• 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!

I haven't seen one word from Republicans in years how to get everyone healthcare

Craig234 said:
So, what's their solution?
Click to expand...

There is no fixing healthcare in the US. The healthcare market has been destroyed by government regulation, and no one will even address the real problem, which is provider prices.

Prior to 1973, healthcare in the US was cheap and affordable. When healthcare is cheap, insurance is cheap. Then came the HMO act. Older readers will remember the hated HMOs, which were created by the federal government. Since then it's been more and more regulation designed to limit supply and destroy competition to the point that hospitals today often won't even give you a price, but the numerous medical cartels are making boatloads of cash, and they are too politically powerful to reign in.

Hospital prices are crazy expensive for the same reason real estate in the Bay area is crazy expensive - government intervention limiting supply.
 
Craig234 said:
All the discussion is Democrats suggestions solutions and Republicans spewing nonsense in response.

How would THEY get everyone healthcare, or will they admit they're happy for people to be killed without it?

All their party has actually DONE is to try to repeal Democratic programs, to leave tens of millions more without healthcare.

So, what's their solution?
Click to expand...

Health care is available to everyone in the US. Since it's available the left thinks it should be free to everyone.

We don't have the money. Where is the left's answer to how we pay for this?
 
Glitch said:
The solution is to remove the federal government from healthcare completely. They have no constitutional authority to be involving themselves in our healthcare in the first place. That is a power only the States have, not the federal government. The problem is the complete and utter lack of civics education in the US. These uneducated morons think the federal government has unlimited authority to do whatever they please, which is how we ended up with the unconstitutional Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 in the first place. It needs to be abolished completely.

Naturally the anti-American left doesn't give a damn about the US Constitution or the rule of law. They are just eager to instill their particular socialist fascism in order to destroy the nation as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

Protect the borders. Conduct the census. Fight the wars. Facilitate interstate commerce.

Everything else is reserved to the states.
 
Greenbeard said:
HSAs and high deductibles plans already exist today.
Click to expand...

yet they are closed network systems, and i never mentioned anything about high deductibles either.
we are changing how the system operates 100% not how it works now.

what you buy is how much coverage you want insurance to pay no deductibles or anything.
since all of your basic healthcare is taken care of by you and the HSA you can plan on how healthy you are yourself.

so if you want 70% coverage because it is cheaper and you don't get sick then there you have it.
if you are older and have more risk to getting sick then 90% might be the right coverage but you will pay more.

but this can be covered by the HSA. at least until you get on SS or medicare and if you want to switch over you can.
if you want to stay with your private coverage that is fine as well.

the government front loads all of the heatlthcare accounts with a 5k a year deposit.
companies can add another 10k tax deduction dollar for dollar and if they go up to 20k they will get a dollar for dollar plus a half dedution.

so it is possible in one year to have 25k sitting in your HSA.
 
aociswundumho said:
Hospital prices are crazy expensive for the same reason real estate in the Bay area is crazy expensive - government intervention limiting supply.
Click to expand...

The government financed the construction of hospitals for decades starting in 1946, specifically to increase the supply of hospital facilities. A substantial portion of the nation’s hospital capacity exists because of federal intervention. Meanwhile median bed occupancy is now somewhere around 65%.
 
Craig234 said:
All the discussion is Democrats suggestions solutions and Republicans spewing nonsense in response.

How would THEY get everyone healthcare, or will they admit they're happy for people to be killed without it?

All their party has actually DONE is to try to repeal Democratic programs, to leave tens of millions more without healthcare.

So, what's their solution?
Click to expand...

I given my solution many times on DP (and I'm a Republican).

SIAP by someone else.
Revert health care back to what it was before ACA, let it be employer funded, and place those folks who are unemployed and uninsurable into a gov't health care system like Medicaid. Drawbacks would be added cost to the federal government and convincing businesses to take over health care again.
 
yankintx said:
Please cite were exactly in the Constitution it is forbidden for the Feds to be involved in subsidized health care. This country subsidizes farmers and has done for decades.

I can assume you were against Trumps great health care replacement for the ACA. Perhaps Trump is s socialist eh ?
Click to expand...

Amendment 10. " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States"

IMO all government subsidies fall in that category.
 
cabse5 said:
I given my solution many times on DP (and I'm a Republican).

SIAP by someone else.
Revert health care back to what it was before ACA, let it be employer funded, and place those folks who are unemployed and uninsurable into a gov't health care system like Medicaid. Drawbacks would be added cost to the federal government and convincing businesses to take over health care again.
Click to expand...

So, the ACA then?
 
Greenbeard said:
The government financed the construction of hospitals for decades starting in 1946, specifically to increase the supply of hospital facilities. A substantial portion of the nation’s hospital capacity exists because of federal intervention. Meanwhile median bed occupancy is now somewhere around 65%.
Click to expand...

I was referring to labor, not physical buildings.
 
jimbo said:
Health care is available to everyone in the US.
Click to expand...

Tens of millions don't have healthcare because they can't afford it. That's not solving the problem of everyone having healthcare. So, admit you don't want tens of millions to have healthcare?
 
Craig234 said:
Tens of millions don't have healthcare because they can't afford it. That's not solving the problem of everyone having healthcare. So, admit you don't want tens of millions to have healthcare?
Click to expand...

Not true. No one is denied healthcare.

It's not whether or not I want tens of millions to have healthcare. The question is which tens of millions you want to pay for yours.
 
jimbo said:
Amendment 10. " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States"

IMO all government subsidies fall in that category.
Click to expand...
You would be correct unless there were an amendment passed to The Constitution stating the federal government should provide healthcare.
There isn't one, so, how did SCOTUS justify ACA? They designated ACA a tax.:lamo
 
aociswundumho said:
I was referring to labor, not physical buildings.
Click to expand...

The feds finance the vast majority of medical training in this country. Fewer federal dollars means fewer residency slots means fewer new physicians.

cabse5 said:
Bye. Bye. ACA is an attempt to force everyone into a gov't run, crappy, healthcare system. That's not necessary.
Click to expand...

A primarily employer-based system with federal subsidies, primarily via expanded Medicaid coverage, available to those who don’t have access to ESI is exactly the system we have right now under the ACA. Nearly 160 million people have insurance through their job right now.
 
cabse5 said:
You would be correct unless there were an amendment passed to The Constitution stating the federal government should provide healthcare.
There isn't one, so, how did SCOTUS justify ACA? They designated ACA a tax.:lamo
Click to expand...

If memory serves, this was after Obama had declared that OCare was not a tax.
 
jimbo said:
If memory serves, this was after Obama had declared that OCare was not a tax.
Click to expand...

All I remember is that ACA was reviewed as constitutional by SCOTUS because ACA was a tax. I don't remember much else 'cause the tax ruling irked me so much.
 
Greenbeard said:
The feds finance the vast majority of medical training in this country. Fewer federal dollars means fewer residency slots means fewer new physicians.



A primarily employer-based system with federal subsidies, primarily via expanded Medicaid coverage, available to those who don’t have access to ESI is exactly the system we have right now under the ACA. Nearly 160 million people have insurance through their job right now.
Click to expand...

If your 160 million figure for employer-based healthcare is correct, approx. 1/2 of the American population would be on a gov't run healthcare system with my proposal and no one would have to pay for outrageous premiums and/or deductibles for healthcare as they are now. At least, people aren't forced to have healthcare. That mandate was recently rolled back.

EDIT: Of course, having employer-based healthcare is an incentive to becoming part of employer-based healthcare.
Second Edit: Also, I'd like the figure for employer-based healthcare be more substantial of a percentage of the general population as it previously was before ACA.
 
Last edited:
Greenbeard said:
The feds finance the vast majority of medical training in this country. Fewer federal dollars means fewer residency slots means fewer new physicians.
Click to expand...

Thus demonstrating you have absolutely no clue what the problem is.

I'll be doing a post on healthcare soon showing how government intervention has destroyed the market.
 
The GOP doesnt have a plan to provide everyone health care. The GOP plan is ideally to provide a strong economy with opportunity for economic growth and to allow people to spend their money as they deem appropriate. If you are poor and decide the best way for you to spend your money is to sit around and eat **** food and smake and drink and do drugs and get tattoos and piercings and play video games and bitch about how unfair life is and how you cant afford medical insurance...then you should by golly have that right. ANd NO ONE should take away your right to stay in poverty and continue the ****ty practices and life choices that keep your family stuck in poverty for generations to come. But at the same time, you DONT have the right to piss away your income on **** AND have other people pay for your healthcare ON TOP OF subsidizing your food, your housing, giving a nice little EIC unearned tax bonus at the end of the year and subsidizing your participation in societal functions like schools public parks, public roads, public libraries, etc.

So you are correct. The GOP isnt going to propose a nanny state.
 
aociswundumho said:
Thus demonstrating you have absolutely no clue what the problem is.

I'll be doing a post on healthcare soon showing how government intervention has destroyed the market.
Click to expand...

We’ll be waiting breathlessly.
 
VanceMack said:
The GOP doesnt have a plan to provide everyone health care. The GOP plan is ideally to provide a strong economy with opportunity for economic growth and to allow people to spend their money as they deem appropriate. If you are poor and decide the best way for you to spend your money is to sit around and eat **** food and smake and drink and do drugs and get tattoos and piercings and play video games and bitch about how unfair life is and how you cant afford medical insurance...then you should by golly have that right. ANd NO ONE should take away your right to stay in poverty and continue the ****ty practices and life choices that keep your family stuck in poverty for generations to come. But at the same time, you DONT have the right to piss away your income on **** AND have other people pay for your healthcare ON TOP OF subsidizing your food, your housing, giving a nice little EIC unearned tax bonus at the end of the year and subsidizing your participation in societal functions like schools public parks, public roads, public libraries, etc.

So you are correct. The GOP isnt going to propose a nanny state.
Click to expand...

I suspect the GOP will lose because the GOP fails to develop a nanny state when it comes to healthcare.
 
cabse5 said:
I suspect the GOP will lose because the GOP fails to develop a nanny state when it comes to healthcare.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that we will as a society continue to devolve where the number of crippled dependent pets outnumber the productive members of society to the point where the crippled and dependent pets are able to exert more pressure on the government to have socialized programs passed. Heres the problem with that. The top 3%? They have enough wealth and carry enough of the burden that once it reaches that point, they can just pop smoke and checkout...take their money and sit back and not make more. When that happens...what the idiot left will finally realize is that they COULD have been productive and successful all along..they just werent and its nobodies fault but theirs and now who is going to take care of them? The illegals?
 
ludin said:
Easy setup a national HSA system that allows you to shop around for the healthcare you want and allow you to see any doctor or any hospital.
You cover your daily medical bills through the HSA and emergancy plans are there in case you have to be admitted to the hospital.

the hospitals then will just publish their rates for medical procedures and you can shop around for the best deal.
free market hospitalization is the only way to lower costs and bring about the most affordable healthcare.

if you want an example look at lassik eye surgery. isn't covered by insurance has gone from 2k an eye to 250 an eye.
Click to expand...

LOL.

You sure picked a stellar example. In fact, it’s a perfect one to illustrate how abjectly bad your idea is.

Nobody pays $250 for Lasik eye surgery. But they sure advertise it (at a ‘per eye’ price so the idiots think it’s even cheaper!). The actual price will always rise, due to the fact that most surgeries are more complicated (the bait and switch price is for a very small number of patients) and you’ll pay more for follow up and post op care, etc.

So having hospitals put prices on things will cause people to go for the low sticker price, which will be compensated for by charging a boatload for ‘extras’ or complications, leading you to regret the hospital encounter as much as someone regrets a $99 car repainting job from Earl Schieb.

Except your car can be repainted again. Your organ that was damaged from cut rate service cannot.
 
Glitch said:
Taking care of the military is not the same thing as Congress enacting healthcare for everyone. They simply where never given that power. I expect Congress to take responsibility for the health and well-being of those who serve in the military. I do not expect Congress to overstep their constitutional authority, and neither should you. Congress is limited to only those powers specifically granted to them by the US Constitution, and no other powers.

My attacks against the left are well justified and fully documented. You may wish to ignore history, but I certainly won't. Even the leftist posters in this thread are saying the US Constitution be damned. They don't give a **** about the rule of law. The left simple wish to impose their will on everyone else. This is also known as fascism. It was a leftist, Benito Mussolini, after all who created fascism. Nationalization of healthcare is just one means of accomplishing that goal.
Click to expand...

It wasn't for the military. According to the link in post #5, the Health Care coverage was for merchant seamen. And it was extended to more coverage for others.

As the nation grew and expanded, the system was also expanded to cover sailors working the private vessels sailing the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.

The program eventually became the Public Health Service, a government operated health service that exists to this day under the supervision of the Surgeon General.
 
jimbo said:
Not true. No one is denied healthcare.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. Tens of millions don't have healthcare coverage, and if they don't have coverage, they're denied healthcare. Why are you being dishonest about that?

It's not whether or not I want tens of millions to have healthcare. The question is which tens of millions you want to pay for yours.
Click to expand...

No, it's about whether or not you want tens of millions to have healthcare. You suggest your plan for how it's paid for. Or admit you want tens of millions to not have healthcare. Given your response to the question how you plan to get everyone healthcare, you appear to want many to not have it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom