• 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!

Will the Repub Health Care Plan pass the house

Will the Repub Health Care Plan pass the house?

  • Total voters
    52
Moderate Right said:
The thing is, most of the people I have talked to across the world have mostly said that they wouldn't trade their healthcare system for one in the US. Most of that is due to the fact that they like their "free" healthcare. But, they are used to their system and they don't realize how much it sucks compared to what we have in the US and they are also under the mistaken impression that in the US only the rich get good care while everyone else does not. That's just not true. When I say I would not trade my healthcare for any other country's nationalized health care system, I base that off of the many things I have heard THOUSANDS of them say about their healthcare, such as the several things I listed in a previous post. I would not want any of those things they go through for my healthcare. As I said in another post, maybe I'm a little different because of the fact that I do have more than one pre-existing condition and for those people, other than the cost factor, their healthcare for pre-existing conditions really sucks bigtime compared to here in the US. Maybe for the general public there system is superior but it is not for those of us with serious health conditions. They don't understand that because their system is all they have ever known and the fact that their system is "free".
Click to expand...

if you want to go anecdotal evidence, i can match you story for story. the data shows that the design of our healthcare delivery system is seriously inefficient and that those in other first world countries get the same kind of care that we do at a fraction of the cost. the first thing that we need to do is to move aways from the "you get whatever healthcare that your employer offers" model. that isn't a good setup for either the employer or the employee.
 
Helix said:
if you want to go anecdotal evidence, i can match you story for story. the data shows that the design of our healthcare delivery system is seriously inefficient and that those in other first world countries get the same kind of care that we do at a fraction of the cost. the first thing that we need to do is to move aways from the "you get whatever healthcare that your employer offers" model. that isn't a good setup for either the employer or the employee.
Click to expand...

But you offer no anecdotal evidence. You keep on offering up generalized stats. As I have said, other than the cost in other countries, their systems just suck when it comes to people with pre-existing conditions. I have also already said that it might be possible that the general public may be better off with the nationalized healthcare of other countries but not for those with serious health conditions. Those of us with serious health conditions fair worse off when we have to jump through the hoops of a nationalized health care system. In these cases, some might be better off financially with nationalized health care systems but as far as their actual health condition goes, they are usually worse off than here in the US.
 
Moderate Right said:
Actually, the way it currently reads, is if you let it lapse they will charge you 30% more the first year.
Click to expand...

and what happens to the copays? in my state, they've messed with Medicaid so that if you miss a payment, you get put on a plan with significantly higher premiums and copays.

either way, the goal is to push people into higher out of pocket plans that will result in more of them dropping health insurance and getting treated at emergency rooms, which you and i foot the bill for.


Moderate Right said:
After that the 30% surcharge would disappear. I had no trouble getting insurance and keeping it before Obamacare (even with my pre-existing conditions), even though they did charge me more for my policy than the average Joe. After Obamacare, they started charging me more than what I had previously paid before Obamacare, even though those rates were higher than what an average person's would be. And the networks, formularies, deductibles, and out of pocket costs were all worse under Obamacare. Obamacare has sucked for me in every way, shape and form to the point I could not afford it any more, and that was two years ago. Since then it has gone up another 25% from two years ago.
Click to expand...

my insurance costs have gone up by double digit percentages pretty much every year that i've been in the workforce. it's hard to blame the ACA for that, since i started my first professional job in late 1999.

meanwhile, this is almost a foreign language to workers in most of the rest of the first world.
 
Helix said:
if you want to go anecdotal evidence, i can match you story for story. the data shows that the design of our healthcare delivery system is seriously inefficient and that those in other first world countries get the same kind of care that we do at a fraction of the cost. the first thing that we need to do is to move aways from the "you get whatever healthcare that your employer offers" model. that isn't a good setup for either the employer or the employee.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is also true of K-12 public education. Putting (any?) government in charge is not necessarily going to cut costs or produce better results. I agree that having to accept employer provided health care decisions is not a great model either but that too is because of an added middle man. That is done mostly because of our goofy tax code - it saves the employer (and employees) money to have the employer give employees a tax free medical insurance benefit as opposed to simply paying those employees more and letting them decide whether (or where) to get medical care insurance. PPACA even took that option off the table for "large" employers.
 
I say end all forms of pubic assistance and so-call entitlements like American Health Care, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Charity Medical Facilities, Food Stamps, Housing Subsidies, Subsidized Child Care, Services for the Disabled, etc...up to the end of Trump's time in the office of the President. Oh, and auto-extend Trump's presidency to the full 8 years.

Then build a large cage in front of the Capitol building large enough to hold about 535 elected/appointed members of our government AKA, the Government of the United States of Trump, Inc. And then let the chips fall where they may.
 
Moderate Right said:
But you offer no anecdotal evidence. You keep on offering up generalized stats. As I have said, other than the cost in other countries, their systems just suck when it comes to people with pre-existing conditions. I have also already said that it might be possible that the general public may be better off with the nationalized healthcare of other countries but not for those with serious health conditions. Those of us with serious health conditions fair worse off when we have to jump through the hoops of a nationalized health care system. In these cases, some might be better off financially with nationalized health care systems but as far as their actual health condition goes, they are usually worse off than here in the US.
Click to expand...

ok, i'll offer some anecdotal evidence.

i paid nearly two grand to get my thumb superglued in 2013 with insurance.

the cost of medicines has varied wildly depending on my specific employment.

when i was in a band, we played a number of benefit shows for people who were unlucky enough to get cancer. i leaned right in the mid 2000s, and eventually, i had to ask myself "why is this even a thing?" then i had a gap in employment and had to COBRA, and during that time, there was a paperwork error. i saw what a routine diagnostic test actually costs (it was like $3,500.) luckily, the error was cleared up, and i only had to give them seven hundred and eighty bucks that i didn't have. i was involved in several "we have the best healthcare system in the world; don't let the government ruin it" discussions with some left wing assholes at the time, and my personal experiences and the data just didn't support my argument. that was a big part of the reason that my views on this issue changed.

and why should i be satisfied with a status quo of "welcome to America. don't get sick."

our health care distribution system needs serious help. we need to look to other first world health care systems and custom fit a solution for the US. the magic market isn't going to cut it, because this is an essential service with inelastic demand.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is also true of K-12 public education. Putting (any?) government in charge is not necessarily going to cut costs or produce better results. I agree that having to accept employer provided health care decisions is not a great model either but that too is because of an added middle man. That is done mostly because of our goofy tax code - it saves the employer (and employees) money to have the employer give employees a tax free medical insurance benefit as opposed to simply paying those employees more and letting them decide whether (or where) to get medical care insurance. PPACA even took that option off the table for "large" employers.
Click to expand...

our system is mostly based on inertia because there was a wage control measure under Roosevelt during WWII. employers could, however, offer perks, and health insurance was one option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942

Truman tried to fix it, but his plan was rejected, so here we are.
 
Helix said:
our system is mostly based on inertia because there was a wage control measure under Roosevelt during WWII. employers could, however, offer perks, and health insurance was one option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942

Truman tried to fix it, but his plan was rejected, so here we are.
Click to expand...

Like I said it is our goofy tax code that lets allowances and "fringe" benefits count as direct labor expenses (tax deductions for the employer) yet not as income to the employees. Perhaps we should have our employers pay all of our bills and just get a bit of running around money in the form of taxable income. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Like I said it is our goofy tax code that lets allowances and "fringe" benefits count as direct labor expenses (tax deductions for the employer) yet not as income to the employees. Perhaps we should have our employers pay all of our bills and just get a bit of running around money in the form of taxable income. ;)
Click to expand...

too close to the old "company town" thing.
 
Helix said:
too close to the old "company town" thing.
Click to expand...

The military does that pretty well now and does not compel the use of "company" facilities or issue script in leiu of cash. Add to that the many states that do not tax even the federally taxable "base bay" portion and it can be a sweet deal.

Taxability of Military Pay - Lawyers.com
 
Helix said:
ok, i'll offer some anecdotal evidence.

i paid nearly two grand to get my thumb superglued in 2013 with insurance.

the cost of medicines has varied wildly depending on my specific employment.

when i was in a band, we played a number of benefit shows for people who were unlucky enough to get cancer. i leaned right in the mid 2000s, and eventually, i had to ask myself "why is this even a thing?" then i had a gap in employment and had to COBRA, and during that time, there was a paperwork error. i saw what a routine diagnostic test actually costs (it was like $3,500.) luckily, the error was cleared up, and i only had to give them seven hundred and eighty bucks that i didn't have. i was involved in several "we have the best healthcare system in the world; don't let the government ruin it" discussions with some left wing assholes at the time, and my personal experiences and the data just didn't support my argument. that was a big part of the reason that my views on this issue changed.

and why should i be satisfied with a status quo of "welcome to America. don't get sick."

our health care distribution system needs serious help. we need to look to other first world health care systems and custom fit a solution for the US. the magic market isn't going to cut it, because this is an essential service with inelastic demand.
Click to expand...

I'm actually talking about the quality of care people receive in this country vs countries with nationalized healthcare, without bringing up generalized stats. I'm not talking about costs. I have already said that costs here in the US are higher than other countries where their healthcare is kind of "free". I care more about the quality of care than the cost and who can afford it and who cannot.
 
Moderate Right said:
I'm actually talking about the quality of care people receive in this country vs countries with nationalized healthcare, without bringing up generalized stats. I'm not talking about costs. I have already said that costs here in the US are higher than other countries where their healthcare is kind of "free". I care more about the quality of care than the cost and who can afford it and who cannot.
Click to expand...

seems that quality of care would be measurable in the form of outcomes, and other first world countries have the same or sometimes better outcomes depending on the disease in question.

