• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?

Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?


  • Total voters
    20

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The health care reform bill, as it stands, is probably dead unless Nancy Pelosi can pull a miracle out of her ass and convince the House Democrats to approve the Senate bill. The fallback option is to break it up and pass some of the more popular provisions piecemeal. So I am curious to see which of these ideas you Republicans/conservatives might be inclined to support:

Banning or limiting discrimination based on preexisting conditions, gender, and age
Ending the "lifetime maximums" on health insurance policies
Requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance, with exemptions for the poor
Increased assistance to help the poor purchase insurance plans
Eliminating the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies
Taxing some/all health insurance benefits as regular income
 
Last edited:
I can see no authority for the Federal Government to become involved in these manners in any way, manner, shape or form. Further, I predict nothing but trouble, should they be so unwise as to continue to do so.
 
The federal government has no business in health care at all, with the sole exception of ensuring that people are not providing medical scams and claiming it actually works. I don't want to see them trying to guarantee it to everyone, it's something that everyone ought to provide for themselves.
 
I can see no authority for the Federal Government to become involved in these manners in any way, manner, shape or form. Further, I predict nothing but trouble, should they be so unwise as to continue to do so.

So do you think the current health care system is perfect? Or do you support changing it in some way? If so, how would you change it? Please be more specific than "Deregulate" or "Get the government out of the way."

Eliminating the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies
Taxing some/all health insurance benefits as regular income

These two things would actually reduce the scope of government by ending unfair subsidies to health insurance corporations, so why are you opposed to them?
 
Last edited:
So do you think the current health care system is perfect? Or do you support changing it in some way? If so, how would you change it? Please be more specific than "Deregulate" or "Get the government out of the way."

First let me tell you something that the Pols won't though it is just as true for them: I'm not qualified to "fix" the system. I'm not even qualified to say how it's flawed in any capacity as an overseer of it.

That said, health care can not possibly be a right unless slavery is a right too. This is because health care requires the actions of others to be performed.

If a Government declares that health care is a right, and medical personnel refuse to perform the tasks needed to provide it, the government would be forced to compel their actions. This is slavery.

And this scenario is not too hard to envision either. Imagine a major influenza outbreak during a time in which there was already a shortage of medical personnel, and pay disputes. It is easily to picture a work slowdown, or even strike at such a time.

Since in our thought experiment, health care has been determined to be a right, the government would be compelled to use delay force to ensure its delivery. Too bad for the medical workers.

Health care is a commercial and social enterprise, and social and commercial institutions will have to evolve to expand its delivery. In other words, people will have to be convinced, paid, cajoled, compensated and inspired to deliver it and to insure its continued improvement.

Myself, I have far more faith in convincing the fortunate to aid the unfortunate, than in forcing them.

This could be a slow, and certainly will be a messy process. But if you accept that people are not property, and are self responsible, its your only viable avenue for progress.

Of course, the Left increasingly has contempt for liberty and self determination, so some people will see this differently. I hope that if they are successful, they are the first to be compelled to give care at gunpoint.
 
I can see no authority for the Federal Government to become involved in these manners in any way, manner, shape or form. Further, I predict nothing but trouble, should they be so unwise as to continue to do so.

That's interesting. Do you feel that way about other issues that the Federal Government is heavily involved in? Or are you a "selective" conservative like so many others?
 
First let me tell you something that the Pols won't though it is just as true for them: I'm not qualified to "fix" the system. I'm not even qualified to say how it's flawed in any capacity as an overseer of it.

Then since you aren't qualified to have an opinion on the subject by your own admission, why did you bother to vote in the poll and post in the thread?

Oftencold said:
That said, health care can not possibly be a right unless slavery is a right too. This is because health care requires the actions of others to be performed.

If a Government declares that health care is a right, and medical personnel refuse to perform the tasks needed to provide it, the government would be forced to compel their actions. This is slavery.

