• 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!

Taking a step back

Cfscott

Cfscott

Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
112
Reaction score
63
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I find the current politics and what passes for political discourse to be extremely destructive to our country and personally rather depressing. Maybe nowhere more so than in the area of heath care. Just to set the stage:

1.) Insurance and Health care in the USA pre Obama Care - abysmal.
2.) Insurance and Health care in the USA after Obama Care - abysmal x 2
3.) Insurance and Health care in the USA in the current debate - ugh

To me - we have not come to a basic consensus on fundamental questions. Is access to free or subsidized health care as a government service (entitlement) to be provided to citizens of the USA? Even that question is loaded - citizens or residents or even just anyone that is physically in the USA. Whatever your answer to that question is, can we agree not to call it a right? ]Rights are freedoms from oppression by the state or by society (through ethnicity, religion and gender). Entitlements, however, are government measures entailing government procurement or payment for goods or services. Rights are not limited by budget constraints, but entitlements are. So, rights are universal but entitlements are not.

Just for the sake of argument - let's say "yes" access to free or subsidized health care is the responsibility of our government and not the individual. To me, our problems are just beginning. That decision, like all other decisions has consequences - both intended and unintended.

Before we head into the next part of this thought exercise - what is your opinion? Is providing access to free or subsidized health care the responsibility of our government? What are the pitfalls or issues such a decision would face?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I remember a time; Pre-Obama ... who love to be able to bitch and complain about the cost of Healthcare, but they had a Pre-Existing Condition.

Kinda abysmal when you and your family can't get the opportunities to whine about Healthcare.
 
Well that is a point. I am not one to defend insurance companies - however the pre-existing conditions clause applied to people that let their insurance laps and applied for 12 months. I got caught in that once. It really sucked. The reason for having that clause in the first place is so that people would not wait until they were sick to buy insurance. Without that in place - who would ever buy insurance until they needed it? That issue gets used as a talking point without addressing the underlying reason it existed in the first place.
 
Cfscott said:
I find the current politics and what passes for political discourse to be extremely destructive to our country and personally rather depressing. Maybe nowhere more so than in the area of heath care. Just to set the stage:

1.) Insurance and Health care in the USA pre Obama Care - abysmal.
2.) Insurance and Health care in the USA after Obama Care - abysmal x 2
3.) Insurance and Health care in the USA in the current debate - ugh

To me - we have not come to a basic consensus on fundamental questions. Is access to free or subsidized health care as a government service (entitlement) to be provided to citizens of the USA? Even that question is loaded - citizens or residents or even just anyone that is physically in the USA. Whatever your answer to that question is, can we agree not to call it a right? ]Rights are freedoms from oppression by the state or by society (through ethnicity, religion and gender). Entitlements, however, are government measures entailing government procurement or payment for goods or services. Rights are not limited by budget constraints, but entitlements are. So, rights are universal but entitlements are not.

Just for the sake of argument - let's say "yes" access to free or subsidized health care is the responsibility of our government and not the individual. To me, our problems are just beginning. That decision, like all other decisions has consequences - both intended and unintended.

Before we head into the next part of this thought exercise - what is your opinion? Is providing access to free or subsidized health care the responsibility of our government? What are the pitfalls or issues such a decision would face?

Thanks
Click to expand...

One thing is clear. The government pays more per capita for health care than most social democracies in Europe or Canada. The country does not spend too little.

Consider that private health care spending is almost the same again to add up to about 17 percent of gdp, if I recall, then it becomes interesting.
 
Pre-Obamacare healthcare was abysmal and post Obamacare is abysmal. But part of the problem is there is a lot of disagreement over which is worse.

I am in favor of single-payer/universal healthcare. Yes, there are downsides and it won't usher in some utopia. While it will definitely hit people like me a bit harder at tax time, I want to live in a country where the people I pass on the street, sit in movie theaters with, who make my food and who send their kids to school with mine have access to medical care, including preventative care.
 
I don't know how the OP concludes that Insurance and Health care in the USA after Obama Care - abysmal x 2. The ACA isn't perfect but it's a lot better than what preceded it. Under the old system, an insured person had life-time caps in dollars -- that's pretty devastating if you have a child with a chronic condition or if one has cancer that requires a lifetime of expensive treatments.

The old system had exclusions for preexisting conditions and after 19 yrs old, children were off parent's coverage.

The old system lavish salaries and expenses for insurance companies. The ACA mandates that 85% of premiums must be spent on medical care.

