• 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, 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...
Click to expand...
'Should' is a fairy tale.
 
SDET said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why are you even paying for things in cash?
 
SDET said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's part of what you're buying when you buy an insurance product: access to a provider network at a certain set of negotiated prices.
 
The healthcare Mr. Trump promised during the election sounded pretty good. Of course that was a a healthcare plan he was making up as he spoke. That was back when healthcare was easy.
 
VanceMack said:
Try following the thread and know what you are responding to. Start with the 2nd post in the thread.
Click to expand...

Second post:

trblmkr said:
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.
Click to expand...

You mean to say this thread is so derailed that, from the second post, the known, irrefutable, and irrelevant issue that the wealthy will seek superior care become the only thing being argued?
 
Carjosse said:
Why are you even paying for things in cash?
Click to expand...

At the time, I didn't have insurance. One example of things from back then, I took my wife to a walk-in clinic and because it involved abdominal pain, she was required to go to the emergency room. We were charged $5,000 for a three hour visit that an insurance company would have been charged $500 or $600. They wouldn't negotiate, so my wife decided it was better to just give them nothing and take a ding on her credit.
 
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...

I think pre existing should only come into play if you did not have insurance when the condition occurred. Reinjuring and old injury should not be considered pre-existing. Pre-existing should not happen if you had health care since the day you were born. Just because you change policies does not warrant an injury or ongoing medical to be to be considered pre existing. Now that the insurance companies have to cover anything that occurred while you had insurance and everyone should have health care there is no such thing as pre-existing.

But I think we also need to simplify health care to single policy that covers everything. This paying over and over for health care is stupid. By boss has insurance in case I get hurt on the job. Then I have health insurance incase I get hurt after work. Then I have PIP incase I get hurt in a car accident. Then I have insurance incase someone else gets hurt in a car accident. Then I pay insurance incase someone gets hurt on my property.

ENOUGH ALREADY.

How many ways are these corrupt insurance companies going to figure out ways to sell us insurance. They are only outdone by how many ways our government taxes us.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Second post:



You mean to say this thread is so derailed that, from the second post, the known, irrefutable, and irrelevant issue that the wealthy will seek superior care become the only thing being argued?
Click to expand...
No...I mean someone in the 2nd post made a comment and I responded to it. You can argue whatever the **** you like in the thread...but if you are responding to my comment then you ought to know what the **** you are responding to. You obviously didnt. And yet you persist...
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can, with little research, point to a dozen or so with better healthcare outcomes, spending far less money. And some of those offer "free health care". Our problem is corporate heath care with a profit motive.
 
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...

After thinking about this, there is merit tot this idea. It borders on single payer but not single payer. I worry that it would create a health care system that has a service tier only for the least of us. But still, properly implemented....
 
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...

is it simpler than means tested welfare?
 
trblmkr said:
I can, with little research, point to a dozen or so with better healthcare outcomes, spending far less money. And some of those offer "free health care". Our problem is corporate heath care with a profit motive.
Click to expand...
But you CANNOT 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 wealthy will always have better care and 'free' healthcare will always be lesser. And the problem in this country is that people clamoring for a universal health care want nothing more than to create 2 systems...one for the very wealthy, and a **** system for everyone else.
 
VanceMack said:
But you CANNOT 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 wealthy will always have better care and 'free' healthcare will always be lesser. And the problem in this country is that people clamoring for a universal health care want nothing more than to create 2 systems...one for the very wealthy, and a **** system for everyone else.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure when I said "the quantity of money in your wallet should not determine the quality of your healthcare" I was suggesting other than you are describing. I, personally, believe this to be a goal of an advanced society. Of course, I realize we do not belong to an advanced society. We belong to a society that will be wiped out by an extinction level event, that we refuse to admit exists, to be replaced by another society better than us. Hopefully.
 
trblmkr said:
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.
Click to expand...

VanceMack said:
No...I mean someone in the 2nd post made a comment and I responded to it. You can argue whatever the **** you like in the thread...but if you are responding to my comment then you ought to know what the **** you are responding to. You obviously didnt. And yet you persist...
Click to expand...