I didn't say anything about health care being a "right" (whatever that means) anywhere in this thread. I just asked you which of those policies you'd support, and why. Specifically, what exactly is your problem with the two that actually REDUCE the role of government by eliminating a corporate subsidy to the health insurance industry?
 
Last edited:
That said, health care can not possibly be a right unless slavery is a right too. This is because health care requires the actions of others to be performed.

No thread is complete without over the top rhetoric.
 
So do you think the current health care system is perfect? Or do you support changing it in some way? If so, how would you change it? Please be more specific than "Deregulate" or "Get the government out of the way."

It definitely needs reforming, but what is being proposed in DC will only make costs, over time, sky-rocket even more, and add exponentially to the growing deficit.

If I were the king of the health care debate, and had sole decision-making power, I would:

Get rid of HMO and PPO mandates, and offer catastrophic coverage.
Stop coverage for medications and Dr's office visits.
Require that fees charged by all medical providers were posted for puclic knowledge.
TORT reform.

That would just be for starters.:)
 
I'm not sure what is meant by ending "discrimination" based on age, preexisting conditions, etc....

Insurance, by definition, is the transfer of risk. If a segment of a population increases the risk an insurance company must assume(be it by old age, pre-existing conditions etc...) then the insurance company must be able to(in order to stay in business and employ people) recoup those losses through increased premium rates. Also, removing lifetime limits on insurance policies is a bad idea, because you have essentially turned the risk into an infinite risk. How do you charge for the transfer of risk that has no ceiling or limit? By charging an infinite amount? Even the combined power of Bush and Obama couldn't print that much money(although Chuck Norris has done it.....twice.)

I might go along with a provision that makes it illegal for insurance companies to drop somebody when they develop a disease(its actually illegal to terminate mid policy-term already, I'm talking at renewal). But it would entail a couple of provisions like once the maximum limit of the policy is reached, the contract is expired(as it normally is) and that insurance companies be able to charge a reflective premium amount for the new amount of risk they are assuming. Also, I would rather this "provision" be handled at the state levels, and not by federal mandate.
 
The health care reform bill, as it stands, is probably dead unless Nancy Pelosi can pull a miracle out of her ass and convince the House Democrats to approve the Senate bill. The fallback option is to break it up and pass some of the more popular provisions piecemeal. So I am curious to see which of these ideas you Republicans/conservatives might be inclined to support:

Banning or limiting discrimination based on preexisting conditions, gender, and age
Ending the "lifetime maximums" on health insurance policies
Requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance, with exemptions for the poor
Increased assistance to help the poor purchase insurance plans
Eliminating the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies
Taxing some/all health insurance benefits as regular income

We need some tort reform, price caps on medications and appliances, allow folks to buy plans across state lines, and a standardized across-the-board tax credit so people can go out and buy their own private policies.
 
I would start cutting corners. I know that sounds bad, at to some extent it is, but we must stop offering such high quality care to so many people. In countries across the globe they have the choice between service and cost. Some hospitals are of quality that would not pass in the US, but they also offer cheaper services. Singapore, for instance, has offered tiered quality; with private at the top and government on the bottom. I believe something similiar could happen if we lessen restrictions. If we have different levels of care for different prices.

Along with that we should axe large "state mandates," lower FDA requirements, tort reform and end state monopolies. But those, I believe, are all side issues.
 
Get rid of HMO and PPO mandates, and offer catastrophic coverage.

What HMO and PPO mandates? :confused:
I agree with you about catastrophic coverage. I think we need to move more toward a system focused on that.

lizzie said:
Stop coverage for medications and Dr's office visits.

I disagree with these. Medications/treatment should all be part of the same thing IMO. Medicines can be very expensive too. As for doctor's visits...I agree that catastrophic plans are better, but I'd prefer plans that offered at least a couple free checkups per year. That will probably save costs in the long run.

lizzie said:
require that fees charged by all medical providers were posted for puclic knowledge.

I agree with this. I think there should be a public database available online where you could search exactly how much different services cost, so that you could shop around. And needless to say, I'd break up the health care trusts that keep the costs artificially high.

lizzie said:
TORT reform.

Agreed.
 
I'm not sure what is meant by ending "discrimination" based on age, preexisting conditions, etc....

Denying people coverage and/or charging them more because they have a preexisting condition or because they're old or because they're female.

WI Crippler said:
Insurance, by definition, is the transfer of risk. If a segment of a population increases the risk an insurance company must assume(be it by old age, pre-existing conditions etc...) then the insurance company must be able to(in order to stay in business and employ people) recoup those losses through increased premium rates.

The idea of insurance is risk-sharing. They could charge everyone the same rate...it just means the healthy will pay a little more and the sick will pay a little less. This would enable people who need insurance the most to get it, it would spread the cost of health care out throughout one's life (thus reducing uncertainty in terms of how much to save for old age), and it would reduce the amount of medical-related bankruptcies.

WI Crippler said:
Also, removing lifetime limits on insurance policies is a bad idea, because you have essentially turned the risk into an infinite risk. How do you charge for the transfer of risk that has no ceiling or limit? By charging an infinite amount? Even the combined power of Bush and Obama couldn't print that much money(although Chuck Norris has done it.....twice.)

It's not an infinite risk just because there's no cap. The actuaries could still figure out how much their total outlays would be in an average year, and price their policies accordingly.

WI Crippler said:
I might go along with a provision that makes it illegal for insurance companies to drop somebody when they develop a disease(its actually illegal to terminate mid policy-term already, I'm talking at renewal). But it would entail a couple of provisions like once the maximum limit of the policy is reached, the contract is expired(as it normally is) and that insurance companies be able to charge a reflective premium amount for the new amount of risk they are assuming. Also, I would rather this "provision" be handled at the state levels, and not by federal mandate.

The maximum limits don't really reduce premiums much. Most consumers just ignore them because they're considered to be a low-risk probability. The only reason they exist is because the insurance companies know they can get away with it and don't want to pay out a lot of money, which is what they're in business to do.
 
Last edited:
What HMO and PPO mandates? :confused:
I agree with you about catastrophic coverage. I think we need to move more toward a system focused on that.

Congressional mandates from the mid-70's.

I disagree with these. Medications/treatment should all be part of the same thing IMO. Medicines can be very expensive too. As for doctor's visits...I agree that catastrophic plans are better, but I'd prefer plans that offered at least a couple free checkups per year. That will probably save costs in the long run.

If patients were responsible for their own costs of meds and visits, the costs of these would come down.

I agree with this. I think there should be a public database available online where you could search exactly how much different services cost, so that you could shop around. And needless to say, I'd break up the health care trusts that keep the costs artificially high.

Yes- put the responsibility of health care cost consciousness in the mind of the one utilizinig it, and it will naturally be more competitive.
 
If patients were responsible for their own costs of meds and visits, the costs of these would come down.

I realize that, but I don't see why meds should be any different than any other treatment. Say you get a catastrophic plan that covers 0% of your first $X and everything beyond that. Why not just incorporate both treatment and meds in the same plan?

As for routine visits, my thought is that if people get at least a couple free checkups per year, they'll be more likely to use them and therefore more likely to catch problems before they become expensive. But I agree that all other expenses should be paid for by the consumer, until you get into the realm of catastrophe.

I think mandating a couple free checkups is one area that the government definitely needs to be involved, because the insurance companies will never coordinate this on their own. If they all assume that their customers are likely to be using a different plan with a different company 5-10 years down the road, they don't have any incentive to provide preventative care. It'll result in a continuation of our "sick care" system. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma: All of the health insurance companies would save money if they all offered preventative care...but none of them want to be the sucker that does it on their own.

lizzie said:
Yes- put the responsibility of health care cost consciousness in the mind of the one utilizinig it, and it will naturally be more competitive.

Agreed.
 
No thread is complete without over the top rhetoric.

He's absolutely right in the sense that if you believe health care is a "right," then that means every person is entitled to the services of a health care provider. If the government reduces its reimbursement rates below what providers are willing to accept, then the only way to ensure that people are able to exercise their "right" to health care is to use the law to force health care providers to give them service, whether through pro bono licensing requirements or government-imposed qualifications that must be met to practice.
 
I voted subsidize some of the poor and tax all/some benefits as income.

I'm leery about the non-discrimination requirement and the lifetime cap requirement for the reasons that WI Crippler mentioned, I don't like the mandate for plenty of reasons, and I honestly haven't seen anything that would indicate that the antitrust exemption is anything other than a tiny issue being hyped to score political points.

I don't see a problem with subsidizing some of the poor, though not as generously as either of the bills being proposed. As a nation, we need to realize that thanks to our abhorrent lifestyle choices and our sense of entitlement in regards to quality of care, health care is expensive as **** and will be that way for the foreseeable future. Rather than act all outraged when they're expected to spend 10% of their income on insurance, people should fully expect to spend 15-20%. I've got no problem helping out people for whom this would be a true burden, but I think it's absolutely absurd to be handing out $10k subsidies to families of 4 making $60k while the family only pays $5k, as would happen under the Senate bill.

As to taxing the benefits as income, I'm surprised more people didn't pick this. It seems like the most logical way to reduce overall spending while simultaneously getting rid of a tax break that just skews economic incentives.
 
He's absolutely right in the sense that if you believe health care is a "right," then that means every person is entitled to the services of a health care provider. If the government reduces its reimbursement rates below what providers are willing to accept, then the only way to ensure that people are able to exercise their "right" to health care is to use the law to force health care providers to give them service, whether through pro bono licensing requirements or government-imposed qualifications that must be met to practice.

...except that whole argument is premised on the idea that someone in this thread believes health care is a "right." He was the first one to bring that up...it certainly has nothing to do with the OP.
 
...except that whole argument is premised on the idea that someone in this thread believes health care is a "right." He was the first one to bring that up...it certainly has nothing to do with the OP.

Well, if you want to be all picky about it...:lol:
 
I honestly haven't seen anything that would indicate that the antitrust exemption is anything other than a tiny issue being hyped to score political points.

This is one of the biggest drivers of inflated health care costs. In the vast majority of cities, there are no more than 1 or 2 health insurance providers. And unlike, say, utilities, there is no geographical reason why this needs to be the case. As it stands right now, health insurance companies have a special exemption to antitrust laws that don't apply to any other industry. The government can and should change this and bust these monopolies just as they would any other monopoly.
 
Last edited:
None of the above, keep the government out of so called "reforming" health care. Too much of their "help" had something to do with where we are at already.:devil:
 
Eliminating the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies.

Unless I am misinterpreting this option. It means that the federal government can break up insurance companies that are so large that they can effect health care issues on a national level.

I don't think this option will do much on it's own. A health care plan to start fixing our nation's health care problems should be a series of small bills that effect a single issue each. At any point in the future the legislative branch finds that any part of these series of bills are not working and needs revision, they can fix the issue on one small bill.

This would be an easy goal oriented task that you could make progress on and not get bogged down in a single massive unmanageable bill for the entire nation.
 
This is one of the biggest drivers of inflated health care costs. In the vast majority of cities, there are no more than 1 or 2 health insurance providers. And unlike, say, utilities, there is no geographical reason why this needs to be the case. As it stands right now, health insurance companies have a special exemption to antitrust laws that don't apply to any other industry. The government can and should change this and bust these monopolies just as they would any other monopoly.

I just don't think it has as much of an impact as it's purported to. I've yet to see anything that attributed any specific numbers to the exemption or provided concrete examples of how its harming competition. Unless I'm mistaken, all of the things that could be prosecuted were the exemption repealed are already illegal. The only thing that the repeal would do is make it easier for the government to investigate claims of price fixing and the like, very little of which is happening now as it is.

Most of the arguments I've heard for repealing the antitrust exemption have focused on three prongs:

1) They're the only industry to have this (other than baseball), so that's not fair
2) There is a large amount of concentration in individual markets
3) Premiums have gone up like crazy

The first is irrelevant, the second doesn't seem to matter that much either, and the third looks to be unrelated. From here, I don't see much to convince me that it's much more than a political play.

Finally, the fact that the insurance companies don't really seem to care either way is a huge red flag to me that this is not the big issue that it's being hyped as. Whenever I see people from both parties coming together to bash an unpopular industry, it usually means that the industry is innocent of the charges.

ThinkProgress says that its impact is minimal, though it wants it repealed because it's important to the public option.

Finally, the LA Times basically sums up my entire point (I wish I'd seen this before I typed all that out)

The lack of competition is the rationale, after all, for the "public option" -- "to install a competitor whose incentive is not to go along with the monopolists," in the words of Thomas L. Greaney, a health insurance expert at St. Louis University School of Law. It's also what underlies the rhetoric from lawmakers favoring repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson exemption. "This fixes a mistake sitting on the federal statutes for over 60 years," Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), said a few days ago when the Judiciary Committee he chairs approved a repeal bill.

Yet the McCarran-Ferguson Act turns out to be a red herring, like the guy fingered as the murderer in the first act of any "Law & Order." As fans of the program know, that doesn't mean no crime has been committed, only that one should look elsewhere for the guilty party. There's plenty of guilt to go around. But the McCarran Act has done almost nothing to foster the consolidation of the health insurance industry. For one thing, health insurers don't typically share data in the manner that the exemption allows. Moreover, the courts have interpreted the law so narrowly that it doesn't exempt insurance mergers from federal scrutiny. The real culprits are federal antitrust authorities, whose approach to health insurance mergers can best be described as supine. In other words, the truly effective antitrust immunity the industry has received has come not from lawmakers but from federal regulators.

...

All this suggests that in focusing on the McCarran-Ferguson exemption, Congress is barking up the wrong tree. Repeal of the measure wouldn't have much effect on health insurers at all, good or bad, though it would permit Congressmen to swank around as though they were courageously lowering the boom on an industry with few fans among the voters. The industry itself has gone along with the joke, informing Congress a week ago that the repeal would "remedy a problem that does not exist" -- a hint that the lawmakers can score anti-industry points without imposing on the insurers. Why would Congress want to hurt them, anyway -- a group that has funneled more than $3 million into congressional campaign coffers via its biggest political action committees over the last three election cycles? That may be why you don't hear much on Capitol Hill about steps that might really affect the insurers -- such as investigating why the Justice Department greenlighted so many anti-competitive mergers in recent years, and putting pressure on the regulators to subject the next big deal to effective scrutiny. Sure, let Congress repeal McCarran-Ferguson -- antitrust experts say it's outdated anyway. But just remember that if the repeal distracts the lawmakers from real antitrust reform, as seems likely, the health insurance industry will be laughing all the way to the bank.
 
I voted subsidize some of the poor and tax all/some benefits as income.

I don't see a problem with subsidizing some of the poor, though not as generously as either of the bills being proposed. As a nation, we need to realize that thanks to our abhorrent lifestyle choices and our sense of entitlement in regards to quality of care, health care is expensive as **** and will be that way for the foreseeable future. Rather than act all outraged when they're expected to spend 10% of their income on insurance, people should fully expect to spend 15-20%. I've got no problem helping out people for whom this would be a true burden, but I think it's absolutely absurd to be handing out $10k subsidies to families of 4 making $60k while the family only pays $5k, as would happen under the Senate bill.

As to taxing the benefits as income, I'm surprised more people didn't pick this. It seems like the most logical way to reduce overall spending while simultaneously getting rid of a tax break that just skews economic incentives.

If you subsidize something you get more of it. The government can't even pay for my GI Bill for college. States can't pay their local fire and police departments. The nation is broke. This is the framework your going to be in favor of spending federal money on an entitlement for every citizen, or someone skilled enough to pretend to be a citizen of the nation?
 
Back
Top Bottom