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective - The Commonwealth Fund
 
JANFU said:
Will the Repub Health Care Plan pass the house?
Yes
No
Other Pls explain
Click to expand...

Not without major revisions. Not many things pass without modifications. Well, except Obamacare, that was pretty much shoved through fast.
 
Moderate Right said:
Easy to say when you are looking at statistics on paper. Try being the one with serious health conditions. The paper statistics only show generalities and averages.
Click to expand...

if health care in every other first world nation was as bad as the naysayers claim it is, the outcomes / life expectancy data would also reflect that. it doesn't. also, we have a pretty good mix of posters from Europe and Canada who would be flooding these threads with their own horror stories. i haven't noticed that happening much.
 
Helix said:
if health care in every other first world nation was as bad as the naysayers claim it is, the outcomes / life expectancy data would also reflect that. it doesn't. also, we have a pretty good mix of posters from Europe and Canada who would be flooding these threads with their own horror stories. i haven't noticed that happening much.
Click to expand...

That's because they are happy with their free health care. I never said they weren't happy with their nationalized healthcare. I'm basing everything I say on what I have heard them report of how their healthcare is and my perception of I would never want that nor would I put up with what they put up with that is the only thing they know. They are so grateful that their care is free they really don't understand that for those who can afford it over here, that our quality of care is far superior, especially for those with serious health conditions. The generalized and average health care statistics you read are too generalized and too averaged to have much meaning. For instance, the US has much more obesity than most countries with nationalized healthcare for two main reasons:

1. Many Americans have more money to become obese.

2. Many Americans are more poor and therefore eat more fast food and junk food to become obese.

The more obesity in the US effects health outcomes in the US to a greater degree than it does in countries with nationalized healthcare. This skews the life expectancy figures and we wind up comparing apples to oranges. That's just one aspect effecting life expectancy comparisons with other countries and all of their generalized and averaged statistics. As a person having serious health conditions I would not trade the US system for their nationalized healthcare systems one bit, other than the cost, and the cost is not worth the price of far inferior care unless you can't afford the cost, which I have always been able to, especially before Obamacare, and I have never been more than middle class.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
That's because they are happy with their free health care.
Click to expand...

i didn't argue that it was free. it's a whole hell of a lot cheaper and more efficient, though.

Moderate Right said:
I never said they weren't happy with their nationalized healthcare. I'm basing everything I say on what I have heard them report of how their healthcare is and my perception of I would never want that nor would I put up with what they put up with that is the only thing they know. They are so grateful that their care is free they really don't understand that for those who can afford it over here, that our quality of care is far superior, especially for those with serious health conditions. The generalized and average health care statistics you read are too generalized and too averaged to have much meaning. For instance, the US has much more obesity than most countries with nationalized healthcare for two main reasons:

1. Many Americans have more money to become obese.

2. Many Americans are more poor and therefore eat more fast food and junk food to become obese.
Click to expand...

and making access to healthcare stupidly and needlessly expensive contributes significantly, because it discourages people from getting regular checkups. many people only go to the doctor when it's situation critical, and at that point the conditions are a lot more difficult and expensive to treat.

Moderate Right said:
The more obesity in the US effects health outcomes in the US to a greater degree than it does in countries with nationalized healthcare. This skews the life expectancy figures and we wind up comparing apples to oranges. That's just one aspect effecting life expectancy comparisons with other countries.
Click to expand...

it's not comparing apples to oranges. readily available fattening foods exist in every first world country, yet the life expectancies in other countries are similar to or better than ours.
 
Helix said:
i didn't argue that it was free. it's a whole hell of a lot cheaper and more efficient, though.



and making access to healthcare stupidly and needlessly expensive contributes significantly, because it discourages people from getting regular checkups. many people only go to the doctor when it's situation critical, and at that point the conditions are a lot more difficult and expensive to treat.



it's not comparing apples to oranges. readily available fattening foods exist in every first world country, yet the life expectancies in other countries are similar to or better than ours.
Click to expand...

Are you denying that Americans are more obese than those in countries with nationalized healthcare? Of course that skews the results.
 
Moderate Right said:
Are you denying that Americans are more obese than those in countries with nationalized healthcare? Of course that skews the results.
Click to expand...

no, i'm arguing that part of the reason is that the healthcare paywall contributes to Americans being fatter and generally unhealthier than citizens of other countries. when there is a significant monetary cost between the patient and preventative treatment, that results in people waiting until they're really sick to seek medical attention.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes. Easily. It's political disaster for the Repubs if they don't pass it. Fear is a reliable motivator.
Click to expand...

If they leave millions without the coverage Trump promised.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Like I said it is our goofy tax code that lets allowances and "fringe" benefits count as direct labor expenses (tax deductions for the employer) yet not as income to the employees. Perhaps we should have our employers pay all of our bills and just get a bit of running around money in the form of taxable income. ;)
Click to expand...

Actually the tax laws could and would be a lot more simple if our government did not use taxes to manipulate the people and business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom