• 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 can't deal with medical care.

joko104 said:
The way many businesses deal with all the government extra costs for full time employees is to make nearly everyone part time employees.
Click to expand...

Which they have a difficult time doing in a market with 3-4% unemployment. With a huge number of employees available.. you may be right. But in a market with low unemployment.. which is what we generally run? Part time doesn't cut it.
 
joko104 said:
The Democratic Party demands free medical care for everyone in the world to be paid for by working Americans. All they have to do is travel here - no restrictions of any kind - and their open heart surgery, sex reassignment surgery, artificial limbs, kidney transplants and all other medical care will be free.
Click to expand...


Quit lying.
 
mike2810 said:
I suspect you would also like your "free bubble up and rainbow stew".

You do realize the US Government spends more than it takes in. How long can we continue to borrow? Health Care for all is a nice dream. It may collapse due to all of our other spending and health care.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, of the 50 developed western nations, we are the only country that does not have some variant of UHC. What is also interesting is that per capita health care costs in those countries are about 50% of that of America.

Medicare for all replaces insurance premiums, and the cost of the tax per individual is less than the premiums, as premiums must support the health insurance industry which sucks up 25% of total dollars.

In other words, the net cost to society will be less and everyone will be recovered. All M4A does is redirect existing dollars into a more efficient system.

Even if it were modestly more, it's the right thing to do as everyone is covered.
 
joko104 said:
I left off they might have to say the magic word: "refugee." With that, all medical care is free. All they have to do is get to the USA any way possible.
Click to expand...


The majority of refugee applicants for asylum are not granted asylum.

In fact, in FY 2016 immigration judges denied these 4,515 unrepresented asylum seekers' claims 90 percent of the time.

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/448/
Click to expand...

You left that detail out of your comment. In fact, your declaring that "all one has to do is say the magic word 'refugee', and it's all free" is false.

Apparently misleading people is your thing.
 
joko104 said:
I left off they might have to say the magic word: "refugee." With that, all medical care is free. All they have to do is get to the USA any way possible.
Click to expand...

Really? You have some proof of this? True, refugees processed in by the US from overseas presumably have temporary benefits including medical care. Has been the case since 1980, I think. What’s your beef? These are people selected by the US. To my knowledge asylum seekers are not entitled to that, unless detained by the US, which is SOP for any prisoners.
 
Look, years ago when the ACA was being considered, someone on the GOP confessed that their opposition was based on the worry that a successful program would demonstrate again that the government can do something positive. That is anathema to republican orthodoxy, which (simplistically summed up) is that the government is useful only for blowing people up overseas and jailing them here at home.
 
Nickyjo said:
Look, years ago when the ACA was being considered, someone on the GOP confessed that their opposition was based on the worry that a successful program would demonstrate again that the government can do something positive. That is anathema to republican orthodoxy, which (simplistically summed up) is that the government is useful only for blowing people up overseas and jailing them here at home.
Click to expand...
Nickyjo, I don't doubt that many Republican leaders fear that the USA will adopt some basic government medical insurance policy that's no less inclusive than that of Canada.
They're aware that no nation having enacted some medical insurance policy recognizing medical insurance as a matter of government's concern. No nation has or will likely ever regress to medical care being entirely dependent upon individuals' wealth. I suppose rarely (if ever), has any such Republican leaders publicly acknowledged that was their motive for opposing any improvements of government support for medical insurance.

When Obama was elected, Republican Party's policy has been refraining to contribute or cooperate with anything proposed or supported by Democrats. Their motive is to not appear to be concurring with Democrats. Republicans have diligently continued this practice to the extents that they will not cooperate with Democrats to pass what Republicans have themselves previously advocated.
Respectfully, Supposn
Refer to:
I'm Supposn said:
The federal Patient Protection Affordable Care Act was modeled after the existing medical policy that was signed by the then Massachusetts Republican governor Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...
 
