Here is a suggestion on ACA..that may be unpopular on this board..but

[Le Gaucher]

May actually drive down costs for all.


How about a clause that will allow hospitals to deny treatment ( ER or elsewhere ) if you dont have insurance or the ability to pay upfront estimated cost of treatment. In exchange hospitals should not be allowed to charge more for uninsured patients .. Same fucking rates for everyone.

Exceptions will obviously have to be made ( accidents where the patient is not in a position to proof of coverage) or some other circumstances that i cannot think of yet.

But short of single payer funded through taxes, we need a stronger prod to increase the size of the risk pool. Tax penalty isn't strong enough to force everyone.

[DrDan]

1. I am sure it will be popular among your local GOP congressmen

no ability to pay? no treatment.

So some young kid from a family who has been priced out of insurance, falls and breaks an arm. Your solution is for ERs to deny treatment until the family comes up with the money. Not very compassionate, is it?

[rtracey]

3. ummm

yeah, thats called a private hospital.

[WinkyDink]

10. Not in the US, it isn't. The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA) of 1986:

Public and private hospitals alike are prohibited by law from denying a patient care in an emergency. The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA) passed by Congress in 1986 explicitly forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay.

http://law.freeadvice.com/malpractice_law/hospital_malpractice/hospital-patients.htm

[rtracey]

13. ummm

Yeah, ok so there is the EMTLA..yes I know, and I also stick by my previous answer....(if you know what I mean). Im witness to it. Many times Ive seen indigent patients "bypassed" to other facilities...thats all I'll say.

[WinkyDink]

24. I suppose crimes are committed everywhere, but those are what you witnessed: crimes. Including

the transfers:

"It also prohibits unnecessary transfers while care is being administered and prohibits the suspension of care once it is initiated, provisions that prevent dumping patients who cannot pay on other hospitals."

[rtracey]

34. yes

Yes crimes are committed everywhere, not discounting hospitals, clinics, caregiving, etc.

[wasupaloopa]

2. I am not sure of this but I think you cannot deny treatment. There are indigent people and they

have the right to health care if it is a right and not a privilege.

But on the other hand we can let them die on the street if your plan is put into place. The cost to remove their bodies shouldn't be too much of a burden to tax payers.

[Bettie]

4. Wait, your "idea"

is buy an insurance policy that, in many cases, will cost more than your annual income or die should you become ill or injured without insurance? Wow, that is inhuman.

[Le Gaucher]

15. Which insurance policy costs more than annual income ..after including

Medicaid and subsidies on Obama care policies?

Obamacare pretty much leaves no one ( save states that have not implemented Medicaid expansion)without affordable coverage. But everyone has to participate.

[Bettie]

17. I'm talking about what it is likely to be replaced with

a policy that covers nothing, but, if one has ever been ill costs far more than anything out there now.

Either way, you can't just let people die because they have not purchased a policy.

Have you ever lived on a shoestring budget? One where the difference between eating and not eating is the five bucks you have left to purchase enough Ramen to get through the rest of the month?

[Le Gaucher]

31. I am talking about improving Obamacare.. No one on a shoe string budget

should have to worry abouy health care. Obamacare has most bases covered except forcing participation. Which has become its soft underbelly.

[Sunlei]

43. Thats basicly what Obama said!! TWEAK ACA, IMPROVE ACA- DO NOT GET RID OF IT REPUBLICANS.

[juxtaposed]

5. I see you read the AHCA.

[pangaia]

40. OOppssie... LOL

[Le Gaucher]

42. No.. Havent and will not .

The tax penalty is a joke.

[madokie]

6. There will be NO driving down health care cost

as long as Insurance Companies have their grubby hands in the pot

[TexasBushwhacker]

7. Short of single payer, I would rather see a system like Switzerland

The Swiss system requires that everyone buy private health insurance BUT the cost of the health insurance is regulated as are all medical expenses (no more $30 Tylenols in the hospital) and all drugs. There is a cap on out of pocket expenses that is quite low. Most people go with a high deductible plan because the regulated medical expenses are AFFORDABLE.
Switzerland spends less than 12% of their GDP on healthcare (on par with France and Germany) vs over 17% in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

[WinkyDink]

8. Are you sure your name isn't "Le Droiter"?? LET AN ER DENY TREATMENT? THAT IS EVIL.

[Demsrule86]

9. The AC is not unpopular on this board first of all. We are fighting to save it...secondly...

no we can not allow people to die without treatment...that is a republicanesque Idea...even Reagan said people should not be turned away who need medical care...not sure why you would think any of us would agree with you. WE are Democrats.

[snooper2]

56. He didn't say ACA was unpopular on this board, he said his suggestion may be unpopular

it's right there in the sentence structure...

[apcalc]

11. It is inhumane to deny treatment to those in need.

[wasupaloopa]

12. You probably associate health insurance with car insurance. No insurance no car repairs.

No health insurance no health care. Yet people are not cars get it?

But I do give you credit that you realize your inhuman thinking would not be popular on this board where we care for people.

[Sunlei]

14. No it is the law, they have to treat the sick. States will again pay for all who manage to crawl in.

even when the sick pile up in waiting rooms and parking lot and die because they wait for HOURS.

[Le Gaucher]

19. The law needs to be modified a bit is what I am saying.

You will see scores of younger people signing up and premiums will start falling

[WinkyDink]

27. "A bit"?! Proof you could pay for hospital ER treatment first? Are you AT ALL aware of what those

costs ARE??

[Sunlei]

37. fuck no! I 've known people who crawled in ER and died waiting for treatment PRE ACA.

Because of ACA. States are "saving" BILLIONS" because MILLIONS more are no longer Uninsured!

If Republicans repeal the tiny progress Americans enjoy today with ACA we'll go back to States paying for UNINSURED again and people LOSING EVERYTHING they own to pay for medical treatment.

Living in pain with crippling disabilities like birth defects, burns and other injuries the emergency room will 'basic treat' and then toss them out in the street because they're UNINSURED.

[Demsrule86]

21. They are getting around that by 'stabilizing the sick or injured' and sending them home.

If you have a broken leg, no doctor will set it (unless you find one who has a heart ...good luck) unless you have insurance or pay up front...and that is public hospitals ...we have one that services 60 miles...and it will shut down if the AHCA becomes law...private hospitals don't have to take the poor or uninsured.

[WinkyDink]

30. Which is why ER patients MUST declare they are there for admission, not "observation."

[Sunlei]

39. we have that now with crap insurance and wealthy people insurance. about 3000 a month for

Blue cross plan that covers everything no deductible. real insurance.

no stress of what happens to you/family if say you're hit by a car or fall down stairs and have a long recovery road ahead.

[Sunlei]

16. people who made minimum to file taxes had to pay mandate $150 fine. WTF do Republicans hate

Last edited Tue Jun 27, 2017, 08:55 AM - Edit history (1)

mandate? Republicans are SCREWING AMERICANS!

[GaYellowDawg]

18. It should be unpopular everywhere.

Here's a rewording of your idea: if you can't pay, then die. I'm sure Mitch McConnell would French kiss you for it. Only those who pony up big bucks get treatment. Why, thank you for posting, Mr. Shkreli, but don't you have a trial to prepare for?

[Le Gaucher]

20. And when you cant pay you should buy affordable care. ACA included subsidized

Premiums.

There is no bloody excuse for not buying it other than the fact that you are selfish bastard.

[johnp3907]

23. I think we can se who the selfish bastards are.

[Le Gaucher]

26. Yes ..like it or not ..if you are healthy .. And choose tax penalties over insurance

because it is cheaper ..it is being selfish ( and stupid)

[johnp3907]

32. We can see who is stupid too.

[Demsrule86]

28. That shows a serious lack of understanding about the ACA...Medicare was not expanded in a

number of states...you had to make around $12,000 to get the ACA...my daughter broke both her ankles and we had one of those grandfathered in insurance policies that would not pay for her after 22...I literally used her scholarship money in order to get her health care which lI was told later was against the rules...but as one ACA person told me...I guess paying too much isn't something we can punish. In Ohio we have expanded medicaid, but I could not get it done...I was sent the same thing over and over where are the w2's? She qualified, but were unable to secure a insurance...We have a combo 'safetynet'...social services, unemployment and medicaid in one tiny office...everything is done by mail...really shitty.

[GaYellowDawg]

33. Really?

Because everyone knows that everybody can afford health insurance, no matter their age, employment status, health, or socioeconomic status, right? Your grand idea comes down to: pony up, or die. It is inhumane, and you were a goddamn asshole for forwarding the idea, and you're a goddamn asshole for defending it. I teach two fundamental classes for nursing and allied health, and every single one of my students would tell you to go fuck yourself, because you have all the compassion and empathy and ethics of Caligula. Don't say another fucking word to me, you monster.

[johnp3907]

38. !

[Le Gaucher]

44. Yes.. ACA lets you buy subsidized policies and give me one reason

Not to buy

Let us leave out states that havent expanded medicaid.

If you are able to purchase affordable coverage ..but choose not to despite the fact that the LAW requires you to buy it... Why again should the state bail you out ?

[ExciteBike66]

22. Not really a good idea

"In exchange hospitals should not be allowed to charge more for uninsured patients .. Same fucking rates for everyone. "

Next time you get hurt, be sure to check out your health insurance claim sheet with the amount they paid the hospital. Even though the insurer can negotiate and get the bill lessened, it is usually still a huge amount of money (especially when you consider that a single person would have to pay it all if they did not have insurance).

Tldr: Insurance companies pay less, but not that much less.

[Le Gaucher]

25. Yes .. That is why you would insurance from the exchange.

Tons of people are forgoing it despite subsidies. Only the sick are signing up. What will that do to the insurance pool.

Clearly tax penalites are not helping

[Demsrule86]

29. Not everyone can get subsidies.

[Le Gaucher]

35. I can empathize ..I had Obamacare policy with no subsidy.

My premiums went up .. But i had much better coverage in return.

I had a small daughter..i could not take on the risk of not having insurance.

[Sunlei]

45. all policies are ACA "Obamacare". You must be making a decent salary to not have any subsidy.

or you got the platinum plans that don't allow subsidy money. or you have benefit insurance from work.

[Sunlei]

50. hospitals, doctors, medical industries charge ridiculous rates to treat UNINSURED because they get-

MORE Federal and State money as reimbursement.

That's why Drug Corporations charge taxpayers $1,500.00 A DOSE for overdose medicine all EMTs and police carry around these days.

And by the way it can takes first response to overdose- 3 or 4 $1,500.00 DOSES to reverse an overdose.

Republicans let the Damn DRUG and INSURANCE CORPS collude (PRICE SET) and price gouge "the people" . Fuck you Republicans!! FUCK YOU CORPORATE ass kissing- CONGRESS & SENATE & PRESIDENT

[Motownman78]

36. ACA Tax Penalties are a joke

But even with your idea young people still wouldn't sign up because of the "Wont happen to me" syndrom.

[pangaia]

41. This is a joke, right?

I sure the fuck hope so..

[Le Gaucher]

47. No it is not. The only reason premiums are high is because

Not enough healthy people are signing up.

[pangaia]

48. Well, partially true.

So somebody shows up without insurance and they just drop dead.

Great plan.

Maybe your name could be Le droitier.

[Sunlei]

51. because DRUG CORPS-INSURANCE CORPS & most HOSPITALS are "for profit" HUGGEE profits!

[Javaman]

46. oh man...

[MineralMan]

49. How about let's not do something like that, OK?

Harming people to make a point is a Republican strategy, not a progressive one. No, let's not do that, if you don't mind.

[MoonRiver]

52. A MUCH better option is Single Payer, IOW, health care for ALL.

Do you have a problem with that?

[pirateshipdude]

53. I am not much into letting people bleed out at the hospital entrance. Eom

[left-of-center2012]

54. You say ...

“deny treatment ( ER or elsewhere ) if you don’t have insurance ...
In exchange hospitals should not be allowed to charge more for uninsured patients”

How can they both deny service,
yet not charge more if you don’t have insurance?

[Iggo]

55. Go back!

Back!

[chowder66]

57. It's wise to cover everyone.

I work in email protection.

If we were to provide anti-virus and anti-spam protection to only one person, but there are say 5 other people set up to receive email at the same domain but aren't protected, then when one of the 5 gets a virus and sends it to the protected person (internally) then the protected user really isn't protected and is paying for protection they are not getting.

Here's how that would look in another way;

Domain is protected as are the mailboxes associated with the domain.
#1 user is protected
5 users have anti-spam/anti-virus disabled.
User # 4 gets an email that hasn't been filtered/scanned and it has a virus and forwards it to #1 user (via interoffice/internally) then #1 is paying for service that isn't protecting him all that well. Especially if it's a deadly virus that kills your computer.

So the customer or company pays to ensure all mailboxes are protected. That doesn't keep viruses out completely due to a new fast moving undetected trojan, etc but it does help prevent them from the majority of threats. This keeps things running smoothly and cuts down I.T./Adminstrative costs for each time a virus makes it's way through prior to getting protection.