You were responding to my post, but whatever. Go ahead and have your private conversation.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You were responding to my post, but whatever. Go ahead and have your private conversation.
Click to expand...
Other than to point out your posts had absolutely zero to do with the conversation you jumped into, no...I really wasnt.
 
trblmkr said:
I am pretty sure when I said "the quantity of money in your wallet should not determine the quality of your healthcare" I was suggesting other than you are describing. I, personally, believe this to be a goal of an advanced society. Of course, I realize we do not belong to an advanced society. We belong to a society that will be wiped out by an extinction level event, that we refuse to admit exists, to be replaced by another society better than us. Hopefully.
Click to expand...
Again...'should' is a fairy tale. 'Should' is a world people live in when they want others to pay for it.
 
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...

This is how it politically would play out.

All the most expensive patients - the high risk with pre-existing conditions- including the very young would could stay on for a full lifetime - would be sent to medicare.

Medicare would be so overburdened and need constant bailing out.

Republicans would say "see, we have been telling you for decades that medicare was a horrible plan"
 
VanceMack said:
'Should' is a fairy tale.
Click to expand...

VanceMack said:
But you CANNOT 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 wealthy will always have better care and 'free' healthcare will always be lesser. And the problem in this country is that people clamoring for a universal health care want nothing more than to create 2 systems...one for the very wealthy, and a **** system for everyone else.
Click to expand...

Should in the sense that your personal wealth should not determine the quality of care you get?

It's not a fairy tale for the most part.

I mean, unless you think that wealthy people are jetsetting around the world and leaving their countries of residence with a high standard of care, for routine/non-life threatening stuff which constitutes the vast majority of health care utilization by time? It's only for the truly dire things that they'd even _consider_ pursuing some foreign ostensibly 'better' solution at their own expense.

Moreover, again, what point are you trying to make here? Regardless of how your healthcare system is structured, the rich will always have options the poor do not; however, in a UHC SP/Hybrid system as compared to a private, multipayer, the divide between the rich and poor in terms of overall quality of care, life expectancy and health outcomes is substantially reduced, and your personal wealth is much less influential. Is it your view that these systems should be abandoned or dismissed because they cannot guarantee an absolute equality of health outcomes?
 
Last edited:
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...

Because it will kill the Medicare program.

Basically what you are suggesting is a bail out of the insurance companies. High risk patients will be shuttled to the government.. while profitable patients will stay in private healthcare.

Obamacare people .. despite the hype.. are actually probably less costly than the general population. And that's because to qualify for obamacare you had to work enough and make enough to qualify for obamacare and not just Medicaid. this means that you pretty much had to be healthy. You were able to work without healthcare.
 
Greenbeard said:
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?
Click to expand...

What was put on the table in 2009 was not my idea.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
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.
Click to expand...

The left argue that healthcare in single payer countries costs a lot less and provides the same results. If so, why would rich people forgo the system and seek better care outside of the single payer system? Answer: There is better care out there than the nationalized system. In other words, the left's argument is invalid.
 
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...

It makes perfect sense. People who want better healthcare come to the US. The poorer in the US go to Canada.
 
trblmkr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Moderate Right said:
It makes perfect sense. People who want better healthcare come to the US. The poorer in the US go to Canada.
Click to expand...

Poor people in the USA can't afford to go to Canada. I'm not so sure Canada would give them free health care if they did. And Canadians or anyone else engaging in medical tourism don't generally come to the USA.
 
jaeger19 said:
Basically what you are suggesting is a bail out of the insurance companies. High risk patients will be shuttled to the government.. while profitable patients will stay in private healthcare.
Click to expand...

I don't like the phrase "bail out" but that is kind of what I am suggesting (sort of, in a way), those with qualifying pre-existing conditions would be on government insurance while everyone else would be in the insurance industry market. This would lower the costs of the privately insured and help those with pre-existing conditions. We could actually charge some sort of premium for those with pre-existing conditions to enter into the Medicare program, based on income.
 
Moderate Right said:
I don't like the phrase "bail out" but that is kind of what I am suggesting (sort of, in a way), those with qualifying pre-existing conditions would be on government insurance while everyone else would be in the insurance industry market. This would lower the costs of the privately insured and help those with pre-existing conditions. We could actually charge some sort of premium for those with pre-existing conditions to enter into the Medicare program, based on income.
Click to expand...

I know what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that those that have pre existing conditions (which means they are a much higher risk).. be removed from the private market pool and placed in the government pool..

Allowing everyone else who is less risk and thus more profitable.. in the private market.

And no.. it would not lower the costs for the privately insured. The cost to the privately insured is not based on cost.. its based on demand. All that will happen is a big profit for the insurance companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom