepers determine "qualified" Does a STEM grad from the dirty elites like Yale, Stanford, etc. qualify, but not STEM grads from Trenton State or Frostburg State?????

Ah, healthcare.

I could and would explain this to you, but doing so is hopeless. Your hatred (inferiority complex?) in regards to the Ivy league (broadly defined) blinds you to reason.

As does your hatred of pubic schools, like the AG school down the road from Hopkins. And, the hatred is for Hypocrites. Not my fault that the Ivies are full of them.

I don't hate Maryland - I poke fun at it in a good natured fashion as a rival. Perhaps you are too sensitive.

I love public schools at all levels. I am the product of public schools (K12), public college (Essex Community College) and yes I also attended Hopkins as an undergrade and graduate student, and Stanford as graduate student and UC Berkeley as graduate student and UC Berkeley and Hopkins as post-doc. I had the choice of continuing the academic track as a professor at UCLA, but chose instead a career in industry, founding my 1st (of 2) companies after roughly 5 years in industry and my second company after roughly 4 years and cash out from the first company.

Love education and I don't give a rats ass where it is obtained.


One of the biggest hypocrites on this board is you and that is why we don't get along I guess. I don't like hypocrites either.

[Brooklyn]

I don't hate Maryland - I poke fun at it in a good natured fashion as a rival. Perhaps you are too sensitive.

... Love education and I don't give a rats ass where it is obtained.


One of the biggest hypocrites on this board is you and that is why we don't get along I guess. I don't like hypocrites either.

[Brooklyn]

... You posted fairly tales. I deal in reality.

Yeah, right.

The reality is that thanks to your hero Trump, Republican death panels are here:












As Republicans shouted during one campaign speech: "let him die!"

[jhu72]

What do you expect any politician to do about any specific disease? The system as a whole at the present time is so f**ked up I can't imagine a rational response to any single disease. A response that would actually make a difference. Until you get the cost of healthcare issue, the delivery / distribution system, resolved, a war on any specific disease is futile. At this point in time, if researchers today had a magic pill to eradicate diabetes only the 1% could afford it, regardless of the true underlying costs of the pill. The more effective the pill, the more serious the disease, the more it costs, even if it costs nothing to produce!

specific disease? As usual, your superior intellect has you over thinking. What does any of your rant have to do with a $7000 deductable and a $450 a month health "plan"?

Eli Lilly stock has a nice "hockey stick" like rise, since 2009. Coincidence to when the ACA was passed. How much of Eli Lilly stock do YOU own.

This might help:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... -expensive

Insulin should cost as much as a gallon of milk. Dont you agree, pretend caring liberal. Profits over people. You go jhu72, you go

Nope don't own any Lilly stock. You mentioned diabetes. Is this not a specific disease? I addressed your question, you move the goal posts. Maybe if you wanted an answer to the $7000/$450 question, YOU SHOULD HAVE ASKED THAT QUESTION! Neither I nor anyone else around here are mind readers. As I said interacting with you is hopeless.