Healthcare

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Healthcare

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:05 am

(I looked back a year and half and couldn't find an active health care thread so I'm starting this one...again in my quest to get some stuff out of the Catch all thread).


There was a great podcast today at CATO that showed just how little individual control and choice we have as Americans because of various bureaucracies in our government -- most notably how awful our FDA is.



https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-da ... ealth-care
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 8912
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 450 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Buc2 » Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:21 pm

The first FDA-approved Cannabis-based drug will be available across the US
by WSYX/WTTE Thursday, November 1st 2018

Image
Photo Credit: GW Pharma Ltd.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — For the first time, the Food and Drug Administration has given approval for a cannabis-based medication that is available in all 50 states.

The drug, Epidiolex, is officially approved as a treatment for people with two types of epileptic syndromes: Dravet Syndrome, and Lennonx-Gastaut Syndrome. It was recommended for approval in April and approved by the FDA in June, but then the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Agency had to reclassify it before it could be legally prescribed.

Doctors are also allowed to prescribe Epidiolex for other conditions.

Dravet Syndrome is a rare genetic dysfunction of the brain that starts affecting patients in the first year of life. Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome is a form of epilepsy and symptoms usually start between the ages of three and five. Epidiolex is approved for patients age two and up.

GW Pharmaceuticals, which makes Epidiolex, says the average list price is $32,500 a year, but most insurance plans will cover the drug.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 13791
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 1178 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:50 pm

Yeah. You can buy CBD oil over the counter at a gas station.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 16550
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 723 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:53 pm

$32,500 a year ... LOL
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 8912
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 450 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Buc2 » Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:33 am

Zarniwoop wrote:$32,500 a year ... LOL

Right? You can buy much better from your local dealer at a fraction of that cost. :lol:
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 13791
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 1178 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Zarniwoop » Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:39 am

That’s govt for you ... regulating stuff and granting monopolies to help their buddies
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 8912
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 450 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:41 am

Medicaid expansion on the ballot in Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, and Montana today.

we shall see.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 16550
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 723 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Nov 27, 2018 8:42 am

So, MB in the immigration thread, you said you are an open borders guy. You also say you are a Medicare for all guy. How do you think those two positions play out, long term?

Can you throw me a couple of countries who currently practice universal healthcare and open borders, or at least as close to those things that you can find, as examples of how you’d like to see policies implemented here?
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 4379
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 214 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:55 am

Also, here is an example why I really want the moderate social Dems to regain control: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation ... 82460.html

Viral story. Woman gets a letter saying that a committee has decided that she does not qualify for a heart transplant unless she can pay her 20% co-pay for anti rejection transplant medication. They suggest she fundraise.

Enter Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, champion of the Medicare for All movement, who uses the opportunity to demonize “insurance groups” who place profits over patients, etc. Her tweet:
Insurance groups are recommending GoFundMe as official policy - where customers can die if they can’t raise the goal in time - but sure, single payer healthcare is unreasonable.


The problem? The clinic who sent the letter is not an insurance group. The payer in this situation? Medicare. The $10,000 minimum reserve is a requirement of Medicare. Does that make everyone here want to have Medicare? Show of hands.

I encourage you to follow the logic found here: https://twitter.com/mattbc/status/10664 ... 94112?s=21

This guy believes that healthcare is a human right. He also doesn’t suspend reality in talking about issues like this. He’s the guy we need to be talking to, not AOC.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 4379
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 214 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Ken Carson » Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:37 pm

Don't want MdB to miss these... but I'll also add a post about Medicare for All, since he likes to talk about how "popular" it is.

Colorado got an amendment to their state constitution on the ballot in 2016. It was a state single-payer plan.

Here's what the plan entailed:
- 10% increase to payroll tax, on top of the state's flat 4.63% income tax, and unlike other taxes, are not able to be written off federal tax burdens
- This tax applied to all workers as it only affected the first $350,000 of payroll, meaning the lowest wage workers pay the highest effective tax rate
- This tax would apply to all Coloradans, even those who chose to continue retaining private insurance
- Cede all control of the state's healthcare system to a board of trustees appointed by the governor, whose job included determining all rules and regulations, as well as no oversight into tax increases to keep up with costs
- Some, but not all of the coverages were enumerated in the bill, but many were not, relying on the board of trustees to determine levels of care broadly, with minimum standards being Medicaid/the ACA

When Coloradans went to the polls, 79% of the people voted against it. It appears it is not so popular when there is an advertised price tag and unilateral authority granted to faceless bureaucrats.

I do applaud Colorado for actually putting a real plan together. They looked at the cost of doing healthcare that way and said, "Well, we need to more than triple the taxes we collect to pay for this, and we need to reserve the right to hike those taxes whenever we need to without further voting. I guess we should put it on the ballot and see what people think." If they got the necessary votes together, then that's great. They served the interests of their state.

Both California and Vermont abandoned Medicare-for-all in the past 2 years due to extreme cost increases that would have also resulted in massive tax increases.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 4379
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 214 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:45 pm

Ken Carson wrote:Don't want MdB to miss these... but I'll also add a post about Medicare for All, since he likes to talk about how "popular" it is.

Colorado got an amendment to their state constitution on the ballot in 2016. It was a state single-payer plan.

Here's what the plan entailed:
- 10% increase to payroll tax, on top of the state's flat 4.63% income tax, and unlike other taxes, are not able to be written off federal tax burdens
- This tax applied to all workers as it only affected the first $350,000 of payroll, meaning the lowest wage workers pay the highest effective tax rate
- This tax would apply to all Coloradans, even those who chose to continue retaining private insurance
- Cede all control of the state's healthcare system to a board of trustees appointed by the governor, whose job included determining all rules and regulations, as well as no oversight into tax increases to keep up with costs
- Some, but not all of the coverages were enumerated in the bill, but many were not, relying on the board of trustees to determine levels of care broadly, with minimum standards being Medicaid/the ACA

When Coloradans went to the polls, 79% of the people voted against it. It appears it is not so popular when there is an advertised price tag and unilateral authority granted to faceless bureaucrats.

I do applaud Colorado for actually putting a real plan together. They looked at the cost of doing healthcare that way and said, "Well, we need to more than triple the taxes we collect to pay for this, and we need to reserve the right to hike those taxes whenever we need to without further voting. I guess we should put it on the ballot and see what people think." If they got the necessary votes together, then that's great. They served the interests of their state.

Both California and Vermont abandoned Medicare-for-all in the past 2 years due to extreme cost increases that would have also resulted in massive tax increases.



I will second your applauding of the process Colorado used here...it wasn't pie in the sky "If you don't do this people will die"...but it seems to have been an incredibly rational and comprehensive way of laying it out...it gave the people real information and sought their legitimate feedback

If I was living in Colorado I would vote no as they did.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 8912
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 450 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:59 pm

(These are article quotes ... on my phone .... not going to spend time with tags)

(Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge in Texas ruled on Friday that the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, is unconstitutional, a decision that was likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth agreed with a coalition of 20 states that a change in tax law last year eliminating a penalty for not having health insurance invalidated the entire Obamacare law.


...


The White House hailed Friday's ruling, but said the law would remain in place pending its expected appeal to the Supreme Court.

"Once again, the president calls on Congress to replace Obamacare and act to protect people with preexisting conditions and provide Americans with quality affordable healthcare," White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said in a statement.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-federal-ju ... 35506.html
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 8912
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 450 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Brazen331 » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:57 am

Ken Carson wrote:Don't want MdB to miss these... but I'll also add a post about Medicare for All, since he likes to talk about how "popular" it is.

Colorado got an amendment to their state constitution on the ballot in 2016. It was a state single-payer plan.

Here's what the plan entailed:
- 10% increase to payroll tax, on top of the state's flat 4.63% income tax, and unlike other taxes, are not able to be written off federal tax burdens
- This tax applied to all workers as it only affected the first $350,000 of payroll, meaning the lowest wage workers pay the highest effective tax rate
- This tax would apply to all Coloradans, even those who chose to continue retaining private insurance
- Cede all control of the state's healthcare system to a board of trustees appointed by the governor, whose job included determining all rules and regulations, as well as no oversight into tax increases to keep up with costs
- Some, but not all of the coverages were enumerated in the bill, but many were not, relying on the board of trustees to determine levels of care broadly, with minimum standards being Medicaid/the ACA

When Coloradans went to the polls, 79% of the people voted against it. It appears it is not so popular when there is an advertised price tag and unilateral authority granted to faceless bureaucrats.

I do applaud Colorado for actually putting a real plan together. They looked at the cost of doing healthcare that way and said, "Well, we need to more than triple the taxes we collect to pay for this, and we need to reserve the right to hike those taxes whenever we need to without further voting. I guess we should put it on the ballot and see what people think." If they got the necessary votes together, then that's great. They served the interests of their state.

Both California and Vermont abandoned Medicare-for-all in the past 2 years due to extreme cost increases that would have also resulted in massive tax increases.


Very thoughtful post that obviously took some time to compose, shame MdB wasn’t considerate enough to reply.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 3549
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby mdb1958 » Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:28 am

What percentage of the GDP is the health care industry again?
mdb1958
 
Posts: 11849
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 180 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Brazen331 » Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:25 am

mdb1958 wrote:What percentage of the GDP is the health care industry again?


17.9 percent. Google it yourself next time.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 3549
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby mdb1958 » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:21 pm

Brazen331 wrote:
mdb1958 wrote:What percentage of the GDP is the health care industry again?


17.9 percent. Google it yourself next time.



That kind of sounds low.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 11849
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 180 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Zarniwoop » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:22 pm

You think nearly 1/5 of all output going to healthcare is low?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 8912
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 450 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby PanteraCanes » Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:00 am

Is that just healthcare or is it also including how much the insurance companies make?
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:06 pm

PanteraCanes wrote:Is that just healthcare or is it also including how much the insurance companies make?



I"m guessing it includes all health care expenses regardless of whether they go to insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, etc.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 8912
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 450 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:15 am

My uncle is having surgery today to repair an abdominal aortic aneurysm.

At no time was his bank account a factor in wether or not he would have the surgery.

He lives in Canada.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 16550
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 723 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:17 am

My wife had a baby and it cost us 120 dollars and I don't have to live in Canada.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 7049
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 209 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:21 am

uscbucsfan wrote:My wife had a baby and it cost us 120 dollars and I don't have to live in Canada.




****, then it should have cost $5,000,000 for a benefit like that.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 8912
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 450 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Brazen331 » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:30 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:My uncle is having surgery today to repair an abdominal aortic aneurysm.

At no time was his bank account a factor in wether or not he would have the surgery.

He lives in Canada.


If you have any relatives or friends in Cuba and/or Europe, please tell us about their interactions with healthcare as well if you don’t mind.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 3549
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:21 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:My uncle is having surgery today to repair an abdominal aortic aneurysm.

At no time was his bank account a factor in wether or not he would have the surgery.

He lives in Canada.

How much time elapsed between needing the surgery and getting the surgery?
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 4379
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 214 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:30 am

About 2 weeks.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 16550
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 723 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby PanteraCanes » Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:21 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
PanteraCanes wrote:Is that just healthcare or is it also including how much the insurance companies make?



I"m guessing it includes all health care expenses regardless of whether they go to insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, etc.



I was more wondering if how much we pay for insurance itself on top of healthcare is part of those numbers? As far as I know insurance companies are in the business to make a profit. So it would seem that whenever insurance is involved there are very rare cases where you would come out "ahead". Just wondering how ahead people would be if they took those premiums and put them in an account for any possible medical issues.
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Buc2 » Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:55 pm

PanteraCanes wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

I"m guessing it includes all health care expenses regardless of whether they go to insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, etc.



I was more wondering if how much we pay for insurance itself on top of healthcare is part of those numbers? As far as I know insurance companies are in the business to make a profit. So it would seem that whenever insurance is involved there are very rare cases where you would come out "ahead". Just wondering how ahead people would be if they took those premiums and put them in an account for any possible medical issues.

Of course insurance companies are in business for profit. And why wouldn't they be? However, it is my understanding that insurance companies actually help hold costs down. For example, BCBS tells Physician's Group that if they want PPO patients from their insurance company to use their services, then they can only charge $80 instead of their normal $100 charge for such-n-such procedure. Physician's Group agrees because that's a huge chunk of change they'd be passing on if they said no. Those cost savings add up over the course of a year or a decade for the insured. Granted, not enough savings to pay their premiums, but still a savings they wouldn't have received otherwise.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 13791
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 1178 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Dec 27, 2018 3:58 pm

To determine whether a government program is successful, it's often necessary to look not only at how well it does what it's supposed to do, but what it's doing that it isn't supposed to. For example, killing people.

Take the hospital readmissions program built into Obamacare. The program derived from a simple observation that hospitals were treating lots of people who would then return for more treatment within the month. Unnecessary readmissions cost Medicare an estimated $17.5 billion a year. If hospitals were treating people effectively, the thinking went, those people shouldn't need to return so soon.

So the health law instituted a Medicare payment penalty for hospitals with too many readmissions for pneumonia, heart failure, and heart attack. Since 2012, Medicare has assessed about $2 billion in penalties on hospitals with too-high readmissions rates.

Hospital groups have argued that these payments are punitive and unfair, particularly to so-called safety net hospitals that serve the poorest, sickest patients. These patients tend to have higher readmissions rates, and the hospitals that treat them were more likely to be hit with payment reductions. (Earlier this year, the Trump administration changed the penalty structure for safety net hospitals.)

But the program has often been labeled a success because it accomplished its primary goal. Readmissions dropped between 2.3 and 3.6 percentage points for the conditions targeted. Readmissions associated with other maladies dropped by 1.4 percent. The authors of one 2016 study suggested that the lower readmission rates "point to how Medicare can improve the care that patients receive through innovative payment models." It offered proof, and hope, that with the right incentives, Medicare could save money and provide better care.

A new study appears to dash that hope, at least as far as readmissions are concerned.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and conducted by by researchers associated with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical and Harvard Medical School, looked at hospitalizations between 2005 and 2015. It found that "30-day post-discharge mortality"—the number of people who died within a month of leaving the hospital—increased for heart failure patients after the readmissions penalty program was implemented.

Although heart failure mortality was already on the rise, the rate of increase became more rapid after Medicare started penalizing readmissions. In addition, mortality rates amongst pneumonia patients, which had been stable, increased.

Fewer people were being readmitted to hospitals, but more people were dying.

This is not the first study to conclude that the program increased mortality. A separate JAMA study last year looked at about 115,000 Medicare patients and also found that although readmissions for heart failure were down, mortality had increased, with about 5,400 more people dying annually.

It is possible that this effect is merely a correlation rather than a direct causation; there may be other factors at play, and the new study does not definitively conclude that the payment program is causing the deaths, although the authors worry that it is a possibility.

The point of the program is to change the practices of medical providers; it seems likely, if not quite certain, that the documented change in results, in terms of both readmissions and mortality, was linked to the change in payment structure. The new study notes that "the increase in mortality for heart failure and pneumonia were driven mainly by patients who were not readmitted within 30 days of discharge." It is reasonable to assume that this program is causing more people with the targeted medical conditions to die.

The program, then, was a success by one measure—but not the most important one.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 8912
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 450 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:27 pm

New article in HuffPo: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c47 ... 693675059b

Couple interesting nuggets:
Medicare for all, as they call it, has become a rallying cry for progressives. Supporters include Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the newly elected Democrat from New York, and three Democratic senators ― Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts ― who are running (or formally exploring runs) for the presidency in 2020.

The idea is also popular, according to the new Kaiser poll. Fifty-six percent of Americans “strongly favor” or “somewhat favor” the idea, compared with 42 percent who “somewhat oppose” or “strongly oppose.”

When Kaiser asked respondents whether they thought they could keep their current insurance under a Medicare for all scheme, 57 percent said they could. In reality, the whole point of Medicare for all would be to wipe away current insurance arrangements and replace them with a new public plan.

Proponents of Medicare for all know this. They argue that the public plan would be simpler, more comprehensive and ultimately less costly for most Americans.

Kaiser actually tested to see how some of those arguments would affect public opinion and, sure enough, people were even more excited about Medicare for all when they heard, among other things, that it would eliminate premiums, copays and deductibles.

When respondents heard that Medicare for all would eliminate private insurance, for example, support dropped dramatically, with just 37 percent favoring it and 58 percent opposing.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 4379
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 214 times

Re: Healthcare

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:40 pm

That's great news.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 16550
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 723 times

Next

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests