» Site Navigation |
|
|
» Online Users: 1,551 |
| 0 members and 1,551 guests |
| No Members online |
| Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM. |
|
12-09-2016, 06:46 PM
|
#11
|
|
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
|
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
There is lots of other stuff in there that is very helpful - including provisions that are moving us from a service-based to outcome-based reimbursement scheme, which is the best bet for controlling care in the current system.
I'd have loved to have seen a public option, but having a public entity contracting wouldn't have significantly altered the price structure in health care. Public entities are already among the largest purchasers of healthcare in the US - why would adding another to the mix be hugely different? It might make some different, which is why I'd like it, but nothing radical.
The key way ACA planned to help the lower income seeking healthcare in particular was through subsidized insurance and an expansion of Medicaid. Of course, a lot of states have opted out of Medicaid expansion, to the disadvantage of their citizens, but there is a fair bit of subsidized insurance out there.
I won't pretend to have a lot of answers, but the reform I'd really like to see next would be to make the US part of a bigger market for drug approval and distribution - so we had, for example, a common drug market in the EU and US. Drug companies would have less hassle in approvals but we'd get the benefit of systems that have been much more successful at keeping drug prices down. I'd be hoping the larger market supported innovation, even if the approach took a lot of money out of the pharma pipeline.
Parts of TTIP might have set the stage for this, but with the TPP dead, we can be pretty certain that's going nowhere. And with Brexit we don't even know if EMA will continue to hold for the UK as well as EU.
|
I know a lot of people who qualified for subsidized plans. The subsidy is based on coverage at the Bronze Level. Coverage there is set like one would get for a HSA plan, without the income to fund the HSA. Why should someone bother paying even $75/mo. for a plan that doesn't pay any benefits until the insured has come $5700 out of pocket?
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:27 AM.