• 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!

House asks court to pause Obamacare lawsuit

JoG said:
Yes and no. As one quickly sees in the empirical study of the Fat Man Paradox our moral hard wiring is less than perfect and makes us believe factually identical results are of differing moral value and even contradictory in many cases.

I don't think this is the correct analysis. Immanuel Kant got a few things right, and one thing he got right is that reasoning about consequences is not the correct way to reason about morals. The fat man paradox isn't a paradox in this view. Note that this does not mean consequences are of no, er, consequence in moral reasoning. Merely that taking consequences as among one's axioms is incorrect.

JoG said:
This appears to happen in many situations and with very different moral postulates the result being a loss of anything near objectivity.

The same is true of the cutting edge of mathematics. But that doesn't imply there's no truth to mathematics. One way to account for the lack of agreement is implied in my previous post: too many people don't put themselves in the correct position to see a truth.
 
Okay, there's no theoretical mechanism for keeping the costs down. The ppaca was just raked through the coals because the mandate was supposed to address the risk taken on by insurance companies for taking on customers with pre-existing conditions. It didn't work, yet the GOP wants to keep the pre-existing conditions rule because it's very popular. But we come back full circle because there's still no theoretical mechanism for keeping the costs down.

There's no theoretical mechanism for keeping costs down in any endeavor. Costs naturally rise. In the medical field, those costs rise because of new treatments, legal costs, and obviously because workers in medicine demand and are entitled to increases in wages.

One has to accept that costs will rise. The issue is not so much cost containment as it is who should pay and how. Had the Democrats, back in 2009, decided that the primary problem was the coverage of those who couldn't afford insurance, they could have proposed biting the bullet and folding all such individuals into Medicaid and funded it through the tax base, perhaps partially offset by a health care premium highest earners paid on their federal taxes.

It seems clear to me that Americans aren't prepared for the tax implications of moving towards a more single payer system as other nations have. Canada's has been in place for over half a century and no Canadian would seriously want to get rid of it, although we all bitch about it and want changes. If you tried to implement it here, now, you'd fail.
 
Do you have a group or employer plan?

I have had both and have looked at the cost of individual plans versus my employer plan.

In all of our facilities.. if I ditched employer healthcare, and paid the fine.. and picked up individual plans for my employees.. full cost.. no cost sharing.. the cost would be CHEAPER than my employer group plan.

In other words.. the cost of individual plans for all my employees.. is LESS than what I pay for a group plan.
 
Couple of ideas: currently the people with pre-existing conditions and chronic conditions are driving the prices through the roof, along with mandated coverage minimums and various levels of taxation driving up medical costs, and competition leaving the market because it has become untenable.

1. We badly need to uncouple employment from healthcare. The places where healthcare works better, its not linked to employment.
2. We need competition---everything from selling across state lines to money only clinics to allowing patient advocates to negotiate pricing to HSAs to Flexplans.
3. Change the ACA from mandatory to optional. Move those that need it the most into high risk pools and subsidize it while letting those that don't need it drive prices downwards because their use will be lower.
4. Mandate patient advocates in insurance agencies and hospitals to look out for patient costs and patient needs. Don't allow the insurance companies and doctors to make all the decisions, give patients someone on their side in disagreements. That said a healthcare advocate agency/watchdog maybe wouldn't be a bad thing, but I wonder about where the cost will come from.
 
imo health care is not a right.

Say you are in an accident, you're unconscious. Should you be treated?

If you say yes, then health care is a right.
 
The problem is that there's no theoretical mechanism for keeping the costs down (short of uhc of course).

sure there is and UHC doesn't lower costs other countries have proven this.
 
Say you are in an accident, you're unconscious. Should you be treated?

If you say yes, then health care is a right.

no, i absolutely should not. health care isnt a right.
 
Couple of ideas: currently the people with pre-existing conditions and chronic conditions are driving the prices through the roof, along with mandated coverage minimums and various levels of taxation driving up medical costs, and competition leaving the market because it has become untenable.

1. We badly need to uncouple employment from healthcare. The places where healthcare works better, its not linked to employment.
2. We need competition---everything from selling across state lines to money only clinics to allowing patient advocates to negotiate pricing to HSAs to Flexplans.
3. Change the ACA from mandatory to optional. Move those that need it the most into high risk pools and subsidize it while letting those that don't need it drive prices downwards because their use will be lower.
4. Mandate patient advocates in insurance agencies and hospitals to look out for patient costs and patient needs. Don't allow the insurance companies and doctors to make all the decisions, give patients someone on their side in disagreements. That said a healthcare advocate agency/watchdog maybe wouldn't be a bad thing, but I wonder about where the cost will come from.

Most people will agree with #1.

But 3&4 don't work. Insurance isn't a handout. You're paying to decrease your exposure to risk, you're not lowering costs. Health care costs now average 10k per person per year in the US. That means that as long as that's how much health care we're using, that's how much we're going to spend. Most of those costs are eaten up by a relatively small number of people who obviously cant afford to pay the millions of dollars they cost. If everyone has insurance, then everyone will share those costs. If not everyone has to have insurance, then everyone who has insurance will share those costs.

By removing the mandate you're removing the healthy people from the system. That will drastically jack up the price of health care for those who have it. It's just simple economics. (people have forgotten how much health care costs skyrocketed in the 2000's.)

The choice is pretty simple.
  1. We all pay a little more to ensure that no one pays too much.
  2. We create a three tiered system in which healthy people pay almost nothing, people who want health insurance pay much more than they do now, and sick people are bankrupted.
  3. We don't treat people that can't afford care and let them die

Which do you prefer?
 
no, i absolutely should not. health care isnt a right.

Realize that means that even if you have the most expensive health care coverage on the planet, even if you are the richest person on the planet... if you get hurt and are incapacitated, people will have to physically search you to find proof that you can pay BEFORE you can even get EMTs out to work on you.

If you're in a car crash they may as well wait until you die and then throw your car into a compactor, selling the scrap to pay for the cost of removing you from the side of the road. Otherwise emergency personnel might incur a cost that you might not be able to pay.


But I applaud your intellectual honesty.
 
Most people will agree with #1.

But 3&4 don't work. Insurance isn't a handout. You're paying to decrease your exposure to risk, you're not lowering costs. Health care costs now average 10k per person per year in the US. That means that as long as that's how much health care we're using, that's how much we're going to spend. Most of those costs are eaten up by a relatively small number of people who obviously cant afford to pay the millions of dollars they cost. If everyone has insurance, then everyone will share those costs. If not everyone has to have insurance, then everyone who has insurance will share those costs.

By removing the mandate you're removing the healthy people from the system. That will drastically jack up the price of health care for those who have it. It's just simple economics. (people have forgotten how much health care costs skyrocketed in the 2000's.)

The choice is pretty simple.
  1. We all pay a little more to ensure that no one pays too much.
  2. We create a three tiered system in which healthy people pay almost nothing, people who want health insurance pay much more than they do now, and sick people are bankrupted.
  3. We don't treat people that can't afford care and let them die

Which do you prefer?

You didn't get what I was driving at and Im not answering your false choice question, because it assumes no other outcomes, which makes it blatantly stupid.

You allow those in low risk pools to tailor their health care needs to drive costs down with just the coverage they need. You control high end risks by having government and advocates negotiate pricing details because government will still have high money pools from Medicare and Medicaid, hospitals are going to listen. You push down costs at the low and high end and make the average drop. Right now, high risk people have no one in their corner, nor do average consumers, they are forced to take one size fits all healthcare when this is neither cost effective nor particularly efficient.

Im all for insurance companies getting squeezed, many of them went for this current boondoggle that gave us worse outcomes than the current system.
 
Say you are in an accident, you're unconscious. Should you be treated?

If you say yes, then health care is a right.

The Hippocratic Oath says you are going to get treated, it doesn't say how you are going to pay for it. You know all those Catholic and Church based hospitals that have been so derided? They provide more charitable healthcare than you would begin to believe.
 
The Hippocratic Oath says you are going to get treated, it doesn't say how you are going to pay for it. You know all those Catholic and Church based hospitals that have been so derided? They provide more charitable healthcare than you would begin to believe.

And who pays for it? As long as the health care is given someone has to pay. Catholic charities don't reduce cost, they shift the burden.

And that's all you're talking about, allowing healthy people to shift the burden of cost to sick people.
 
You allow those in low risk pools to tailor their health care needs to drive costs down with just the coverage they need. You control high end risks by having government and advocates negotiate pricing details because government will still have high money pools from Medicare and Medicaid, hospitals are going to listen. You push down costs at the low and high end and make the average drop. Right now, high risk people have no one in their corner, nor do average consumers, they are forced to take one size fits all healthcare when this is neither cost effective nor particularly efficient.

Sounds like single-payer for people who need health insurance for medical needs, commercial insurance for those who don't. Seems slightly more convoluted than necessary if the goal is just to have the government set prices whenever someone needs numerous or expensive health services.
 
Plans that are spinning out of this galaxy expensive, yeah those plans. Plans that don't work, and force people to pay all their expenses till they reach astronomical level deductibles....yeah those plans. It's like they have no insurance at all.

Don't worry. Trump is going to allow them to buy outside state lines, which magically makes everything cheaper somehow. I don't know the details, but when has he ever lied about anything, ya know?
 
If you've got any ideas we'd love to hear them. In theory the mandate was supposed to be that mechanism since, in theory, it would address the increased risk taken on by the health insurance companies by being forced to take on patients with pre-existing conditions. Since that didn't work we're back to square one.

Now, Trump wants to keep pre-existing conditions because everybody loves it, but still no mechanism for keeping the costs down have been proposed.

Now you can attack uhc and deflect again, or you can address the thing that's actually important.

I don't get why people with a pre-existing condition should be able to get insurance. That is like getting in a car crash and then demanding car insurance.
 
Don't worry. Trump is going to allow them to buy outside state lines, which magically makes everything cheaper somehow. I don't know the details, but when has he ever lied about anything, ya know?

He could say we get to keep our doctors and out plans, be no worse than your messiah.
 
He could say we get to keep our doctors and out plans, be no worse than your messiah.

So you're only ok with lying when it's your guy? Trump voter I'm guessing.
 
You didn't get what I was driving at and Im not answering your false choice question, because it assumes no other outcomes, which makes it blatantly stupid.

You allow those in low risk pools to tailor their health care needs to drive costs down with just the coverage they need. You control high end risks by having government and advocates negotiate pricing details because government will still have high money pools from Medicare and Medicaid, hospitals are going to listen. You push down costs at the low and high end and make the average drop. Right now, high risk people have no one in their corner, nor do average consumers, they are forced to take one size fits all healthcare when this is neither cost effective nor particularly efficient.

Im all for insurance companies getting squeezed, many of them went for this current boondoggle that gave us worse outcomes than the current system.

Paying for health care coverage is not the same as incurring health care costs.


Okay.. we're going to have to break this down as simply as we can here. This is a thought experiment fyi.

Imagine that there isn't any health care insurance, but people make the same treatment decisions they make now. The amount providers charge also remains the same. What happens?
  • Health care costs remain the same (minus insurance company profits and overhead)
  • Sick people pay the bulk of the cost, especially dying people. (A full 1/3 of your lifetime healthcare costs will be incurred in your last month of life)
  • Healthy people pay almost nothing.

Now lets see how it used to be
  • Health care costs remain the same (including insurance company profits and overhead)
  • Sick people pay the bulk of the cost, especially dying people. But since their costs exceed the cost of insurance no insurance will cover them. Instead their costs are distributed to paying patients in the hospital in the form of higher bills
  • People with health insurance pay for the risk of them getting sick, as well as a large additional cost to pay for the cost of the above.
  • Healthy people without insurance pay almost nothing.

Now compare this to Obamacare.
  • Health care costs remain the same including, (insurance company profits and overhead)
  • Healthy people pay a lot more, but still slightly less than sick people.
  • Sick people pay a lot less, but still slightly more than healthy people.
  • Rich people pay slightly more so that poor people can pay an affordable amount.


A universal system is mostly the same as Obamacare, but without insurance company profits and overhead. But even then, you're only saving 20-30%. The only way to reduce health care costs is to either reduce how much it costs to provide health care or to reduce the amount of health care provided. It's simple math.
 
Oh, did Obama lie? You'll lose your liberal card.

Yea. And I agree with politifact when they called it the lie of the year if you want to go search for it.


That's what makes me so much better than most people. You know, those people that can't help but cry about how the other guy did it rather than man up and put on their big boy pants. Not pointing fingers or anything though :)
 
Paying for health care coverage is not the same as incurring health care costs.


Okay.. we're going to have to break this down as simply as we can here. This is a thought experiment fyi.

Imagine that there isn't any health care insurance, but people make the same treatment decisions they make now. The amount providers charge also remains the same. What happens?
  • Health care costs remain the same (minus insurance company profits and overhead)
  • Sick people pay the bulk of the cost, especially dying people. (A full 1/3 of your lifetime healthcare costs will be incurred in your last month of life)
  • Healthy people pay almost nothing.

Now lets see how it used to be
  • Health care costs remain the same (including insurance company profits and overhead)
  • Sick people pay the bulk of the cost, especially dying people. But since their costs exceed the cost of insurance no insurance will cover them. Instead their costs are distributed to paying patients in the hospital in the form of higher bills
  • People with health insurance pay for the risk of them getting sick, as well as a large additional cost to pay for the cost of the above.
  • Healthy people without insurance pay almost nothing.

Now compare this to Obamacare.
  • Health care costs remain the same including, (insurance company profits and overhead)
  • Healthy people pay a lot more, but still slightly less than sick people.
  • Sick people pay a lot less, but still slightly more than healthy people.
  • Rich people pay slightly more so that poor people can pay an affordable amount.


A universal system is mostly the same as Obamacare, but without insurance company profits and overhead. But even then, you're only saving 20-30%. The only way to reduce health care costs is to either reduce how much it costs to provide health care or to reduce the amount of health care provided. It's simple math.

All of which ignores mandates adding to costs, additional taxation, additional regulation and testing on and on. You claim to know how costs work but you sure are missing a LOT of the costs.
 
The moment of truth is upon us!

The House GOP has been suing the Obama administration for some time to eliminate the ACA subsidies that lower people's deductibles and copays. If Trump doesn't take up the Obama administration's cause, the subsidies will go away and insurers who are expecting that money can pull out of the marketplaces.

We won't have to wait too long to see if the GOP was serious about throwing millions of people off their plans.

House asks court to pause Obamacare lawsuit

Republicans have been very dedicated to ensure that no American can keep their doctor ever since President Obama said otherwise.
 
I don't get why people with a pre-existing condition should be able to get insurance. That is like getting in a car crash and then demanding car insurance.

Because a car accident has fault involved. Health care doesn't, at least not all the time.

Plus, do we just let them die? If they cant get health insurance and have to pay everything out of pocket, what alternatives do they have?
 
Republicans have been very dedicated to ensure that no American can keep their doctor ever since President Obama said otherwise.

This post is so bizarre world that it seems a caricature of reality.
 
And who pays for it? As long as the health care is given someone has to pay. Catholic charities don't reduce cost, they shift the burden.

And that's all you're talking about, allowing healthy people to shift the burden of cost to sick people.

THROUGH DONATIONS.

You need to clue up.
 
Back
Top Bottom