Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need healthcare, not insurance.

People need skin in the game. And right now most Medicaid recipients don’t have any. The new bill also introduces small copays for them.

Anonymous wrote:The State of Arizona DOJ just charged 20+ people with $2.7 Billion in Medicaid fraud. That's just one state.

Charging document:

https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/Happy%20House%20Behavioral%20Health%20LLC%20Indictment_Redacted%2005.19.25%20%281%29.pdf

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/doj-charges-nearly-200-people-in-2-7-billion-health-care-fraud-crackdown-5676509

Anonymous wrote:The State of Arizona DOJ just charged 20+ people with $2.7 Billion in Medicaid fraud. That's just one state.

Charging document:

https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/Happy%20House%20Behavioral%20Health%20LLC%20Indictment_Redacted%2005.19.25%20%281%29.pdf

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/doj-charges-nearly-200-people-in-2-7-billion-health-care-fraud-crackdown-5676509

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need healthcare, not insurance.

People need skin in the game. And right now most Medicaid recipients don’t have any. The new bill also introduces small copays for them.

Can you explain why people need 'skin in the game' to access health care?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need healthcare, not insurance.

People need skin in the game. And right now most Medicaid recipients don’t have any. The new bill also introduces small copays for them.

Can you explain why people need 'skin in the game' to access health care?

Because it’s expensive, taxpayers are funding them, and there needs to be some barrier to seeing a doctor for dumb reasons. The current costs are not sustainable. I pay $1300/month in premiums for the privilege to pay my family’s first $8,000 of health expenses per year out of pocket. You better believe we pause before deciding to see a doctor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need healthcare, not insurance.

People need skin in the game. And right now most Medicaid recipients don’t have any. The new bill also introduces small copays for them.

Can you explain why people need 'skin in the game' to access health care?

Because it’s expensive, taxpayers are funding them, and there needs to be some barrier to seeing a doctor for dumb reasons. The current costs are not sustainable. I pay $1300/month in premiums for the privilege to pay my family’s first $8,000 of health expenses per year out of pocket. You better believe we pause before deciding to see a doctor.

dp.. I also have had private insurance, same premiums and deductible. Having stated that, you can't get blood from stone.

Do you have evidence that a lot of people on medicaid are going to see the doctor for dumb reasons? Are there some who do? Yes, I'm sure there are. But, is it really that many to make all of them have "skin in the game"?

Not a lot of doctors accept medicaid patients to begin with. So, it's difficult for the poor to find doctors.

Does the "require to work" include single parents? Who is going to watch the kids while the parent goes to work? Not our problem, you say? Like it's not your problem once an unwanted baby is forced to be born by pro-birthers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need healthcare, not insurance.

People need skin in the game. And right now most Medicaid recipients don’t have any. The new bill also introduces small copays for them.

Can you explain why people need 'skin in the game' to access health care?

Because it’s expensive, taxpayers are funding them, and there needs to be some barrier to seeing a doctor for dumb reasons. The current costs are not sustainable. I pay $1300/month in premiums for the privilege to pay my family’s first $8,000 of health expenses per year out of pocket. You better believe we pause before deciding to see a doctor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need healthcare, not insurance.

People need skin in the game. And right now most Medicaid recipients don’t have any. The new bill also introduces small copays for them.

Can you explain why people need 'skin in the game' to access health care?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need healthcare, not insurance.

People need skin in the game. And right now most Medicaid recipients don’t have any. The new bill also introduces small copays for them.

Anonymous wrote:People need healthcare, not insurance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it comes down to 2 questions. And whether you are coming at these questions based on principle or pragmatism.

Is health care a right that we get for paying taxes?

That is what countries with nationalized healthcare believe - uk, Taiwan, s Korea, Japan, Sweden, etc.

If you don’t believe it’s a right, then to what extent should we provide Medicaid and Medicare to benefit us as a whole? We have Medicaid and Medicare because it might be cheaper to provide healthcare for 80 million people rather than have to pay for the fallout of not providing it. If we don’t provide healthcare, we have fewer people who can work, more homeless, more chronic illness, shorter lifespans, more maternal and infant mortality, more medical debt, fewer home purchases, fewer car purchases, fewer services hired, more uncertainty, and less income. It would decrease our gdp significantly.

Is the system deeply flawed? Yes. As an md who worked a majority of the time in county hospitals, it’s totally f’d up. We would fantasize about working at Kaiser or someplace where we didn’t have to deal with all the Medicaid bs. But the horse is out of the barn. Aside from the philosophical question of “why are we paying for so many people’s healthcare”, rescinding healthcare to millions of Americans is going to do a lot of harm. Some of them are grifters. Some of them have expensive medical needs that, to be brutally honest, are probably not worth it. But there are enough people who need this coverage to continue contributing to society economically.

This doesn’t answer the question of how you pay for it. We can not afford to continue along the path we are on.

We spend more on healthcare with worse outcomes than all developed countries. This is commonly attributed to our lack of a single payor system which has leverage of negation of costs. While the hope was that the ACA would be a middle ground between free market and socialism costs have not decreased since its inception. It’s true we cannot afford to keep up our spending levels at our current funding levels but we should be compassionate human beings and look to spread the burden evenly. The 1% can pay more. The military can spend less. We can reevalue our healthcare system again.