In These Eight Midterms Races, Health and Medicine Are Front and Center (statnews.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: In Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah, voters will directly decide whether their states should expand their Medicaid programs. In Wisconsin, they could elect a candidate for governor who has pledged to sharply curtail drug prices. And across the country, Democratic congressional candidates are running on platforms highlighting their support for protecting insurance coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and lowering drug prices. Health care is on the ballot across the country, with issues ranging from medical marijuana to abortion rights to insurance coverage dominating the conversation.

Comments

Healthcare is issue #1 for me

[rsilvergun]

I've got friends and family that depend on pre-existing condition coverage. Plus I've got friends stuck in dead end jobs because they can't go 90 days without healthcare (one of them tried to get Cobra and found out that it's damn near impossible to sign up for, at least with his old company. He's just had to live without health insurance for 90 days).

I want Medicare for All. Saves money, works in every country that tried it and covers everyone. 45,000 Americans die of treatable illnesses every year. I don't want to be one of them.

Re:Healthcare is issue #1 for me

[Kohath]

Of course you want more benefits than you are willing to pay for. Someone else will pay. Fuck them.

Re:And I thought Obamacare FIXED healthcare?!?!?

[El Cubano]

No. Obamacare was always about the rich/healthy subsidizing the poor/sick. Nobody ever said that everyone's premiums would go down.

It turns out, that Obama (you know, the guy after whom "Obamacare" was named), gave an Address on Health Care at George Mason University on March 19, 2010, where he said this:

Now, the third thing that this legislation does is it brings down the cost of health care for families and businesses and the federal government. Americans who are buying comparable coverage in the individual market would end up seeing their premiums go down 14 to 20 percent. Americans who get their insurance through the workplace, cost savings could be as much as $3,000 less per employer than if we do nothing. Now, think about that. Thatâ(TM)s $3,000 your employer doesnâ(TM)t have to pay, which means maybe she can afford to give you a raise.

Maybe I am misreading, but it sure seems like President Obama is saying there that everybody's costs (premiums for families) were going to go down. While I know of plenty of people getting raises after the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts helped boost the economy, I have never heard of a single person getting a raise from their employer because of all the money Obamacare saved them.

Care to comment?

Re:Market solutions

[ShanghaiBill]

I was under the impression that the costs for supplies, equipment, and medicines are what has been growing so fast.

The biggest contributor to rising medical costs is administration. Many clinics and hospitals have more people dealing with insurance and regulatory compliance forms than treating patients.

The second biggest contributor is big ticket equipment. It is questionable how much value these bring. When hospitals install MRI machines, costing millions of dollars each, there is no measurable improvement in patient outcomes.

National Candidates and Marijuana

[Only Time Will Tell]

There has been a lot of discussion and action at the state level around the legalization of medical use of marijuana (or full-blown recreational use in a few states), but I haven't heard much about U.S. Congress representative candidates, yet alone senators, supporting it. Has anyone heard of, or does your candidate support, bringing up a bill on the federal level to bring consensus around medical use nationally? In Indiana, the state legislators have essentially punted on the idea. They held a special committee over the summer to study the issue, with families and doctors coming forward to speak about the benefits. But in the end, the committee decided it would provide no recommendation, and several state politicians seem to want to defer to the U.S. Congress to act. I don't really have a dog in this race, but do believe it can provide a lot of benefit to patients, let alone stop ridiculous jailing and prosecuting of those who choose to use.

Re:Sure, the GOP sabotaged the law

[ShanghaiBill]

Meanwhile the law made phony plans with no coverage illegal. So people who were paying $50+/mo for basically nothing suddenly had to have insurance for pay the fine.

The cheap plans were not for "nothing". They were for catastrophic-only plans. That is how insurance should work.

Car analogy: Catastrophic-only health insurance is like car insurance that pays for collision repairs. "Normal" health insurance is like car insurance that covers gasoline, and requires three forms and a $100 admin fee every time you fill your tank.

Nope, they were for nothing

[rsilvergun]

if you had a catastrophe you'd quickly find out they covered nothing. They were riddled with loop holes. If all else failed they'd declare it a pre-existing condition.

The plans were that cheap because they didn't work. Their purpose was to soak up money from rubes and (more often) divorced guys with a court order to have insurance. Reading the fine print they weren't worth the paper it was printed on.