The old system if one wasn't covered by an employer, one paid the full cost. Under the ACA, subsidies for lower earners is available to pay for coverage. For those with very low income, expanded Medicaid is available, depending upon state.

I can't see how anyone would judge the old system better.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Pre-Obamacare healthcare was abysmal and post Obamacare is abysmal. But part of the problem is there is a lot of disagreement over which is worse.

I am in favor of single-payer/universal healthcare. Yes, there are downsides and it won't usher in some utopia. While it will definitely hit people like me a bit harder at tax time, I want to live in a country where the people I pass on the street, sit in movie theaters with, who make my food and who send their kids to school with mine have access to medical care, including preventative care.
Click to expand...
The US has a huge decision to make. You can do PAx Americana and you can do single payer. But you can't do both. So far Pax Americana has won out. The people behind Pax Americana experienced WW2 and they are dying out so single payer will be her sooner rather than later.
 
MTAtech said:
I don't know how the OP concludes that Insurance and Health care in the USA after Obama Care - abysmal x 2. The ACA isn't perfect but it's a lot better than what preceded it. Under the old system, an insured person had life-time caps in dollars -- that's pretty devastating if you have a child with a chronic condition or if one has cancer that requires a lifetime of expensive treatments.

The old system had exclusions for preexisting conditions and after 19 yrs old, children were off parent's coverage.

The old system lavish salaries and expenses for insurance companies. The ACA mandates that 85% of premiums must be spent on medical care.

The old system if one wasn't covered by an employer, one paid the full cost. Under the ACA, subsidies for lower earners is available to pay for coverage. For those with very low income, expanded Medicaid is available, depending upon state.

I can't see how anyone would judge the old system better.
Click to expand...

Well lol abysmal is still abysmal. I agree the lifetime caps were a bad feature. I think most had a 5 million dollar cap. The issue is that insurance is "shared risk". To me it is a poor model for health care. If you have insurance or say medicaid or some single payer system - how do you make a rational decision on when to go to the doctor? Which meds should I take - the 300 a month one that is 1% better outcomes or the 25 dollar one? If my cost is the same - what works to trigger those decisions? Do we set up government experts to decide what is reasonable? Do we pass laws controlling costs? All of those things have issues. This is not a sound bite issue. As you pointed out it has real consequences on real human beings.
 
KLATTU said:
The US has a huge decision to make. You can do PAx Americana and you can do single payer. But you can't do both. So far Pax Americana has won out. The people behind Pax Americana experienced WW2 and they are dying out so single payer will be her sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

You know I love the sound of single payer. On it's face anyone that is sick can go to the doctor. Really - I love how that sounds. I just think the reality will be far short of how good it sounds. One trip to the dmv is all I need to know about government provided health care. I was living in the UK back in the late 70's. That system has it's own set of problems. My parents before they died were on medicare. Look at how politicians twist that program. Doc fix - caps that distort - what does it do, we kick the football down the road. All health care providers throw every charge under the sun to try and recoup dollars from the program and get around limits. Don't get me wrong - I am not saying stop the program - but it is far from ideal.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I am in favor of single-payer/universal healthcare.
Click to expand...

To be totally honest, i'm getting closer and closer to supporting that too, all because i'm sick of the back and forth bull**** on the issue.

Obamacare sucks, Trumpcare (in it's current form) sucks! Well....FINE! We'll scrap both and create our own SP/UH system and go with that.
 
Cfscott said:
You know I love the sound of single payer. On it's face anyone that is sick can go to the doctor. Really - I love how that sounds. I just think the reality will be far short of how good it sounds. One trip to the dmv is all I need to know about government provided health care. I was living in the UK back in the late 70's. That system has it's own set of problems. My parents before they died were on medicare. Look at how politicians twist that program. Doc fix - caps that distort - what does it do, we kick the football down the road. All health care providers throw every charge under the sun to try and recoup dollars from the program and get around limits. Don't get me wrong - I am not saying stop the program - but it is far from ideal.
Click to expand...

(Here's my broken record rant on this topic.)

I'm in favor of single payer.

However, until we remove the needless added costs from our system, simply saying the government will reimburse costs in exchange for higher taxes makes no sense. This is evidenced in the comments you made re Medicare. There are actors in the system that add no value, as well as some that are allowed to exploit the system. Those need to be removed in a way that doesn't create large scale unemployment and/or outright destroy industries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom