• 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!

Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACHA

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

independentusa said:
Have you ever been to a nursing home or had someone in a nursing home? If you had, you would know why you can't take care of them at home. With modern medicine older people live a lot longer than they did back when people took care of their own at home. Remember that people back when died a lot sooner. The problem is that though we live a lot longer, in our later years many people need a lot of care that you can no longer provide in a home setting. And today most families need two incomes to make ends meet. Can't do that if someone has to stay home.
Click to expand...

Also years ago there was usually at least 1 person at home all the time, usually the wife. But now with both husband and wife working just to make ends meet, no way can someone who needs round the clock care can be cared for at home.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

ModerateRN said:
You remember an Era where the family dynamic was far different.
1) Women work now; you no longer have a guaranteed caretaker who is home every day in every household
2) People are getting older. It is far harder to care for a 90 year old than a 70 year old. On top of the difficulty in care for an aging population because the children are getting older who need to care for that person. That 90 year old has their 60-70 year old kids trying to care for them; the kids who in a different era would have been cared for themselves.
3) Elderly living longer means living sicker too. Medicine can take care of more conditions, but that means those people that would not be alive in a different era; now have complex medication regimen, dietary restrictions, long list of specialists they visit and procedures that get done.

Comparing the care of children to elders is apples to oranges
1) weight: caring for a 20 pound baby is easy to a 200 pound man.
2) Babies get easier as time passes. if you turn your back on a baby and they fall; you usually have an owie. Your elderly parents do not have the layers of fat to cushion those blows and the height differences mean they fall farther as well. Bones become brittle with age, and all this means far greater risk of injury
3) Emotions: Babies may be tiring, but there is excitement and good stress seeing the improvements. Elderly parents deteriorate. The stress gets worse and more depressing as the years go on. Elderly do not get younger, but older and more incapable of caring for themselves.

Nursing homes are needed because the family dynamic has evolved from yesteryear. I see new patients everyday I wish their family would send to a nursing home, because their care is not being handled at the level that takes place at a nursing home. Nursing Homes are not easy jobs. and the individuals that work there have ample opportunity to transition to hospitals. Those that stay do so despite of the crap pay and impossible nature of their work, because it is more than a job to them. These people do amazing work with their limited personnel.
Click to expand...



A good friend and neighbor died at age 90 a few years ago. I spent as much time with him as he would have with me and in that time neither the daughter nor the son ever came to visit.

The staff at the hospital [where I just had a cardioversion] told me that that is the norm. I don't think family-type care giving should be the onus of hospital staff.

BTW, hats off to you and your profession. I have had cause to see emergency care from the aspect of the stretcher and too impressed to properly explain the experience; simply thank you, all of you for what you do.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

LunaRose said:
There not much here I disagree with. However, our health care system before the ACA was not good and our system needed to be addressed. The ACA was not something most progressives would fully agree with back in 2010 because it is complicated and flawed but it did help millions of Americans. One can say the foundation of the ACA was laid out by conservatives such as the Heritage Group in the 1990's which used a similar plan to combat Clintons initial proposal of Universal Healthcare (which came to nothing). And then taking a lot of what was in Romney Care in Mass. From the very beginning Obama was attempting to appeal the ACA to both Repubs and Dems... Progressives want universal health care, elite Dems want more of the same of ACA just tweaked, and conservatives have no answer.

I still think the ACA can still work if Repubs and Dems work together for a solution, however that is far fetched. Repubs want a full repeal and Dems don't so we're deadlocked...


And the AHCA is a joke of an answer to this whole mess...I can't believe this is the best they can do.
Click to expand...

The Heritage Foundation did publish one proposal by one left leaning advocate for government run healthcare but it was not signed onto by most of their members. Their current proposal that is almost universally endorsed by Heritage Foundation members is what the Senate is mostly proposing, i.e. give the responsibility to the states.

What needs to happen is for government at some level to deal with the uninsurable or difficult to insure people, i.e. those with pre-existing conditions, make insurance company monopolies illegal, and then let the free market work to come up with insurance plans that are comprehensive and affordable. People who won't be having kids should not have to pay for maternity coverage; young people don't need as comprehensive a plan as older people do, etc.

We need healthcare that is good healthcare at affordable prices for the most people. Then the few that will be left over can be addressed by supplemental programs.

Routine healthcare was affordable for pretty much everybody until government started inserting itself into the system. And that is when, just like education, healthcare costs started spiraling out of control. The fact is, there are a few things the government can do better than the private sector, but in most things we would be much better off if the government just left it to the private sector and free market to work out.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

AlbqOwl said:
Obamacare is imploding, collapsing under its own weight. The original bill plus all the regulations written to comply with it to date compile roughly 10,535 pages and 11,588,500 words.

Up at least until President Trump took office, hundreds of more words were being added ever day. For comparison, there are roughly 12,143 English words in the King James Bible; 7,652 words in the amended Constitution.

How many people have time to read 11,588,500 words to comply with Obamacare that has pretty much failed to meet any of the promises made for it other than to increase entitlements. In addition to Obamacare reducing choices in most markets, it has significantly increased costs for most. And to that cost is the enormous cost in time, money, and resources of just complying with all the rules and regulations that is also a significant factor.

Just as our tax code is a mishmash of inexplicable complexity requiring services of tax lawyers and CPAs to decipher it--and even they don't always agree on what is in it--who thinks it should be that way?--the ACA is an incomprehensible mess of tangled 'laws' that nobody fully understands or agrees on interpretation or whether they contradict each other. Who thinks it should be that way?

This isn't something that a couple of band aids can fix.
Click to expand...

"Who knew heath care was so complicated?" Certainly not you or your dear leader. We can simplify it for you quite easily. Just cover EVERYONE in America like Trump promised. No fancy words needed and we can join the rest of the free world instead of devolving into a 3rd world nation like Russia is.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

iguanaman said:
"Who knew heath care was so complicated?" Certainly not you or your dear leader. We can simplify it for you quite easily. Just cover EVERYONE in America like Trump promised. No fancy words needed and we can join the rest of the free world instead of devolving into a 3rd world nation like Russia is.
Click to expand...

He said that his healthcare reform aims to provide access to insurance for everybody. He didn't say that the government would cover everybody as your assigned talking points might infer or as a hostile media may have reported it.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

AlbqOwl said:
He said that his healthcare reform aims to provide access to insurance for everybody. He didn't say that the government would cover everybody as your assigned talking points might infer or as a hostile media may have reported it.
Click to expand...

He did not say that. He said his plan would cover EVERYBODY. Please stop putting words into the Presidents mouth.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vows-insurance-for-everybody-in-obamacare-replacement-plan/2017/01/15/5f2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trump-interview-822pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.d3b23cc00e95
Trump promises his Obamacare replacement plan will cover everybody, report says - CNNPolitics.com
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

AlbqOwl said:
He said that his healthcare reform aims to provide access to insurance for everybody. He didn't say that the government would cover everybody as your assigned talking points might infer or as a hostile media may have reported it.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely not what he said.



He literally said "everybody's going to be covered" and "the government's gonna pay for it."

This was only five months ago!
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

iguanaman said:
He did not say that. He said his plan would cover EVERYBODY. Please stop putting words into the Presidents mouth.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...w-822pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.d3b23cc00e95
Trump promises his Obamacare replacement plan will cover everybody, report says - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

They both say he said that. But if you take all he has said about the proposed healthcare plan, he hasn't said that. I would suggest that you look to sources that don't deal in a lot of fake news re President Trump.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Greenbeard said:
That is absolutely not what he said.



He literally said "everybody's going to be covered" and "the government's gonna pay for it."

This was only five months ago!
Click to expand...


He said everybody is going to be taken care of. Which is not any kind of change from what we have now or what we had before Obamacare.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

AlbqOwl said:
He said everybody is going to be taken care of. Which is not any kind of change from what we have now or what we had before Obamacare.
Click to expand...

He was talking about his new plan not Reagan's bill. How is the new plan taking care of everybody?
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

He said INSURANCE FOR EVERYBODY. Not once or twice, but multiple times


As he campaigned for the White House that he declared in an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes”: “I am going to take care of everybody … Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”

[...]

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said in press conference Jan. 11. “We’re going to have a healthcare that is far less expensive and far better.”

[...]

Washington Post interview with Donald Trump, published yesterday, Sunday the 15th of January, 2017.
Scott Pelley: Universal health care?
Donald Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.
Scott Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of how?
Donald Trump: They’re going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably–
Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?
Donald Trump: –the government’s gonna pay for it.

[...]

We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said.
“There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”

As far as 'hostile' media-the last quote is from Redstate: Health Insurance "For Everybody" and the "Government Will Pay" Says "Republican" Donald Trump. AGAIN.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

iguanaman said:
He was talking about his new plan not Reagan's bill. How is the new plan taking care of everybody?
Click to expand...

Just like it did under Clinton, under Bush, under Obama--you get treatment at E.R. or urgent care or in the hospital whether or not you have insurance or can pay.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Chomsky said:
And all this to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations ...
Click to expand...

At least $630 billion will be chopped from Medicaid (poor/elderly/disabled) and redistributed to medical corporations and the ultra-rich 1% of Americans in the form of highly-targeted tax cuts,
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Worst kind of health care and by far the most expensive. It is one reason that per capita we spend far more than any other country in the world and yet our system is ranked 37th in the world. With this health plan we will fall further and pay more. The real problem beyond who won't have health insurance is what this will do to our economy. Health care is between 1/5 and 1/6 of our economy. This program will reduce the ability of many to use health care. That means huge cuts in personal and growth of this sector of our economy. And this bill does nothing to fulfill the promises of Trump. It does not take care of everyone and it will certainly not reduce the cost of insurance.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Donald J. Trump ✔
@realDonaldTrump
I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. Huckabee copied me.
10:38 AM - 7 May 2015
Click to expand...

Donald Trump / May 15 said:
“I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid."
Click to expand...

Only 5 months into his term and the Medicaid promise is already a $880 billion lie.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

AlbqOwl said:
Just like it did under Clinton, under Bush, under Obama--you get treatment at E.R. or urgent care or in the hospital whether or not you have insurance or can pay.
Click to expand...

How is this relevant? No one is arguing this. And if you do go to the E.R. you will still be fitted with the bill so good luck dealing with that...What about long term illness that require long term treatments? What about the elderly that need treatments?

https://www.drugs.com/slideshow/most-expensive-conditions-to-treat-1123I don't see how paying and getting access for these treatments and medications will be made easier for average Americans.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

independentusa said:
I forgot to say that our health care system that is currently rated about 37th in the world, after Trumpcare will soon make us a third or fourth class country when it comes to health care.
Click to expand...

But if you have money, you will be able to afford the finest nose and boob jobs on the planet.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

AlbqOwl said:
He said everybody is going to be taken care of. Which is not any kind of change from what we have now or what we had before Obamacare.
Click to expand...

What the...?

Before Obamacare, about 45,000 Americans a year were dying because of lack of access to healthcare. That's not to mention people going blind, living with chronic pain, etc...
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

AlbqOwl said:
Just like it did under Clinton, under Bush, under Obama--you get treatment at E.R. or urgent care or in the hospital whether or not you have insurance or can pay.
Click to expand...

If you have high blood pressure, the ER is not going to see you until you get a heart attack or a stroke. I guess that's one way of "taking care of people". :roll:
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

iguanaman said:
Except the States do not have the money to support Medicaid and they will simply drop people as soon as the money runs out. They have no choice. Scared yet?
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, why can't individual states fund it?

If individual states can't afford then why and how exactly does the Federal Government necessarily always have the money and means to finance everything?

I'm asking because while I know somethings about economics I don't know everything about economics. I know the US (Federal) debt-to-GDP ratio now exceeds the US GDP and the US dollar can just be printed up. I know Russia has tied their currency to their commodities (if they ever could not pay a debt to a country in rubles they could ship commodities to that country in the equivalent worth) and since that have some state owned energy companies portions of profits from one or more of those companies can go to funding their universal health care system.

So, while states in the US can't just print up money, can't they just increase their debt and increase state taxes to fund whatever it is they want to fund?
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

LunaRose said:
How is this relevant? No one is arguing this. And if you do go to the E.R. you will still be fitted with the bill so good luck dealing with that...What about long term illness that require long term treatments? What about the elderly that need treatments?

https://www.drugs.com/slideshow/most-expensive-conditions-to-treat-1123I don't see how paying and getting access for these treatments and medications will be made easier for average Americans.
Click to expand...

It is relevant because it is the common sense way to approach it. Get insurance workable and affordable for as many as possible via the free market and then address those that are on the outside of the mainstream. The Obamacare one size fits all plan has not solved problems but for a limited few, has created untold hardships on many, has screwed with the system to the point that nobody knows for sure what to expect from one year to the next, and is collapsing under its own weight of massive volumes of rules and regulations that nobody can possible know and understand all.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

ataraxia said:
What the...?

Before Obamacare, about 45,000 Americans a year were dying because of lack of access to healthcare. That's not to mention people going blind, living with chronic pain, etc...
Click to expand...

Sorry but I know too many people in the medical field at all levels to believe your statistics. And I believe if there were honest numbers out there you would see that under the ACA, wait times are much longer, deductibles are so high most people don't go to the doctor when they should, and many are unable to afford the huge increases in premiums that will go up massively again this year if Congress doesn't get something passed.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Chomsky said:
And all this to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations ...
Click to expand...

I was just told in another thread that you see, the issue is that if people get health care that's partially funded by the ultra-wealthy, it will "harm the economy".

I'm still scratching my head on that one.
 
Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

ataraxia said:
If you have high blood pressure, the ER is not going to see you until you get a heart attack or a stroke. I guess that's one way of "taking care of people". :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes they will. You can even make an appointment for a specific time at many urgent care facilities here in our town.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom