Obamacare is not cured

[rjmacs]

Speedy wrote:
[quote=vision63] We need a little GOP buy in.

Maybe, but 2009 had a solid Democratic majority in the House. And a super majority in the Senate for seven months. The Democrats won't make that mistake again.
It will be decades upon decades before they get the opportunity.

[Bill in NC]

Medicare is a fee-for-service system - no real way to limit costs.

"Medicaid for all" would be the only sustainable public option, with its formularies and capitation requirements to limit costs.

Understand that in the rest of the world public systems are designed for basic & catastrophic care, not "everything & the kitchen sink" we've tried to mandate under the ACA.

[davester]

Bill in NC wrote:
Understand that in the rest of the world public systems are designed for basic & catastrophic care, not "everything & the kitchen sink" we've tried to mandate under the ACA.

I don't think that's true. The UK NHS is a comprehensive health service, as are many similar services in other European countries. I can't think of anything that the ACA covers that is something that is not covered in those plans. Give an example if you think that's true.

[sekker]

People forget that healthcare has classic economic inflation from the past 60 years.

ACA plugs one hole, and the costs come from another stream.

There are pieces of ACA that work. We should celebrate those.

There are pieces that don't work. We should fix/revise/end.

Time for our Senators to govern. But I fear it won't happen until well past the election.

[Uncle Wig]

sekker wrote:
People forget that healthcare has classic economic inflation from the past 60 years.

ACA plugs one hole, and the costs come from another stream.

There are pieces of ACA that work. We should celebrate those.

There are pieces that don't work. We should fix/revise/end.

Time for our Senators to govern. But I fear it won't happen until well past the election.

Agreed.

[Bill in NC]

http://www.pri.org/stories/2010-12-17/ho...ealth-care

If a treatment is deemed too expensive the NHS won't pay for it.

Currently we don't see this explicit rationing under the ACA, but it's something that would be necessary for any public option.

davester wrote:
[quote=Bill in NC]
Understand that in the rest of the world public systems are designed for basic & catastrophic care, not "everything & the kitchen sink" we've tried to mandate under the ACA.

I don't think that's true. The UK NHS is a comprehensive health service, as are many similar services in other European countries. I can't think of anything that the ACA covers that is something that is not covered in those plans. Give an example if you think that's true.

[RgrF]

Bill in NC wrote:
http://www.pri.org/stories/2010-12-17/ho...ealth-care

If a treatment is deemed too expensive the NHS won't pay for it.

Currently we don't see this explicit rationing under the ACA, but it's something that would be necessary for any public option.

Private insurers restrict treatment every day so I'm not sure what your point is. I'm a bit more sure of the point others have made that public health oughtn't be subject to ones ability to pay and, if we ever hope to have meaningful reform, we need to find a way to remove private insurers from the system

[rjmacs]

Bill in NC wrote:
Medicare is a fee-for-service system - no real way to limit costs.

"Medicaid for all" would be the only sustainable public option, with its formularies and capitation requirements to limit costs.

Understand that in the rest of the world public systems are designed for basic & catastrophic care, not "everything & the kitchen sink" we've tried to mandate under the ACA.

Medicare is piloting some of the most effective outcomes-oriented team-based reimbursement models in the country, a la Mayo Clinic and Kaiser Permanente. There's no reason they couldn't do the same as a public option.

Are there limits? Sure, but there are limits in private insurance too...

[mrbigstuff]

Remember the possibility of moving the Medicare age down to 55? That would have been a game changer where everyone, regardless of income, could have benefited. The ACA is basically a cluster-fcuk of rules that need not be there. The Dems screwed the pooch on caving on that option before it even got public traction.

[RgrF]

Seems Ms. Pelosi "screwed the pooch' on about everything she touched.