OscarLevant said:
That's interesting, of the 50 developed western nations, we are the only country that does not have some variant of UHC. What is also interesting is that per capita health care costs in those countries are about 50% of that of America.

Medicare for all replaces insurance premiums, and the cost of the tax per individual is less than the premiums, as premiums must support the health insurance industry which sucks up 25% of total dollars.

In other words, the net cost to society will be less and everyone will be recovered. All M4A does is redirect existing dollars into a more efficient system.

Even if it were modestly more, it's the right thing to do as everyone is covered.
Click to expand...

Just to point out.. the vast majority of UHC countries.. still have private insurance.. so their are still private insurance premiums.

And on medicare in this country.. Medicare part B and Medicare D.. only pay a portion of the costs.. and so in this country.. people usually go and get a supplemental insurance .. from the private market.. so their is still a premium.

In addition.. there is a premium for Medicare part B anyway.

And the private insurance industry actually administers medicare.. and Medicaid.
 
I'm Supposn said:
Nickyjo, I don't doubt that many Republican leaders fear that the USA will adopt some basic government medical insurance policy that's no less inclusive than that of Canada.
They're aware that no nation having enacted some medical insurance policy recognizing medical insurance as a matter of government's concern. No nation has or will likely ever regress to medical care being entirely dependent upon individuals' wealth. I suppose rarely (if ever), has any such Republican leaders publicly acknowledged that was their motive for opposing any improvements of government support for medical insurance.

When Obama was elected, Republican Party's policy has been refraining to contribute or cooperate with anything proposed or supported by Democrats. Their motive is to not appear to be concurring with Democrats. Republicans have diligently continued this practice to the extents that they will not cooperate with Democrats to pass what Republicans have themselves previously advocated.
Respectfully, Supposn
Refer to:
Click to expand...

What I don’t get is why. Some of this stems from Gingrich’s guerrilla warfare suggestions, I suppose, but to what end? I can understand the Libertarian philosophy, but that is not what the GOP base is about. They are not ready to support efforts dismantle the administrative state. It seems to me that republicans could expand their appeal by focusing on how they might make what we have function more efficiently, poke holes in liberal foolishness they see, and act as breaks on unneeded legislation. But the racial signaling they tolerate from Trump alienates people as much as the left’s campus-based political correctness does.
 
Medicare-for-All, an approach championed most recently by Senator Sanders in the Senate and Representative Ellison in the House, represents the most sweeping proposed change to the U.S. health insurance system among these proposals. Once fully implemented, a single, federal, government-administered program would provide coverage to all U.S. residents. Medicare-for-All would replace virtually all other sources of private health coverage (employment-sponsored plans and insurance offered inside and outside ACA marketplaces) and most public programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP. Medicare-for-All would result in a major shift in the way in which health care is financed in the U.S. — away from households, employers and states to the federal government and taxpayers.
 
If the law is struck down without a plan to replace it, this means millions of people could lose coverage, which would be a political disaster for Trump — especially as more than half of Americans hold a “very” or “somewhat” favorable view of the health law.

This is according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has tracked the law’s favorability every month since it was first signed into law nearly a decade ago in 2010. As you can see in the chart below1, while the health care law has struggled in popularity over the years, late 2016 marked an inflection point, in which the law inched upward in popularity among the American public (although it has remained largely unpopular among Republicans).
 
In 2017, 8.8 percent of people, or 28.5 million, did not have health insurance at any point during the year as measured by the CPS ASEC. The uninsured rate and number of uninsured in 2017 were not statistically different from 2016 (8.8 percent or 28.1 million
 
CPI-U, US CITY AVERAGE, MEDICAL CARE:
NSA +0.3% in May 2019 Historical Data

SA +0.3% in May 2019 Historical Data

NSA +2.1% since May 2018
 
jaeger19 said:
So.. lets say they enact Medicare for all... and when folks find out that its NOT like medicare.. and that they have worse insurance than they had before? Gonna be tough for the democrats. OR they are going to have to forego their promises of reducing costs....
Click to expand...

To an extent that happened with ACA - due to the bureaucratic ins and outs, exchanges etc, some people lost some autonomy or their choice of doctor. It was imperfect, yes. Moreover public healthcare is not without its limitations: waiting lines, more bureaucracy and so on. It won;t be all rainbows and unicorns. But for those who have no healthcare at all, there is no denying that 'something' is better than nothing at all. in that sense it will reduce costs for those who were already priced out of healthcare: they won't have to pay with their lives, or go bankrupt just to survive.

But this is not actually rocket science. This precarious 'balancing act' opponents of single payer speak of has already been largely ironed out by canada, the UK, NZ and many western European countries. America just has a larger scale that's all: private insurers and their providers cater for those can afford superior (or at least quicker) care; the public health system picks up the tab for the poor, unemployed, elderly (as it already does in some cases in the US) and those who otherwise couldn't afford it at all. It's all been done before. The only hypotheticals are artificial roadblocks put up by those who think the poor simply don't deserve healthcare.
 
Last edited:
Medicare for all would essentially eliminate employer provided health insurance. Disruption
 
jaeger19 said:
Just to point out.. the vast majority of UHC countries.. still have private insurance.. so their are still private insurance premiums.

And on medicare in this country.. Medicare part B and Medicare D.. only pay a portion of the costs.. and so in this country.. people usually go and get a supplemental insurance .. from the private market.. so their is still a premium.

In addition.. there is a premium for Medicare part B anyway.

And the private insurance industry actually administers medicare.. and Medicaid.
Click to expand...


A new health bill would no doubt make some changes to the existing medicare system.
 
OscarLevant said:
A new health bill would no doubt make some changes to the existing medicare system.
Click to expand...


Medicare-for-All, an approach championed most recently by Senator Sanders in the Senate and Representative Ellison in the House, represents the most sweeping proposed change to the U.S. health insurance system among these proposals. Once fully implemented, a single, federal, government-administered program would provide coverage to all U.S. residents. Medicare-for-All would replace virtually all other sources of private health coverage (employment-sponsored plans and insurance offered inside and outside ACA marketplaces) and most public programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP. Medicare-for-All would result in a major shift in the way in which health care is financed in the U.S. — away from households, employers and states to the federal government and taxpayers
 
OscarLevant said:
A new health bill would no doubt make some changes to the existing medicare system.
Click to expand...

Which would mean then that its not medicare.

Medicare for all proponents are using "medicare for all"... as a the bait.. in a bait and switch plan.

they use MEDICARE.. because Medicare is extremely popular in the US. But the switch will be in that fact that its NOT going to be like medicare… NOT if they plan to get the savings that medicare for all proponents say they are going to get.
 
Stuartbirdman said:
Medicare-for-All, an approach championed most recently by Senator Sanders in the Senate and Representative Ellison in the House, represents the most sweeping proposed change to the U.S. health insurance system among these proposals. Once fully implemented, a single, federal, government-administered program would provide coverage to all U.S. residents. Medicare-for-All would replace virtually all other sources of private health coverage (employment-sponsored plans and insurance offered inside and outside ACA marketplaces) and most public programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP. Medicare-for-All would result in a major shift in the way in which health care is financed in the U.S. — away from households, employers and states to the federal government and taxpayers
Click to expand...


I think we should take an interim step, have a "public option". Let them compete. If the PO pushes out the others, then it will happen on it's own volition gradually and not by force all at once.

Though I am a social democrat, I am not a socialist.
 
jaeger19 said:
Which would mean then that its not medicare.

Medicare for all proponents are using "medicare for all"... as a the bait.. in a bait and switch plan.

they use MEDICARE.. because Medicare is extremely popular in the US. But the switch will be in that fact that its NOT going to be like medicare… NOT if they plan to get the savings that medicare for all proponents say they are going to get.
Click to expand...


If it is not going to be like medicare, what is it going to be like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom