Tom Price is Bungling the Obamacare Repeal Messaging
Sign Tom Price up as an adherent of alternative facts (heretofore known as lies).
When pressed on the fact that the CBO said eventually 24 million Americans could lose their healthcare coverage with the Republican legislation, Price attempted to weasel out, instead continuing to rail against Obamacare.
“The fact of the matter is Obamacare has failed,” Price said.
“The report only looked at one third of our plan,” he added saying “every American will have access to coverage.”
As Savannah and Matt said, “access to coverage” is a vastly different proposition than coverage.
I’m glad that Price can now speak authoritatively to the CBO report. Yesterday he “strenuously” disagreed with the report even though he admitted not to having read it. I don’t exactly expect a Cabinet-level secretary to have immediate reaction to a 37-page report, but then just say “we are continuing to review the report” before making sweeping statements on it’s merits. Or work for an administration that is not content just blithely making stuff up for the sake of making stuff up.
About Author
edatlanta
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Couple of things I’ll point out. The CBO also said 30 million people would be covered by the ACA. They were way off.
“eventually 24 million Americans could lose their healthcare coverage” No, those people would not lose coverage. They would choose to not have coverage. Those are two very different things.
“The report only looked at one third of our plan,” he added saying “every American will have access to coverage.” This is true. The CBO could only look at the AHCA and not the administrative things occurring at HHS. For example there were changes yesterday to the 1332 waiver program to free up states on how they structure their Medicaid programs. This will save money and help the more at risk populations. This was not a part of the CBO score. The other administrative actions won’t be a part of future CBO scores.
As Savannah and Matt said, “access to coverage” is a vastly different proposition than coverage. Yes, there is a difference in access and coverage. Everyone should have access to choices that are affordable and fits their needs. In 1/3 of the counties in the USA there is only one insurer. That is because of the affordable care act and not the AHCA. People need more than one option. This bill does that.
“eventually 24 million Americans could lose their healthcare coverage” No, those people would not lose coverage. They would choose to not have coverage. Those are two very different things.
I will add that I disagree with that number as well. Below is a statement from Secretary Price on the numbers.
“The CBO report’s coverage numbers defy logic. They project that zeroing out the individual mandate – allowing Americans to choose whether to have insurance – will result in 14 million Americans opting out of coverage in one year. For there to be the reductions in coverage they project in just the first year, they assume five million Americans on Medicaid will drop off of health insurance for which they pay very little, and another nine million will stop participating in the individual and employer markets. These types of assumptions do not translate to the real world, and they do not accurately estimate the effects of this bill.
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2017/03/14/secretary-price-statement-cbo-report.html#.WMf9OxYpp0Q.twitter
Out of curiosity, which government agency or lobbyist do you follow or work for?
But see… that’s an assumption that the CBO made that made their entire analysis flawed. Just like not taking into account the administrative actions that HHS is currently doing.
I see you edited your post after I replied. Why do you think I’m a lobbyist? Because I read and stay informed?
I wont speak for Ellyn, but from reading your posts on this topic, you have alluded that you are privy to more information that us so I assumed you work for a lobbyist or are involved in some way.
Fair enough. I’m not a lobbyist. To keep it so that I can say the things I say on here we will leave it at that.
Not fast enough AGAIN…. I posted this before your reply. Sigh…
I said ‘government agency or lobbyist’ and ‘follow or work for’… Why because you implied exactly what Price was going to do in January defore he even had his committee hearing. Last week you mentioned you had no contacts in Ways and Means. You also had the info on the 3 part plan less then 12 hours after the bill dropped. You knew more then some GOP members of congress. Thus I asked what agency or lobbyist you follow or work for… not that I don’t find that a bad thing. I have had family and friends who were staff for Petrie, Sensenbrenner, Feingold and the late Proxmier. I just disclose it if it seems relevant. I disclosed my ties to a post Will made in MR yesterday. I’m a cite your source kind of girl…
There are many people on this site who know who I am. If it becomes an issue I will tell everyone who I am. I would prefer to continue as the guy who reads a lot and stays informed (I do both things). That way I can continue to say what I say. I won’t be able to do that if I were to tell everyone who I am. And that just wouldn’t be any fun. With all of that said. I have clearly not been hiding what I do.
Fair enough. I don’t say exactly what I do and for whom. There are a few on the site who might have figured it all out. I personally try to mention any relationships I have that relate to a piece of legislation.
I can’t do that.
There will likely always be errors when attempting to predict human behavior, but any assumptions used are likely the closest to best and fairest available. I thought the language of the CBO report was conciliatory, where it downplayed and qualified loss of coverage. (And it is not a choice to end coverage when coverage is not affordable.) But the OMB report can take into account the costs/benefits of administrative actions, although I don’t think that was included in the preliminary estimate just released. Both CBO and OMB need to appease their direct supervisors, though, so the estimates really do appear “conservative”. Medicaid restructure leaves a big gap of knowledge as to how states will act.
“Medicaid restructure leaves a big gap of knowledge as to how states will act.” I don’t disagree with that, but the solution is to allow Alaska, Florida and so on determine the best way to take care of their at need populations because those populations are vastly different from state to state. A one size fits all mandate from DC isn’t the fix.
Nice bumper sticker slogan, but everybody DOES need the same thing- health care, and the government does have a program in place to deliver that. Medicaid.
Not everything is free. Medicaid works for at risk populations and we as a country to strengthen it to make sure it is here for future generations. The quickest way to weaken Medicaid to the point that it collapses is to dump every individual in the USA into Medicaid. That is flat out dumb and unsustainable. Programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are already taking up a disproportionate amount of the national budget. We should incentivize flexibility and innovation in these programs so that the dollars in them go farther and meets the needs of their intended populations. I can pay for healthcare. I do not need to be on Medicaid. That is not what it was intended for. Putting me on Medicaid does not help the woman and her child who need it.
You can call it whatever you want but the model is the same and there are examples all over the world: People pay into the system, the government contracts with commercial providers. Everybody wins.
Why must the government be in the middle of every solution in your life? There are other ways. Do you know who runs the government? I’m not talking about the career people at agencies. I’m talking about the Shelia Jackson Lees, Louie Gohmerts, Ted Cruz and Hank Johnsons. You shouldn’t want these people with as little control over your life as possible. The best and brightest haven’t necessary made it to he US Congress or state legislatures. I understand your need and desire to see the good in government and what it can do. And it can do lots of good things, but giving certain aspects of your life to these people is insane. Because they are insane.
Point taken, but the choice isn’t them or nothing, it’s them or people like Bernie Madoff, Dennis Kozlowski, and Jeffrey Skilling.
There are of course differences, and similarities, across borders. The best practices to treat a given genetic disorder shouldn’t vary, nor may the incidence rate. But coverage for the same disorder could wind up varying widely, especially following the budget shocks to the states. The difficulty of doing it shouldn’t prevent efforts, though, but there will be a lot of turbulence. And there will be some devastating consequences.
I don’t disagree with any of this. The point of the reconciliation bill and the administrative actions by HHS is to smooth out the turbulence as best as can be done. By allowing states more flexibility in the programs they oversee is on way. Stabilizing the current insurance market and yes, the exchanges is important so that people don’t lose their current coverage or get priced out by huge rate increases. These are all things currently being addressed administratively. This will give the market and insurers time to produce new plans with more choices in the years to come. This won’t be done over night. Anyone that says it can be done over night is just flat out lying.
Re: the plans that may get incentivized or eventually offered, there is the idea that they should be able to be tailored to individual needs. Do you have any knowledge about how plans or regulations will deal with medical issues that are not covered due to an insured’s inability to predict health outcomes? I.e., if an individual signs up for a plan limited to physical injury, then unfortunately develops diabetes, what are the proposed solutions? A requirement for umbrella sickness coverage perhaps? But that would need to be mandated. Otherwise the cost of an insured’s asymmetric information will just get caught up in the emergency rooms and taxpayer subsidies to hospitals. Frankly, I am fairly skeptical that such customized plans can exist so easily- mostly bc I can’t even get the 50 cable TV channels I want without paying for the 770 channels I don’t care about.
Those are all legitimate concerns that are being talked about. I don’t have an answer for you as I sit here today other than that is a concern. Again, it is much easier to address those types of issue that come up if the cost of providing that care is less. I feel like I’m beating a dead horse, but we have to start looking at the problem from the cost drivers side of things. If it’s cheaper to provide the care and we give states (Medicaid) and insurers flexibility in the products they offer your question becomes much easier to answer. We have to address the to cost drivers or we aren’t doing anything but rearranging the deck chairs. Sorry, said I would stop with the analogies.
The issue with simply saying the states can know best is the problem of attitudes that vary by state towards government programs. For exampel we can eb sure Georgia will be more interested in cutting costs no matter the adverse repercussions rather than providing better service for lower prices as their history shows under Republican control. Not to say Democrats spending in a careless manner is the better way. A centralized balanced approach is the way to go whereby a compromise is worked out at the national level with some flexibility built in. The Republican solution is to simply cut the spending and let the states figure out how to make do with less which results in cutting services and is the epitome of “penny wise and pound foolish” as people’s health gets worse due to lack of available sertvcies until they end up in the hospital indigent and depending on more expensive life saving care that will be wholly subsidized by the insured driving up insurance premiums and/or driving up local government subsidies to keep the hospital afloat for their community.
The CBO should have know that the states were going to sue and that the supreme court would rule in their favor? Just like the CBO should have known what congress was doing in part 2 & 3, plus any in house administration rule HHS and the new head of Medicaid, Medicare does? I didn’t trust the last administration that much, I am trusting the current one even less.
I didn’t edit it on purpose. I posted two quick replies and it moved the original on the Medicaid I posted up higher to here, so I had to cut it, add the second comment I wanted here, and then when the edit time was up I tried to post the original rely back where I had it originally but then the server was not allowing me to access. Then I went off to do my day job…
I know you are an attorney and all (I’m married to one), but you have got to learn to cut these things down. I’ll try to get to it later.
Not everyone in the world needs everything all at once. Sometimes just a little bit is all that is needed. You should try to learn that in writing and in healthcare.
Burdensome
So he “Strenuously” disagreed with the CBO report even though he had not read it. Well that sure sounds like “you have to pass it before you can find out what’s in it”…… what a bunch of Bozo’s. My apologies to clowns, they are not that bad….
He strenuously disagreed with the figures of people who would “lose” health insurance. You don’t have to read the report to disagree with the numbers.
Yes, context is unimportant for meaning.
Tom Price needs to be back in the mountains setting bones and not calling his stock broker, wink wink.
So what we have here is not a healthcare bill, but a tax cut bill. That is why no one can really defend it on merits.
That is because this is a reconciliation bill. There is only so much they can do.
And this is the problem.
At some point you expect a certain number of Dems to vote for something that they are philosophically opposed to, and after watching 8 years of Republicans sabotaging the ACA every way they could and vote 50 times to repeal it.
If Part 2 and 3 will require legislation, it ain’t gonna happen, so this is what you have- Part 1 and whatever you can do administratively. Good luck.
Part 2 is happening now. It does not require legislation. It is the ongoing administrative action HHS is currently taking. The idea that you can get a bill that fully repeals and replaces the ACA through Congress with 60 votes is just crazy. Republicans are making good on their promise for a full repeal and replace. This process is the only way to do that. It’s funny that people keep saying republicans have been talking about this for 8 years and then they are surprised when they put a process in place that does what they promised.
How is Secretary Price lying about the plan? He is making realistic claims and explaining that the planned reform is a process.
Lying is when you make wildly unrealistic promises like “if you want your doctor you can keep you doctor” and “if you like your plan you can keep your plan” and “premiums will go down for everyone” like the Democrats did when when they forced the ACA on everyone.
Lady T, please post more. It’s hard taking on the Libs by myself!!!
Oh please. You think anyone who is not as far right as you is either a lib or a RINO. You rank the left leaning moderates around here as if they were socialist. You need to expand your political horizons.
Quit being all jealous cause I showed Lady T a little love ! You know I love you best!!!
You should back off Noway. Lady T is mine. Or I’m hers. That’s probably more appropriate.
Lol! Very patrician of you there, E. The libs on here will probably roast you over a spit for that!
‘Rolling my eyes….’
So lady T, we already have universal health care in that if you show up at an emergency room needing treatment you will get it. Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan forgot to include how to pay for that. So your solution is to give people a choice as to whether they want to pay for that care or not?
Been there, done that.
They had seven years to lay out a full map of what is wrong with the ACA, how to fix what is wrong, lay out the steps to repeal, reveal the replacement plans, have it all fully vetted by the CBO, and sell it to the public. You have the presidential bully pulpit and both houses of Congress.
And this mess of a roll out, this huge bungle of huge bungle proportions is all they got?
It was never about healthcare. It was about tax cuts and revenge on Obama. So that will get passed and the other two sections will be dismissed as Oh well we tried.
“It was never about healthcare. It was about tax cuts and revenge on Obama. So that will get passed and the other two sections will be dismissed as Oh well we tried.” You are just so well informed about the thoughts of others and their intentions.
Why don’t you jump into the arena. You can read people’s minds and have all the answers. You can surely solve all of the worlds problems in 50 days.
And under the “coverage for everyone” ACA we still got 29 million uninsured.
Losing the argument. Get personal. So damn typical, it’s hardly worth noticing any more.
Sorry Eiger. You are also on ignore now.
“Tom Price needs to be back in the mountains setting bones and not calling his stock broker, wink wink.” So you can dish it out but not take it? Cool. More than happy to discuss the facts I posted above or trash talk. I can do both.
CC, Am I still on there? Or am i on double secret probation?
We can’t tell you. Then it would not be a secret.
Just saying.
“we?” Lord , you two joined at the hip now???
More eye rolling…
The Pelosi/Obama pass it to perceive it plan, a calculated (assuming intelligence, not incompetence was involved) failure gateway to a single payer system pooped with Hillary.
“No, those people would not lose coverage. They would choose to not have coverage. Those are two very different things.”
I wonder why there are homeless people. I mean, I see homes all the time. Then I see these people on the side of the road not living in homes. What gives!?! Don’t they see that they have access to homes too?!!
Ugh.
Homeless individuals are an at risk population and there should be programs to assist them getting off the street for sure. In healthcare terms this would be Medicaid. But….. and that is a big but. Someone who has a solid hourly job should not be told that they have to have a three bedroom three bath house on two acres of land. That’s outrageous. Just like it’s outrageous to tell a person with a solid hourly job that they have to have a health plan they don’t want or can’t afford. That is exactly what the ACA did. Now we have 1/3 of our country with only one insurance provider to choose from. You honestly think that is good?
Happy to continue with the analogies.
I know you’re fighting like 10 battles on this thread so I figured I’d throw a shot across the bow.
The ACA isn’t good. The AHCA isn’t good. Republicans and Democrats alike have been fighting these losing battles for decades because someone a long time ago said having a national health insurance plan (or single-payer) is anathema to freedom. It’s not. Countries like Germany, Britain, Australia, and Canada all have some combination of national insurance plans plus supplemental private plans. They live longer, die at a lower rate as infants, and do so at a significantly lower cost both individually and as a society.
Both sides just need to cry uncle on this and adopt an NHS-style system. Enough screaming til blue in the face just to try to save face. The GOP had 7 years to come up with a magic bullet and even you would agree it didn’t produce one. (or won’t in the next steps)
Rather than both sides trying to claim “we won”, lets just agree that they both lost and just institute a national plan and get on with our lives.
A nationally run health system is a terrible idea. Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance can all work in a market together to make sure everyone has appropriate healthcare. The thing that you leave off is that someone has to pay for it. I have always said and will continue to say this. Liberals have the flawed mindset that “healthcare cost too much so we should just figure out a way to have the government pay for it.” The real question should be why is it so high? What are the cost drivers? We will never be able to spend our way into a better healthcare system. As I’ve said above we need a system that is flexible and innovative. One that allows dollars to go further. Not a ridged insurance market that offers people one insurer and plans with premiums too high and a deductible so high it’s like not having insurance. That is what we currently have.
Also, I would love to work with the loyal opposition. I think there is room for a good discussion for the role of Medicaid but people like Andrew here will continue to attack anything that I type. Which is fine. I know how this game works. It’s always easier said that done.
I disagree with this entire post. Nothing else to say.
I’m not here to convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced. There is no scenario you will ever convince me of the merits of a single payer system. Conversely, I will never convince you of anything, healthcare related or other wise.
Well then where is the existing system that would be an example of what you support?
There are many examples of single payer throughout the world, usually rated among the best health care delivery systems.
Why do we have to be like the rest of the world? We have a very innovative system with great quality of care. Most if not all of the countries you would point to cannot say the same thing. You can’t always compare apples to oranges. Sweden for instance has a very homogenous population. That is easier to provide for. We do not have a homogenous population. Canada has a varied population like us, but no where near the population we have. Not apples to oranges. You get what I’m saying. We can have an American solution that works for everyone without putting the government in charge of everything. Government is here it play a role, but not the role you want it to play.
The ACA is a failure. Single Payer would be a failure. Going back to pre-ACA would be a failure. As I have been saying over and over, there is a way for Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance to all work in tandem to provide the choices in insurance we need as a country and still provide the quality of care that we all deserve and expect. The AHCA is the first step to doing that.
“To refute the analogy, ACA says that your house should, at a minimum, have a roof, four walls, running water, a door, a bathroom, and a window.” Do it doesn’t. The ACA says everyone has to have a 3 bedroom/ 3 bath house on two acres. Some people may want a mansion. Some people may want an apartment or townhome.
To get off the analogies. The ACA forces a 60 woman to purchase maternity car. She doesn’t want that or need that. It forces an unmarried 35 year man to have maternity care. Something he doesn’t need or want. It forces a 28 year old woman to have prostate exam coverage.
The AHCA is the first step in a process to all people to buy the house they want and not the one size fits all house that the ACA mandated. You can clearly see where we are today is not a good place for healthcare. Just because someone has insurance that is not the best or only indicator of quality care. Again, what is the point of having insurance if you will never meet the deductible? It is the same thing as not having insurance and that is what the ACA has offered people.
There you go again. Treating everyone in the country as needing everything equally. That just isn’t the case. Did mandating everyone have maternity care drive down the costs of providing that care? No. Did mandating mental health coverage make it cheaper to provide that care? No, it most certainly has not. I can go on, but you get what I’m saying. Sure, there is another side of the coin, but what I’m telling you is that you are looking at it wrong. The problem isn’t coin, but the guy flipping it into the air.
I’m done with analogies and you should be too. That one is enough to make me walk away for good today.
It did not lower the cost of providing anything. All it did was say you have access to an insurance card that gets you high premiums and a deductible so high you will never meet it. Oh, and for a third of the counties in the country you will only have one choice in insurer. Yeah, Obamacare worked great.
I’m done. Until next time.
Nope.
The difference between the House and Healthcare analogies is that the Hospital has to provide Emergency healthcare. The homeless showing up homeless at a home seeking shelter can be arrested if they don’t leave upon request.
Speaking of “insurance across state lines”, could someone explain this? From what I understand it means the federal government telling states that they can’t impose their own standards for health insurance. But why would conservatives promote such an idea?
That’s not what it says at all. It says that if a company that is selling a plan in state A and it meets state B’s standards then someone living in state B can purchase a plan in state A.
Maine, Wyoming and another state already allow the purchase of health insurance over state lines. Why is it that no out-of-state insurers have taken them up on it? Are those states minimum standards too high?
The feds are preventing that from happening? An insurance company offers a plan in Arkansas that would meet say, California’s standards, but they choose not to open an office in Cali? It’s the feds that say someone from Louisiana can’t call the Arkansas office and buy a policy? Not what I’ve read. Besides, if someone in Texas thinks they are going to get a cheaper Louisiana policy even though they live in Texas I think they are dreaming.
“Currently individual states can decide whether or not to allow insurers to sell plans from another state in their state,” the Center for Health and Economy wrote about Trump’s health plan during last year’s presidential campaign. “However, even where this is allowed, various barriers such as the difficulty of building a network and attracting enough customers to create a large enough risk pool make it unappealing to insurers to pursue this option.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/02/28/why-trumps-freedom-to-sell-insurance-across-state-lines-wont-work/#593fdbf41a62
We have some of the highest medical, public infrastructure and educational costs in the world because everybody (everybody) involved is piling on for a piece of the action, any way they can.
Medicaid is a shark feeding frenzy of the first magnitude.
And yields some of the most entertaining stories as patients, doctors, hospitals, labs, public services, attorneys, charities and an endless line of those in and serving the industry connive to survive.
Yall folks know single payer health insurance is not the only system of national health care, right? Because that’s the only thing you guys are talking about. A Bismarck system is about the only thing that would work in the us and honestly it wouldn’t be too unpalatable to conservatives or liberals.
+1. That’s what I was getting at when I was saying a national health care plan makes the most sense and it doesn’t necessarily have to mean “single payer”.
Heck, Eiger even said, ” Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance can all work in a market together to make sure everyone has appropriate healthcare”. That’s what I’m promoting. Everyone has baseline coverage (via Medicare or some other NHS-style plan), then you can either pay for “higher-quality” private coverage or your employer can offer it as a benefit. Combine this with removing the profit motive of insurance companies and were on the right track.
While I’m on my soap-box, why aren’t conservatives complaining about the current system’s de facto employer-sponsored healthcare? That’s a tax on businesses. My employer isn’t paying for my car insurance or home owner’s insurance. Why should they pick up the tab on my health insurance?
Bismark or an NHI model makes the most sense.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html
Incorrect – private profits are much less than government waste and corruption:
https://www.quora.com/In-the-United-States-which-has-a-greater-percentage-of-fraud-committed-Medicare-Medicaid-or-private-insurance
Privatize Medicare/Medicaid by paying/supplementing the premiums for a regulated policy in a competitive industry – the hill to climb, see post on Manhattan institute, is the right does not want mandated coverage and the left does not want oversight and both want to eliminate competition and innovation.
Note, Medicare payouts are the benchmark for the industry and that control can be kept with regulated
private companies
Private “fraud” is less than Medicaid/Medicare. I’m all for more oversight to cut down fraud (both public and private) but when I speak to non-profit insurance, I’m seeking to eliminate the margins of Anthem, Aetna, UHC, etc. etc. etc.
Margin In 2016:
UHC made $70B
Anthem made $18B
Aetna made $17B
Humana made $9B
All of that margin is “middle man” money between providers and patients.
Thank you for making my point – healthcare industries avg a bit over 3% profit, unacceptable in other industries,
AG Holder estimated fraud alone before mismanagement runs $90 billion or close to 20% (I’m surprised if it is that bad, but even 10% is unacceptable). Big pharma is an exception.
The heads of government agencies are vocal that tightening controls will hurt someone and they are not going to do that. Only when fraud exceeds a few million and a whistleblower gets attention is it addressed.
Sorry, meant to put the big pharma remark under profits, they run probably 20% plus, a political relationship issue.
I want to look into this a little bit. What fraud are you referring to? Medicare? Medicaid? Big pharma? “Healthcare”?
You may want to google “Medicaid fraud cases in Georgia” and “Medicare fraud cases in Georgia” Much of this taxpayer money will never be recovered. Also remember these are only the criminals that were caught.
Results of my google search:
“criminal and civil charges against 301 individuals, including 61 doctors, nurses and other licensed medical professionals, for their alleged participation in health care fraud schemes involving approximately $900 million in false billings.”
“The owner of a Henry County personal care home was sentenced to prison for falsely claiming to be registered nurse.”
“Four employees of a psychiatric facility have been indicted for pocketing taxpayers money through alleged fraudulent Medicaid claims.”
So the next question is; how would things like this be prevented (or reduced) by privatizing Medicaid? (Softball question.)
Private industry has a little more incentive to prevent and root out fraud because, if they don’t, it reduces their profits. Government…not so much.
(Softball answer)
Do you really believe that? It appears that the fraud is coming from the private industry side! Private industry has no more incentive to cheat government than anyone else. The examples of fraud in private industry are endless and extensive. Deferring to “private industry” to reduce fraud seems like a naive pursuit.
Private industry prefers to keep a lid on reports of waste and victimization by fraud. It’s bad for business. Many large companies are self-insured with insurance companies simply administering the insurance. Reports of fraud and waste send that business elsewhere. Besides, management would rather stockholders not know of such losses.
There’s as much or more employee theft and pilferage in the private as the public sector, yet it does get the near the media attention.
Of course there is fraud in the private sector but as an investor and consumer I can choose which company or individual I invest in or with whom I do business. With government I have little or no consumer choice and neither do I control how the money I paid in taxes is used.
And of course that search only covers Georgia. Medicare/Medicaid fraud is a problem everywhere.
In a capitalist market that is purely free there are winners and losers. Problem with healthcare is that losers die. Thats what you call a failed market. Markets and profit are not meant for things such as this. It does not exist anywhere in the world for healthcare. There is a reason for that.
This has been on the table many times and the Manhatten Institute’s (Avik Roy) work has been widely circulated. The politicians have declared mandated coverage a deal breaker and oppose tight regulations/oversight of payouts while offering no financially sound solution (ACA is a train wreck).
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/mpr_17.pdf
Just a little fact based info. People dont realize that seniors in nursing homes depend on Medicaid to pay for their nursing home care when their savings runs out. These cuts in Medicaid in the AHCA would cut that funding severely. This is 6% of the population but they take 50% of the budget (in states that did not expand Medicaid such as GA). So when they block grant it “per capita” not only will people be denied medical care, they are literally throwing “grandma” to the curb out of the nursing home. Guess thats better than off a cliff. That comes next when/if they try to “reform” (aka destroy) Medicare.
I just dont know how these people sleep at night knowing they will burn in…well, you know
The typical problem—once you create an entitlement, it is impossible—or nearly impossible—to eliminate, and “reform” isn’t much easier. Costs often are underestimated, like LBJ’s rosy forecasts for Medicare when it passed in the Democratic-heavy Congress of 1965. And no doubt Pelosi told her House Democrats they would still hold the House after the 2010 election cycle even with RobertsCare passing. Guess you have to admire them for being willing to sacrifice control of the House this decade for its passage. As for the IRS, I would rather tell them “none of your business” when it comes to the question on my tax form as to whether I have coverage.
I know, right? When Reagan signed EMTALA without a way to pay for it he doomed us to decades of runaway healthcare cost increases!