• 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!

Medicare For Pre-existing Conditions

Surrealistik said:
Yes.

My grandfather is a multimillionaire who went to St. Michael's hospital in Toronto for heart surgery and his pacemaker implant, and regularly returns to have its battery recharged and data retrieved/analyzed, while he routinely sees a family doctor at his local clinic to monitor his health and prescriptions.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal
 
Greenbeard said:
Even an optional Medicare buy-in for 55-year-olds and up couldn't pass in 2009 due to unified opposition from the GOP and conservative Dems: Lieberman says no to Medicare buy-in.

Asking now why instead of helping people buy private insurance they didn't just put everyone into Medicare betrays a total amnesia as to the political context of the time.

But if you want to dismantle the exchanges and move everyone onto Medicare now, there's a decent chance that will soon be the consensus position (thanks, oddly enough, to the right).
Click to expand...

Hey, if conservatives are open (some of them anyway!) to moving a large portion of the risk pool into a Universal Medicare system, then that makes me respect conservatives even more, because after all, it is a conservative idea to begin with.
No not Medicare...the idea of reducing costs by UTILIZING Medicare more wisely.
That's a conservative approach to making Medicare work for the largest number of people, always has been.

Yes, Joe Lieberman couldn't have been a bigger time bomb for healthcare reform if he tried, which is why he found himself out of a job soon after.
We sure didn't want him anymore, and the Tea Party wasn't going to claim him for their own either.
No one even wanted his shrew of a wife, Hadasa Lieberman.
She poisoned the Susan G. Komen Foundation for Breast Cancer Research to the point where "pinkwashing" became a perjorative term.

If the more trollish types here would stop castigating Democrats long enough to listen to reason, they would hear a lot of Dems saying that they were eager and open to Republicans participating more in the initial 2009 discussions. Both sides in Congress eventually closed ranks because it became clear that bipartisanship in the House and Senate wasn't going to happen. But individual Democrats and I am sure, individual Republicans both wanted to share more in the process.
 
Greenbeard said:
I suspect many on the left would be delighted to take a massive expansion of Medicare as a starting point. Maybe the GOP will put that on the table?
Click to expand...

Obamacare was a massive expansion in government expenses regarding subsidies. I was merely saying that we could have left healthcare the same as it was and cheaper while trading current Obamacare subsidies for a Medicare expansion to those with pre-existing conditions.
 
Moderate Right said:
Obamacare was a massive expansion in government expenses regarding subsidies. I was merely saying that we could have left healthcare the same as it was and cheaper while trading current Obamacare subsidies for a Medicare expansion to those with pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...

Except that politically there's no universe in which we could've done that. As I said, even the limited Medicare expansion that was put on the table in 2009 was untenable.

But we live in the now. Has the GOP had a change of heart that would make this feasible today?
 
Moderate Right said:
Exactly. The left tout statistics that single payer systems have just as good health outcomes for a much cheaper price and yet the rich in those countries apparently don't want just as good health outcomes for a cheaper price. What is the left's explanation for this?
Click to expand...

It's not quite the case, is the explanation, and even if it was, that would always be the case, for RICH PEOPLE.
Why are we so concerned about catering to the rich people, when the overwhelming majority in every developed nation are working class middle class people? Why should we even care if rich people can jump the line? Let them, they're going to no matter what system is in operation.

Even in today's America, even in the America of the recent past prior to the ACA, we had an enormous number of nonprofit hospitals and clinics in operation all over the country. We have had a large number of university hospitals. Right here in Los Angeles, we have the UCLA medical system.
Do wealthy local celebrities go there? No, most of them go to Saint John's Medical Center in Santa Monica, a very expensive private hospital, even though UCLA is only a couple of miles East of it. So what?
Moderate Right, if you are wealthy, then use those private hospitals, use them with everyone's blessings.

For everyone else however, the FACTS about Canada's system are thus:
They, unlike the United States, DID set up a SOCIALIZED system. Canada in 1967 had a population of UNDER 20 million people.
Florida and New York State both have larger populations today than Canada had back when their government BUILT their clinic and hospital infrastructure.
In 1967 the United States already HAD a vast network of hospitals and clinics, Canada did not. Canada's system is NOT JUST SINGLE PAYER, sorry...you are incorrect. Canada's system is SINGLE PAYER SOCIALIZED. And they have a private free market system which operates ALONGSIDE of it, mostly for elective procedures.

Single payer systems ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY SOCIALIZED systems. Try and get that, please.
ANY free market private system can operate under single payer, it just means that one major entity is paying for the services.
The existing free market system is not affected because people who can afford to skip single payer can and continue to do so as they always do.
 
Moderate Right said:
Instead of passing Obamacare several years ago, what if we had just kept everything the same as it was and instituted a policy of Medicare for all who had pre-existing conditions that met certain criteria? Premiums would have decreased for everyone who did not have pre-existing conditions and those with the conditions would have Medicare. The government would have been picking up the tab of many expenses but they wound up picking up the tab regarding Obamacare subsidies for all anyway.
Click to expand...

probably a better idea than the ACA. i prefer Medicare for all, though. you shouldn't lose your access to health care when you switch jobs or start a business. last time i had to COBRA, it was a grand a month. unemployment was three hundred something a week. you do the math.
 
Moderate Right said:
That doesn't have anything to do with what he said. Pick whatever country you want. In single payer countries the government's wallet determines what healthcare you get and don't get. In these countries newer medicines available in the US aren't an option for many years afterward.
Click to expand...

Because believe it or not medicine has to go through the same processes for approval. They have to be approved by our version of the FDA. In every province all necessary care is covered, only purely elective elective and cosmetic surgeries are not covered and can vary quite substantially between provinces. Provinces like Quebec and Ontario cover pretty much everything while in other provinces you have to pay for certain services.
 
Moderate Right said:
But in every case the quality of healthcare is determined by what the government will or will not pay for and the newest treatment options are not available for years.
Click to expand...

Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not, they have to be approved by our version of the FDA, just like they do in the US. We also develop many procedures and medicines within Canada as well.
 
VanceMack said:
Sounds like Grandpa is what we call an anomaly
More than 52,000 Canadians travelled abroad for health care last year, study finds | National Post.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care
https://www.therichest.com/business/economy/the-new-way-the-wealthy-are-staying-healthy/

Now honestly? I wish it werent the case. I wish all Canadians were barred from using anything but state provided care. SImilarly, I wish every person that advocated for Obamacare was forced to use ACA providers. But we know that will never happen.
Click to expand...

1.4 Million Americans Will Go Abroad for Medical Care This Year. Should You?

Let's see.... The US has about 10 times the population of Canada. 52,000 x 10 = 520,000.

So, per capita, about three times as many Americans as Canadians went abroad for medical care.
 
Carjosse said:
They are not free clinics, all hospitals are administered by their respective healthcare systems, only private clinics exist. Yes even rich Canadians use the free healthcare system. Regarding your post with the National Post article, it was done b the Fraser Institute a very right-leaning think tank so take it with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Oh FFS...

Rather than just admit the obvious...and dood...face it...there is no shame in being honest...you have to fabricate some **** about one of the sources. You are embarrassing yourself.
 
Surrealistik said:
Figured I'd just quote a prior response to this tired old 'study' by the Fraiser Institute; it should also be noted that these procedures are elective and/or non-emergency, and in some cases the govt is paying:
Click to expand...

So you also have chosen to expose your own lack of integrity rather than admit the simple fact that wealthy people EVERYWHERE that CAN afford better healthcare get better healthcare. How sad.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

Oh FFS...

Rather than just admit the obvious...and dood...face it...there is no shame in being honest...you have to fabricate some **** about one of the sources. You are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

I am not lying, the Fraser Institute is considered a very right wing think tank. Also provinces will pay for people to receive treatment outside of Canada if the treatment cannot be done in Canada.
 
So it ocurs to me that most of you responding in this thread dont have the first ****ing clue what it is you are responding to. In your mind you think I am bashing the Canadian helathcare system and you are rushing in with your kneejerk need o defend it, and in the process, you are exposing yourselves as having zero integrity and a willingness to make OBVIOUSLY dishonest claims without knowing what you are even arguing. In cae you missed it...and obviously, you did...
"I only have one criteria for health care. The quantity of cash in your wallet, should not determine the quality of your health care. This is a sign of a first and highest generation society."
Sorry, but you cant point to anywhere on the planet in the earths history where the quality of health care was not determined by the cost...including systems that offer 'free' health care.

The thing is...I KNOW none of you are stupid enough to disagree with the statement. So instead you go...but...but...the defense budget! or but...but...its still expensive! or...but...but...my rich grandpa sat in those free clinics for days waiting for his turn to be treated like a regular Joe.

Bull****. And relax...because no one is attacking the healthcare system in Canada, or Switzerland, or Germany, or even the US. I pointed out a simple, universal, undeniable truth. Nothing more.
 
Carjosse said:
I am not lying, the Fraser Institute is considered a very right wing think tank. Also provinces will pay for people to receive treatment outside of Canada if the treatment cannot be done in Canada.
Click to expand...
See post 39.
 
VanceMack said:
So it ocurs to me that most of you responding in this thread dont have the first ****ing clue what it is you are responding to. In your mind you think I am bashing the Canadian helathcare system and you are rushing in with your kneejerk need o defend it, and in the process, you are exposing yourselves as having zero integrity and a willingness to make OBVIOUSLY dishonest claims without knowing what you are even arguing. In cae you missed it...and obviously, you did...
"I only have one criteria for health care. The quantity of cash in your wallet, should not determine the quality of your health care. This is a sign of a first and highest generation society."
Sorry, but you cant point to anywhere on the planet in the earths history where the quality of health care was not determined by the cost...including systems that offer 'free' health care.

The thing is...I KNOW none of you are stupid enough to disagree with the statement. So instead you go...but...but...the defense budget! or but...but...its still expensive! or...but...but...my rich grandpa sat in those free clinics for days waiting for his turn to be treated like a regular Joe.

Bull****. And relax...because no one is attacking the healthcare system in Canada, or Switzerland, or Germany, or even the US. I pointed out a simple, universal, undeniable truth. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Certain systems are far more cost-effective and allow much better access to high-quality care than the US. In the US, how much money you have governs what care you can get, that is not true in other countries. Not only do Americans pay far more, they have less access.
 
Carjosse said:
Certain systems are far more cost-effective and allow much better access to high-quality care than the US. In the US, how much money you have governs what care you can get, that is not true in other countries. Not only do Americans pay far more, they have less access.
Click to expand...

And that is completely irrelevant to the point you seem to be arguing against.

Still.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
Proving...what point? Come on...you can say it......
Click to expand...

Why do I have to say the obvious?

Well, OK. More people from the USA go for medical tourism than do people in Canada. Using the number of people who leave Canada for medical treatment as evidence that our system is superior doesn't make sense.

There. I said it. The obvious has been stated.
 
Moderate Right said:
Anecdotal
Click to expand...

Well obviously. He asked a question, I answered.

Dittohead not! said:
1.4 Million Americans Will Go Abroad for Medical Care This Year. Should You?

Let's see.... The US has about 10 times the population of Canada. 52,000 x 10 = 520,000.

So, per capita, about three times as many Americans as Canadians went abroad for medical care.
Click to expand...

Precisely; exactly what I stated earlier per my self-quote.

VanceMack said:
So you also have chosen to expose your own lack of integrity rather than admit the simple fact that wealthy people EVERYWHERE that CAN afford better healthcare get better healthcare. How sad.
Click to expand...

You realize I'm pointing out the fact that US medical tourism vastly exceeds Canada's, even on a per capita basis, to help dispel you of any illusions that the US is the absolute mecca of high quality healthcare right (which seems to be the thrust/trajectory of your argument)?

By the way, yes, it's pretty obvious that if you've got more money than god, and are facing a mortal threat to your health, you're probably going to want to pay for the very best therapy that addresses that threat, wherever that happens to be, if you're capable of travelling (which is not always or perhaps even primarily the US).

...So what's your point?

It certainly doesn't seem to be an argument against the overall superiority of SP/hybrid UHC.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
Why do I have to say the obvious?

Well, OK. More people from the USA go for medical tourism than do people in Canada. Using the number of people who leave Canada for medical treatment as evidence that our system is superior doesn't make sense.

There. I said it. The obvious has been stated.
Click to expand...
No...what it proves is that wealthy people of means seek, and find, superior health care. Which is the ONLY thing being argued.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Surrealistik said:
Well obviously. He asked a question, I answered.



Precisely; exactly what I stated earlier per my self-quote.



You realize I'm pointing out the fact that US medical tourism vastly exceeds Canada's, even on a per capita basis, to help dispel you of any illusions that the US is the absolute mecca of high quality healthcare right (which seems to be the thrust/trajectory of your argument)?

By the way, yes, it's pretty obvious that if you've got more money than god, and are facing a mortal threat to your health, you're probably going to want to pay for the very best therapy that addresses that threat, wherever that happens to be, if you're capable of travelling (which is not always or perhaps even primarily the US).

...So what's your point?

It certainly doesn't seem to be an argument against the overall superiority of SP/hybrid UHC.
Click to expand...

You also should read post 39 and know what it is you are actually arguing against rather than just spewing the typical leftist blather.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
You also should read post 39 and know what it is you are actually arguing against rather than just spewing the typical leftist blather.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

VanceMack said:
So it ocurs to me that most of you responding in this thread dont have the first ****ing clue what it is you are responding to. In your mind you think I am bashing the Canadian helathcare system and you are rushing in with your kneejerk need o defend it, and in the process, you are exposing yourselves as having zero integrity and a willingness to make OBVIOUSLY dishonest claims without knowing what you are even arguing. In cae you missed it...and obviously, you did...
"I only have one criteria for health care. The quantity of cash in your wallet, should not determine the quality of your health care. This is a sign of a first and highest generation society."
Sorry, but you cant point to anywhere on the planet in the earths history where the quality of health care was not determined by the cost...including systems that offer 'free' health care.

The thing is...I KNOW none of you are stupid enough to disagree with the statement. So instead you go...but...but...the defense budget! or but...but...its still expensive! or...but...but...my rich grandpa sat in those free clinics for days waiting for his turn to be treated like a regular Joe.

Bull****. And relax...because no one is attacking the healthcare system in Canada, or Switzerland, or Germany, or even the US. I pointed out a simple, universal, undeniable truth. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is truism that quality has a strong correlation with cost; obviously.

However, that correlation:

A: Isn't absolute; look no further than the criminally inefficient and overcosted healthcare system in the States, which, on the whole, features vastly more costly healthcare for outcomes that aren't as good as SP/hybrid systems in developed countries.

B: Doesn't really counter the notion/maxim that your personal wealth should not determine the quality of your health care; this is more a values statement than an assertion of fact.

Yes, obviously even in SP countries, your wealth can conceivably afford, if you're willing to spend it and travel, better care, albeit at greatly increased cost by travelling the world for the very best specialist/clinic for your particular affliction, wherever they happen to be. That said, the differential of care quality and health outcomes between the ultrawealthy and the average person in SP/hybrid UHC countries is substantially and greatly diminished, and thus SP/hybrid UHC satisfies the maxim of personal wealth not being a determinant of healthcare far more than alternative private systems like the States.

But yes, why point out what everyone already knows without using it to make an actual case? They're attributing an argument to you, as am I, because generally when you make an assertion like that it's supposed to go somewhere, and the logical implication is that you're somehow trying to assert, directly or indirectly, as does virtually everyone else who brings this up, that SP isn't that great and the US system isn't that bad or is actually superior, etc...
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
No...what it proves is that wealthy people of means seek, and find, superior health care. Which is the ONLY thing being argued.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I thought the thread was about Medicare for people with preexisting conditions. When did the known, irrefutable, and irrelevant issue that the wealthy will seek superior care become the only thing being argued?
 
Carjosse said:
Well it is definitely possible to have a very high quality of care but also far more cost effective.
Click to expand...

How about not abusing those that want cash based basic healthcare service? When the cash price of a doctor visit is $170 and the amount paid by an insurance company is $39, something is wrong. There are other healthcare services where the cash customer gets billed 10X the amount the providers get from an insurance company.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I thought the thread was about Medicare for people with preexisting conditions. When did the known, irrefutable, and irrelevant issue that the wealthy will seek superior care become the only thing being argued?
Click to expand...

Try following the thread and know what you are responding to. Start with the 2nd post in the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom