University of Nebraska President rumors

[Guy Chamberlin]

19 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

And as a private company, I basically have no say in what they decide. I'm tied in, usually by my employer's choice, not mine, and there's no advocate on my behalf for any issues I may have.

 

Whereas, if government is involved in healthcare, I have local, state & national representatives I can appeal to - people who represent me, not the insurer. Further, the government isn't designed to make a profit off my healthcare, while health insurers make a tidy profit off me.

 

The long term design of Obamacare should make sense to any fan of free market economics. It's not government-run healthcare. The U.S. simply assembles a large pool of the un-insured and under-insured, private insurers get to bid for that market and profit from it, at which point the government uses economies of scale to negotiate better prices on medical equipment and services for its customers, a long overdue market correction for this bizarre pricing system that will benefit people outside of Obamacare, too. 

 

e.g. the same artificial hip joint costs $11,000 by one account, $2,000 by another. The government announces that their 40 million customers will do business with the company that makes it for $2,000. That company will make a lot of money. Other medical companies and insurers are free to charge whatever they want, but chances are good they will feel the weight of competition for the first time in years, and  act accordingly.  It's a pretty simple concept that works for Trader Joe's. 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

On 3/30/2019 at 2:50 PM, B.B. Hemingway said:

My main concern is what anyone should worry about when the government is involved with healthcare, will they delay/deny coverage on procedures that my doctors see as necessary. 

 

What is the difference between the government doing this or your insurance company doing this?

 

Insurance companies go this all the time. In fact, they do it a lot more than Medicare (government) does it. 

 

Thus is is exactly what happens when they deny someone due to preexisting conditions. 

 

They also deny payment for certain treatments all the time. 

[TGHusker]

On 3/29/2019 at 6:30 PM, RedDenver said:

What rumors?

Being to handsy wt male students.

[Danny Bateman]

On 3/30/2019 at 3:11 PM, JJ Husker said:

I agree. What the ACA needs is support and more tweaking to help make healthcare affordable. I've been in the marketplace (Obamacare) in Colorado for 3 or 4 years. It's basically my only option being self employed. The ACA got a lot of things right but what it didn't address were rising premiums and rising cost of healthcare and drugs. Between premiums and actual healthcare expenditures, I've spent well over $30,000 per year in each of the last two years. How in the F can they title a bill "Affordable Care Act" when that is the case?  

 

I don't want it destroyed but it sure needs a whole bunch of work.

 

In some ways it did help with premiums. In the individual market, it slowed the growth of premiums quite nicely:

 

 

However, unfortunately, as you said, the group market still isn't seeing the kind of relief it needs, which means employer-provided insurance isn't getting cheaper:

 

 

To me, the argument really boils down to more government pressure to drive down costs or less. We know roughly what the Republicans want to do - repeal the ACA and start over from scratch with as little government influence as possible. Not really sure how they'd design a more market-friendly alternative, but nonetheless, they want to turn as much of the responsibility over the private sector as possible.

 

That doesn't sound like a great recipe for success to me. Insurance companies don't exist to drive down costs and make sure people are better off - they exist to make money, like any other industry. So why would we turn things over to them to do as they please? We know government influence can make things more affordable. Medicare is far less expensive than other insurers that would cover eligible individuals. Medicare is able to negotiate drug prices. The ACA worked, at least for corralling premium growth for the individual market.

 

To me, the case for more government intervention to drive down costs is far more attractive than deregulating everything and letting insurers decide what is best.

[JJ Husker]

19 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

In some ways it did help with premiums. In the individual market, it slowed the growth of premiums quite nicely:

 

 

However, unfortunately, as you said, the group market still isn't seeing the kind of relief it needs, which means employer-provided insurance isn't getting cheaper:

 

 

To me, the argument really boils down to more government pressure to drive down costs or less. We know roughly what the Republicans want to do - repeal the ACA and start over from scratch with as little government influence as possible. Not really sure how they'd design a more market-friendly alternative, but nonetheless, they want to turn as much of the responsibility over the private sector as possible.

 

That doesn't sound like a great recipe for success to me. Insurance companies don't exist to drive down costs and make sure people are better off - they exist to make money, like any other industry. So why would we turn things over to them to do as they please? We know government influence can make things more affordable. Medicare is far less expensive than other insurers that would cover eligible individuals. Medicare is able to negotiate drug prices. The ACA worked, at least for corralling premium growth for the individual market.

 

To me, the case for more government intervention to drive down costs is far more attractive than deregulating everything and letting insurers decide what is best.

I agree with your summation. The Republican solution (apparently, since they haven't tried to do squat other than overturn Obamacare) would be much worse than anything the Dems have tried. This is one situation where letting the private sector solve it is not feasible. The private sector was the cause of our problems before the ACA and they are still the main factor driving up premiums and care costs.

 

I will disagree with your blanket statement that the ACA slowed individual market increases. Maybe diced up someway and put in a neat little graph but that hasn't been the reality here in Colorado. When it was implemented, there was a one time extra bump of about a 25% increase, on top of the usual 15% increase. And since it has still been running about 13% to 20% annual increases. Of course this is anecdotal to my situation and not exact, directly comparable plans, as I have had to regularly move to worse plan coverage to mitigate the rising premiums.

 

Like most things, the Dems tailored Obamacare for the poorest of the poor and made no provisions for rapidly escalating costs for anyone else. I don't qualify for any subsidies or breaks even as I spend over 25% of my income on insurance and care costs. But don't take that as any endorsement of what the worthless Republicans have offered or done. Like most things, the people in the middle are getting hosed.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Like most things, the Dems tailored Obamacare for the poorest of the poor and made no provisions for rapidly escalating costs for anyone else. I don't qualify for any subsidies or breaks even as I spend over 25% of my income on insurance and care costs. But don't take that as any endorsement of what the worthless Republicans have offered or done. Like most things, the people in the middle are getting hosed.

 

Bingo.

 

I support a lot of what the ACA was trying to do.  I support everyone having coverage.  I support pre-existing conditions coverage...etc.

 

The problem is, the Dems seemed to only focus on making sure the poor got covered and had the attitude..."Well, businesses and the rich will pay for it"

 

There is nothing in the ACA that does what it takes to actually bring the US in line with the rest of the world on healthcare costs.

[JJ Husker]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Bingo.

 

I support a lot of what the ACA was trying to do.  I support everyone having coverage.  I support pre-existing conditions coverage...etc.

 

The problem is, the Dems seemed to only focus on making sure the poor got covered and had the attitude..."Well, businesses and the rich will pay for it"

 

There is nothing in the ACA that does what it takes to actually bring the US in line with the rest of the world on healthcare costs.

 

Double Bingo 

 

As you said, what the ACA did do was great and needed. However, what it didn’t address was the much more critical part of the whole deal imo. But it isn’t even as simple as businesses and the rich will pay for it.....unless we’re now classifying anyone above poverty level as “the rich”. The name of the bill still bothers me. Affordable Care Act   Our Healthcare is no where near affordable. This is why I am, in this case, for some good old fashioned socialism. Providers, insurers, hospitals, drug makers....everyone involved has proven that all they are interested in is profiteering off of the citizenry. There are so few items that you can look at the cost and think, yeah, that seems about right. Rather, most everything in healthcare is so blatantly over priced, just because they can and people really don’t have a choice. I’m about as conservative and anti-socialism as they come but even I realize single payer is the only way to go on healthcare. Everyone needs it and shouldn’t have to worry about going broke so they should just give it to us and raise our taxes. I know that will cause some other problems but none of those are near as bad as where we’re at right now. The one thing I do know is that the private sector will do nothing on its own to make it any better.

 

A good place to start would be to get our government out of the business of protecting pharmaceutical company profits. The FDA is one of the biggest logjams in gaining access to cheaper generic drugs. As an example, I have one drug that I take and the only option in the US is the name brand drug which runs about $800 for a 30 day supply. You can’t get the generic here but I can get the generic through an online Canadian pharmacy. That generic is only $300 for a 90 day supply. That’s $1200 per year compared to $9600 per year. Side note- the generic is made in India and ships from Singapore, through Germany direct to my house. Canada never even sees it.  And that’s just one example out of hundreds of similar situations. The amount of money we waste on drugs in this country is astounding and it all ends up as unnecessary drug company profits. And the prices they charge for all these biological you see advertised on TV....forget about it. They claim it’s to recover R&D costs. Bullsh#t. Humira has been around quite awhile.....$4000/mo. Entyvio....$25,000 for one infusion. It’s so far out of control it isn’t even funny.

 

Sorry 

[Ratt Mhule]

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

 

Double Bingo 

 

As you said, what the ACA did do was great and needed. However, what it didn’t address was the much more critical part of the whole deal imo. But it isn’t even as simple as businesses and the rich will pay for it.....unless we’re now classifying anyone above poverty level as “the rich”. The name of the bill still bothers me. Affordable Care Act   Our Healthcare is no where near affordable. This is why I am, in this case, for some good old fashioned socialism. Providers, insurers, hospitals, drug makers....everyone involved has proven that all they are interested in is profiteering off of the citizenry. There are so few items that you can look at the cost and think, yeah, that seems about right. Rather, most everything in healthcare is so blatantly over priced, just because they can and people really don’t have a choice. I’m about as conservative and anti-socialism as they come but even I realize single payer is the only way to go on healthcare. Everyone needs it and shouldn’t have to worry about going broke so they should just give it to us and raise our taxes. I know that will cause some other problems but none of those are near as bad as where we’re at right now. The one thing I do know is that the private sector will do nothing on its own to make it any better.

 

A good place to start would be to get our government out of the business of protecting pharmaceutical company profits. The FDA is one of the biggest logjams in gaining access to cheaper generic drugs. As an example, I have one drug that I take and the only option in the US is the name brand drug which runs about $800 for a 30 day supply. You can’t get the generic here but I can get the generic through an online Canadian pharmacy. That generic is only $300 for a 90 day supply. That’s $1200 per year compared to $9600 per year. Side note- the generic is made in India and ships from Singapore, through Germany direct to my house. Canada never even sees it.  And that’s just one example out of hundreds of similar situations. The amount of money we waste on drugs in this country is astounding and it all ends up as unnecessary drug company profits. And the prices they charge for all these biological you see advertised on TV....forget about it. They claim it’s to recover R&D costs. Bullsh#t. Humira has been around quite awhile.....$4000/mo. Entyvio....$25,000 for one infusion. It’s so far out of control it isn’t even funny.

 

Sorry 

 

Bernie2020

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Bernie2020

Not this cat.

Problem with Bernie is he wants to take that approach with everything. And I don’t happen to feel a college education is near the necessity of life that healthcare is.

[Ratt Mhule]

11 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Not this cat.

Problem with Bernie is he wants to take that approach with everything. And I don’t happen to feel a college education is near the necessity of life that healthcare is.

 

Then youre not getting universal healthcare because the only other progressive is Elizabeth Warren and even she has backed off medicare for all for the most part.

 

Sanders will be a one term president. He wont be able to accomplish every goal he has. Healthcare will be priority number 1 along with climate change. College will have to wait but for how long? Eventually they need to address rising costs and student debt because this will crush our economy as the older generations die off. I realize healthcare is a bigger priority right now however and I agree. 

[JJ Husker]

20 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Then youre not getting universal healthcare because the only other progressive is Elizabeth Warren and even she has backed off medicare for all for the most part.

 

Sanders will be a one term president. He wont be able to accomplish every goal he has. Healthcare will be priority number 1 along with climate change. College will have to wait but for how long? Eventually they need to address rising costs and student debt because this will crush our economy as the older generations die off. I realize healthcare is a bigger priority right now however and I agree. 

I may be dreaming but my hope is that a lot more mainstream politicians will quickly begin to realize what a clusterf#ck our healthcare system is and then it won't take a crackpot like Bernie Sanders to accomplish fixing healthcare. I just think that healthcare is a different enough issue that it shouldn't be that hard for everyone to come to the same conclusion I have about how to fix it. It just seems overtly obvious. But like I said, I'm probably dreaming that our politicians would ever do anything that actually helped us or makes sense.

 

I've pretty much resigned myself to the reality it may not get fixed in any timeline that benefits me. Heck, who knows, maybe Bernie will be the most levelheaded person running for President next time around and I will end up voting for him. I guess weirder things could happen.

[Ratt Mhule]

18 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I may be dreaming but my hope is that a lot more mainstream politicians will quickly begin to realize what a clusterf#ck our healthcare system is and then it won't take a crackpot like Bernie Sanders to accomplish fixing healthcare. I just think that healthcare is a different enough issue that it shouldn't be that hard for everyone to come to the same conclusion I have about how to fix it. It just seems overtly obvious. But like I said, I'm probably dreaming that our politicians would ever do anything that actually helped us or makes sense.

 

I've pretty much resigned myself to the reality it may not get fixed in any timeline that benefits me. Heck, who knows, maybe Bernie will be the most levelheaded person running for President next time around and I will end up voting for him. I guess weirder things could happen.

 

Yes, youre dreaming. These others receive way too much money from big pharma and insurance companies to change their positions. 

 

Just curious, why do you call Sanders a crackpot? Because he wants to do what other countries do and have success with here in America? And most of his policies poll very well, especially with younger voters. Maybe even your college aged daughter identifies as progressive? I know you said youre mostly conservative and thats probably why, but he identifies as a social democrat, not a socialist. And most of Europe are successful social democracies. 

 

To me, I think the thing that turns you off about him is the free college. Because if I remember some of your other posts and correct me if Im wrong, but you believe climate change is an issue that needs addressed (Sanders position). I think we can all agree that getting money out of politics would make a big difference (Sanders position). I think youve said before that minimum wage should be raised (Sanders position). So a lot of your posts on here actually agree with a lot of what he says, but you bring up the college positions a lot. And like I said, I could be mixing you up with someone else. 

[JJ Husker]

16 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Yes, youre dreaming. These others receive way too much money from big pharma and insurance companies to change their positions. 

 

Just curious, why do you call Sanders a crackpot? Because he wants to do what other countries do and have success with here in America? And most of his policies poll very well, especially with younger voters. Maybe even your college aged daughter identifies as progressive? I know you said youre mostly conservative and thats probably why, but he identifies as a social democrat, not a socialist. And most of Europe are successful social democracies. 

 

To me, I think the thing that turns you off about him is the free college. Because if I remember some of your other posts and correct me if Im wrong, but you believe climate change is an issue that needs addressed (Sanders position). I think we can all agree that getting money out of politics would make a big difference (Sanders position). I think youve said before that minimum wage should be raised (Sanders position). So a lot of your posts on here actually agree with a lot of what he says, but you bring up the college positions a lot. And like I said, I could be mixing you up with someone else. 

You could be confusing my position on one or two things. I don't believe I've expressed any opinion on minimum wage. And I would not be opposed to the right climate change legislation but it's not at the top of my list. I think healthcare is overshadowing every other issue by quite a bit. I literally would vote for the candidate that focuses, almost solely, on it. Who knows, maybe I will swing over to Sanders camp. Lord knows I dont have any other camp to identify with.

 

The crackpot crack may have been uncalled for. Hell, they're all crackpots anymore. I just want to see somebody that is interested in helping something other than themselves.

[Ratt Mhule]

4 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

You could be confusing my position on one or two things. I don't believe I've expressed any opinion on minimum wage. And I would not be opposed to the right climate change legislation but it's not at the top of my list. I think healthcare is overshadowing every other issue by quite a bit. I literally would vote for the candidate that focuses, almost solely, on it. Who knows, maybe I will swing over to Sanders camp. Lord knows I dont have any other camp to identify with.

 

The crackpot crack may have been uncalled for. Hell, they're all crackpots anymore. I just want to see somebody that is interested in helping something other than themselves.

 

I agree on healthcare being the #1 issue 100%. And I know Im not going to change your mind about things on an internet message board. But I know youre a reasonable guy. Im not confusing you with anyone else on that because youve been around a long time and I can see it through your posts. Just asking that you keep an open mind about things when the debates start in June. Just cover your ears when he speaks about tuition free college lol. 

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

I may be dreaming but my hope is that a lot more mainstream politicians will quickly begin to realize what a clusterf#ck our healthcare system is and then it won't take a crackpot like Bernie Sanders to accomplish fixing healthcare. I just think that healthcare is a different enough issue that it shouldn't be that hard for everyone to come to the same conclusion I have about how to fix it. It just seems overtly obvious. But like I said, I'm probably dreaming that our politicians would ever do anything that actually helped us or makes sense.

 

I share your sentiments. But I'm probably more cynical. All of these politicians are well paid and have healthcare for themselves and their families taken care of.  Plenty of them don't know or care what it's like to not be so lucky.

 

I wish we could all come to consensus on this, but I just think the pull is too strong for them to just kick the can and use it was a wedge issue to take potshots at the other team. It's not an issue for them, so it's not an issue that's worth tackling.

 

Bernie's definitely not my dream candidate either. But on this issue, as important as it is, it's really refreshing for someone to just flat out say what they believe and not waver on it.

 

 Who knows if M4A is where we wind up. But I'm convinced that direction, with a more active government role to control costs and improve care, is the way we need to go.