• 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 running on saving preconditions in healthcare

ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm.. is charging someone 3X more in insurance premiums due to their *gasp* age protecting them? Would you also like the government to mandate that all pay the same premiums for auto-liability or life insurance?

The clever (politically motivated?) conversion of 'actuarial risk factors' into 'pre-existing conditions' seems not to apply to any other form of insurance - what does that tell you?
Click to expand...

That insurance in an inappropriate model for delivering healthcare?
 
ataraxia said:
Which makes one wonder whether all that very visceral and passionate opposition to the original plan was really just about the issue, Or something else- like blind partisanship, or just fear of change (which is the definition of conservatism, after all), or even just the skin tone of the guy proposing it.
Click to expand...

Insurance company donations?

That's what it usually is.

What donors want.
 
ataraxia said:
What in the world are you talking about? Scott Walker ran his entire reelection campaign in Wisconsin on the promise that he was going to Gut the pre-existing conditions clause. It was nothing in his campaign, or trumps, talking about what they would replace it worth, if anything at all.
Click to expand...

I think your misunderstanding me. I am pointing out Republicans are full of ****. They are running on something because they now believe it's popular but they are leaving out what they really plan on doing, which is to stick with there original plan of gutting the ACA.
 
Middle_Ground said:
I think your misunderstanding me. I am pointing out Republicans are full of ****. They are running on something because they now believe it's popular but they are leaving out what they really plan on doing, which is to stick with there original plan of gutting the ACA.
Click to expand...

Yes, seems that way. Can you imagine how easily manipulated you would have to be to keep supporting these guys?

But the Trump base is like the stupid angry bull at the rodeo that keeps charging at the red velvet cape, no matter what, even if it leads to its own demise. All they have to do is say “socialism”, and they can get the bull to charge and any direction they want.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Valid criticism but what is your solution to the problem of people with pre-existing conditions unable to get insurance?
Click to expand...

People being unable to afford to buy something (good/service) is a problem (issue?) for many things. The idea that if such goods/services are defined as (elevated to?) 'needs' that they therefore (should?) become 'rights' financed by forced income redistribution schemes is essentially: from each according to their ability (to pay ever more taxes), to each according to their need (for ever more government assistance).

Whether such a system is called democratic socialism, social justice, socialism or communism makes little difference since the end result is that the richer (more productive?) must support the poorer (less productive) with the government (state?) deciding who has "too much" and thus must pay more taxes and who (out of those 'common' funds) are entitled to get more than they produce/contribute.

That does not, by any means, result in everyone getting the same thing - the richer will still get more (and of higher quality) and the poorer will still get less (and of lower quality) but the majority must pay for more for what they get/buy and/or net less for what they do earn/produce.
 
What if...? said:
That insurance in an inappropriate model for delivering healthcare?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but is insurance also an inappropriate way of paying for damages caused (liability)? What does seem inappropriate is the idea that one's ability to pay (more taxes?) should determine how much they (must?) spend on medical care for others.

Is taxation of a only a subset of the population the appropriate way of providing any 'private' good/service to only a (different?) subset of the population? Food is provided, via SNAP, by government subsidies paying the food provider their (full retail) asking price yet we are told medical care providers should not be paid in the same way - why is that?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps, but is insurance also an inappropriate way of paying for damages (liability)? What does seem inappropriate is the idea that one's ability to pay (more taxes?) should determine how much they (must?) spend on medical care for others.

Is taxation of a only a subset of the population the appropriate way of providing any 'private' good/service to only a (different?) subset of the population? Food is provided, via SNAP, by government subsidies paying the food provider their (full retail) asking price yet we are told medical care providers should not be paid in the same way - why is that?
Click to expand...

We let them keep their castles and Bentley's. Divert ever more of the nations gdp into their pockets.

So I don't have any sympathy.

As long as there's an ownership class and a commodity class the ownership class can go **** themselves.

But that's just me.

I'm still not convinced that insurance company profits are less than the government would waste to provide the same services.

Nor that being able to walk across the border with Mexico and get my exact same asthma inhales for a tenth what they cost here. I can get three for what my copay is for one here.
 
What if...? said:
We let them keep their castles and Bentley's. Divert ever more of the nations gdp into their pockets.

So I don't have any sympathy.

As long as there's an ownership class and a commodity class the ownership class can go **** themselves.

But that's just me.

I'm still not convinced that insurance company profits are less than the government would waste to provide the same services.

Nor that being able to walk across the border with Mexico and get my exact same asthma inhales for a tenth what they cost here. I can get three for what my copay is for one here.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) might be because you can live on (or earn) 1/10th the income in Mexico. I saw my doctor (at the clinic) yesterday for my annual health evaluation and was billed $116 for that 12 minute appointment - fortunately, I was able to pay $98.25 cash to settle that bill. Once I get Medicare then that annual health evaluation would have been "free" - the only catch is that I then must pay $134/month to get that "free" benefit.

As long as 'discount' medical care providers can 'earn' that much (over $400/hour?) then we will be expected to pay that much.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) might be because you can live on (or earn) 1/10th the income in Mexico. I saw my doctor (at the clinic) yesterday for my annual health evaluation and was billed $116 for that 12 minute appointment - fortunately, I was able to pay $98.25 cash to settle that bill. Once I get Medicare then that annual health evaluation would have been "free" - the only catch is that I then must pay $134/month to get that "free" benefit.

As long as 'discount' medical care providers can 'earn' that much (over $400/hour?) then we will be expected to pay that much.
Click to expand...

Part of the reason we maintain borders is to maintain economic differentials that can be profited from.

And doctors are a "border" between humans and healthcare. We have "gatekeepers" in some professions.

Law, medicine. You have to go through an intermediary. Is it any wonder those gatekeepers make tons of money?
 
What if...? said:
Part of the reason we maintain borders is to maintain economic differentials that can be profited from.

And doctors are a "border" between humans and healthcare. We have "gatekeepers" in some professions.

Law, medicine. You have to go through an intermediary. Is it any wonder those gatekeepers make tons of money?
Click to expand...

Law is, by far, worse than medicine because it is less optional and has even more limited competition. My health being evaluated annually by a doctor (for about $100) is an option but my father's financial records being submitted by a lawyer and examined by a judge for continuing my legal guardianship of his affairs (for about $400) is mandatory. The system (law) requires that these records be eFiled (which can only be done by a lawyer) to the county clerk for review/approval by a judge - why I can't just mail, email or hand carry that completed financial information form to the county clerk has never been explained - other than "it's the law".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Law is, by far, worse than medicine because it is less optional and has even more limited competition. My health being evaluated annually by a doctor (for about $100) is an option but my father's financial records being submitted by a lawyer and examined by a judge for continuing my legal guardianship of his affairs (for about $400) is mandatory. The system (law) requires that these records be eFiled (which can only be done by a lawyer) to the county clerk for review/approval by a judge - why I can't just mail, email or hand carry that completed financial information form to the county clerk has never been explained - other than "it's the law".
Click to expand...

There's a reason lawyers become congressfolk.

If they were orthopedists they'd sneak around at night breaking legs.
 
What if...? said:
There's a reason lawyers become congressfolk.

If they were orthopedists they'd sneak around at night breaking legs.
Click to expand...

This is a Texas state law but your point is still the same. What I find odd is that is not a requirement for power of attorney which has almost as much legal authority as guardianship does. While it is not a bad idea, to have judicial oversight of such legal authority granted by the state, it is just silly to mandate that only a lawyer can submit the required information and not to cap the 'legal" fees charged for that clerical service to no more than $50 or so.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
People being unable to afford to buy something (good/service) is a problem (issue?) for many things. The idea that if such goods/services are defined as (elevated to?) 'needs' that they therefore (should?) become 'rights' financed by forced income redistribution schemes is essentially: from each according to their ability (to pay ever more taxes), to each according to their need (for ever more government assistance).

Whether such a system is called democratic socialism, social justice, socialism or communism makes little difference since the end result is that the richer (more productive?) must support the poorer (less productive) with the government (state?) deciding who has "too much" and thus must pay more taxes and who (out of those 'common' funds) are entitled to get more than they produce/contribute.

That does not, by any means, result in everyone getting the same thing - the richer will still get more (and of higher quality) and the poorer will still get less (and of lower quality) but the majority must pay for more for what they get/buy and/or net less for what they do earn/produce.
Click to expand...

I am not worried about either the rich getting more or the poor getting less, I want everyone to get health care. With the present system which yoou seem to liike so much, many of the poor get no real health care. They usually run to the Er when it is often too late to do anything about heir condition. The problem is that this includes their children. It is the typical, we don't want them aborted, but screw them once they are born.
 
ataraxia said:
When Obama proposed his new health care plan, the Republicans acted like it was something out of the Soviet union. They hated it, they did not want to compromise or find anything in it that they like or were willing to work with or compromise on. Specifically, they fought against parts of it that would protect those with pre-existing conditions. It was destroying the free market, they argued. It was going to be Soviet communism, they argued. They used the threat of communist takeover of healthcare to energizing an entire base of ignorant people. Scott walker in Wisconsin and other Republican governors fought tooth and nail to specifically gut any attempts at protecting those in their state. It was easier to get a five-year-old to eat broccoli than to get Republicans to compromise on protecting healthcare for those with pre-existing conditions.

Now, it seems that’s what they they wanted to run on. Every Republican from the state governors level to the federal congress level all of a sudden has become a hero of the people, wanting to protect the healthcare of those with pre-existing condition against the big bad liberals who want to destroy Americans access to healthcare .

What happened? Why are they going from absolutely no compromise on this to become the champion of it? How come it’s no longer destroying the free market, and a harbinger of Soviet communist tyranny? The same people whose neck veins and eyeballs were bulging out with outrage over these proposals, are now all of a sudden it’s champions?

Is this just hypocrisy, or is it just my blind partisanship that blinds me to how much the Republicans really care about the American public?
Click to expand...

The individual mandate is what allows us to protect pre-existing conditions. Or else people can just not have health insurance until they get sick. You can't have it both ways. Republicans want the keep our terrible healthcare system that screws the sick and makes healthcare executives rich. We need to move to Medicare for all to guarantee a stable healthcare pool.
 
Reminder of what the House GOP passed--as in tried to make law--last year, when Trump spiked the football in that (premature, as it turned out) Rose Garden party.

CBO and JCT expect that, as a consequence, the waivers in those states would have another effect: Community-rated premiums would rise over time, and people who are less healthy (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive nongroup health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all—despite the additional funding that would be available under H.R. 1628 to help reduce premiums. As a result, the nongroup markets in those states would become unstable for people with higher-than-average expected health care costs. That instability would cause some people who would have been insured in the nongroup market under current law to be uninsured.
Click to expand...
Over time, it would become more difficult for less healthy people (including people with preexisting medical conditions) in those states to purchase insurance because their premiums would continue to increase rapidly.
Click to expand...
However, over time, less healthy individuals (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would be unable to purchase comprehensive coverage with premiums close to those under current law and might not be able to purchase coverage at all.
Click to expand...

Remember that every time some incumbent GOP House member lies about wanting to protect those with pre-existing conditions.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
People being unable to afford to buy something (good/service) is a problem (issue?) for many things. The idea that if such goods/services are defined as (elevated to?) 'needs' that they therefore (should?) become 'rights' financed by forced income redistribution schemes is essentially: from each according to their ability (to pay ever more taxes), to each according to their need (for ever more government assistance).

Whether such a system is called democratic socialism, social justice, socialism or communism makes little difference since the end result is that the richer (more productive?) must support the poorer (less productive) with the government (state?) deciding who has "too much" and thus must pay more taxes and who (out of those 'common' funds) are entitled to get more than they produce/contribute.

That does not, by any means, result in everyone getting the same thing - the richer will still get more (and of higher quality) and the poorer will still get less (and of lower quality) but the majority must pay for more for what they get/buy and/or net less for what they do earn/produce.
Click to expand...

Things like a basic education and access to healthcare are basic human rights. Along with food, clean water, and shelter, they are listed as human rights in the 1948 Universal declaration of human rights.

In this country this approach had worked to provide a basic education to all through the public school system. Is that communism? Call it what you will, it is working. If you just leave it to the free-market, it will go away. I’m not sure why that would not work for access to healthcare is well. It does in every other developed economy on the planet. It is not working here. We spend more and have worst public health than any other developed nation on the planet.

This things like education or healthcare keep people in civil societies from having to face situations which no human being should have to face. It is a basic safety net for preserving the most basic human dignity of the fellow citizens of our country.
 
ataraxia said:
Things like a basic education and access to healthcare are basic human rights. Along with food, clean water, and shelter, they are listed as human rights in the 1948 Universal declaration of human rights.

In this country this approach had worked to provide a basic education to all through the public school system. Is that communism? Call it what you will, it is working. If you just leave it to the free-market, it will go away. I’m not sure why that would not work for access to healthcare is well. It does in every other developed economy on the planet. It is not working here. We spend more and have worst public health than any other developed nation on the planet.

This things like education or healthcare keep people in civil societies from having to face situations which no human being should have to face. It is a basic safety net for preserving the most basic human dignity of the fellow citizens of our country.
Click to expand...

You like to refer to "other countries" when rating (ranking?) US health care (cost/benefit?) outcomes yet ignore that US public K-12 education ranks poorly in both student achievement (test scores) and cost per student when compared to those "other countries" government run educational systems. It is time to get honest and admit that simply because something is 100% government run/funded (like US public K-12 eduction already is) does mean that it will have better outcomes or costs than government run systems of "other countries".

To assert that because something exists and is government run makes it better does not explain why many (40%?) in congress send/sent their own children to private schools.

https://www.heritage.org/education/report/how-members-congress-practice-school-choice
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
You like to refer to "other countries" when rating (ranking?) US health care (cost/benefit?) outcomes yet ignore that US public K-12 education ranks poorly in both student achievement (test scores) and cost per student when compared to those "other countries" government run educational systems. It is time to get honest and admit that simply because something is 100% government run/funded (like US public K-12 eduction already is) does mean that it will have better outcomes or costs than government run systems of "other countries".

To assert that because something exists and is government run makes it better does not explain why many (40%?) in congress send/sent their own children to private schools.

https://www.heritage.org/education/report/how-members-congress-practice-school-choice
Click to expand...

The public school system in this country was wildly successful in raising the literacy rate of this country when first instituted. The fact that we now lag behind other countries is not because ours is government-run and theirs is private. It is because the other countries have realized how valuable this investment is and now invest far more in it than we do. It seems the value of the investment is more clear to them than to us. Ditto for their healthcare.

Like I said, things like healthcare and a basic education are fundamentally different than luxury cars and flat screen TVs. They are basic human rights, and should not be just left up to the whims of the free market. They should be protected to preserve the most basic dignity of citizens of a developed nation. Outside of the most basic humanitarian considerations, which I know are not a very big value for those of us with a conservative mindset, it is an investment with a very high return for any country. I am sure, or at least hope, that those pecuniary values will resonate a little more with them.

This is not unconstitutional. It is not un-American. It is not Soviet Marxist communism. It is what even the founding fathers of this country wanted.

"The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves."
— John Adams, U.S. President, 1785

“Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know, that the people alone can protect us against these evils, and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose, is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles, who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to George Wythe, August 13, 1786
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom