• 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
Jack Hays said:
I don't have any of it. I'm indifferent, but I enjoy seeing the wretched ACA go down.
The law grants broad powers to the HHS Secretary to manage health care.
As I posted earlier, in phase three we'll see how much heat the Dems can stand opposing health care.
Click to expand...

"Opposing health care"? Whose plan starts with stripping 24 million people of coverage again?
 
JANFU said:
I am not referring to charity. I am stating we, US, Canada, Western EU countries as a developed society have responsibilities to those that need help and assistance.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between a responsibility and an obligation. I have no problem with my responsibility to be charitable. I don't believe a legal obligation should be imposed.
 
Greenbeard said:
"Opposing health care"? Whose plan starts with stripping 24 million people of coverage again?
Click to expand...

That's why they make the argument that access matters more than "coverage" that actually provides no access to health care. Regardless, Dems will either vote for the Repubs' bill or explain to people why they opposed it to settle a Washington score.
 
Jack Hays said:
That's why they make the argument that access matters more than "coverage" that actually provides no access to health care. Regardless, Dems will either vote for the Repubs' bill or explain to people why they opposed it to settle a Washington score.
Click to expand...

Polling bears out the reality that most people recognize the GOP bill for the garbage it is. Even the GOP isn't trying to defend it anymore, they're just making up imaginary future bills that will make it suck less. (Guess what? Those won't materialize.)

Anyway, the GOP bill raises deductibles so this "access" talking point doesn't even make sense.
 
Greenbeard said:
Polling bears out the reality that most people recognize the GOP bill for the garbage it is. Even the GOP isn't trying to defend it anymore, they're just making up imaginary future bills that will make it suck less. (Guess what? Those won't materialize.)

Anyway, the GOP bill raises deductibles so this "access" talking point doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

We shall see.
 
Jack Hays said:
There's a difference between a responsibility and an obligation. I have no problem with my responsibility to be charitable. I don't believe a legal obligation should be imposed.
Click to expand...

Never stated it was a legal obligation. I believe it is a just societies responsibility.
The question to be asked is why the US, the greatest economy in the world, cannot afford medical coverage for all?
 
Helix said:
we'll be forced into one if the current hodgepodge system fails badly enough. since you like this system so much, i'd assume that you'd support keeping it going as long as possible. if you soak those who can't afford to pay and force them to seek primary care at the emergency room, the system is going to collapse.
Click to expand...

You have it wrong. Prior to Obamacare, I and pretty much every other conservative was sold on the fact that healthcare reform was needed. However Obamacare is not and never was about reform. It was about a government takeover of the healthcare system. I do not see Obamacare as private healthcare, even if it is not a single payer system. And while the original intention of Obamacare was that it would be a gateway into a single payer system, that's just not going to happen.
 
Moderate Right said:
But that is actually my point. I was pretty close to deciding myself to not have any health insurance at all because I could buy the sub sandwhiches directly from the providers. If prices are too high then many others would make the same decision as well and the health insurers wouldn't have enough customers to stay in business. They can only charge so much before it starts to backfire on them.
Click to expand...

That's what so many do not take the time to understand. if we allow market forces to work, they ultimately work. That's why Subway sells sandwiches for about 7 bucks rather then 30 bucks.
 
JANFU said:
Never stated it was a legal obligation. I believe it is a just societies responsibility.
The question to be asked is why the US, the greatest economy in the world, cannot afford medical coverage for all?
Click to expand...

We don't guarantee food, clothing or shelter for all, either. Not sure why health care should be different. I'm willing to help provide those things but I'm glad I don't live in a country which says I owe anyone those things.
 
Helix said:
ah, your anecdotal evidence outweighs the data, then. meanwhile, those countries with "crappy" healthcare are achieving the same or better results at a fraction of the cost, and i have yet to see a poster from another first world country who would agree to swap systems with us.

View attachment 67215370
Click to expand...

The so called better results aspect is fiction. It does not take into account modern American's lifestyle choices or the fact that not every nation is as honest as the US when it comes to statistics.
 
Jack Hays said:
We don't guarantee food, clothing or shelter for all, either. Not sure why health care should be different. I'm willing to help provide those things but I'm glad I don't live in a country which says I owe anyone those things.
Click to expand...

Do we let people freeze to death as they cannot afford heating bills, do we try to provide shelter to those that cannot afford a bed to sleep in, do we let people starve to death, no we do not.
What you have brought forward is what we as a society do, not always successfully to prevent these things occurring.
 
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...

Cheaper? Sure. Single payer keeps the costs down by rationing healthcare. There is only so much of it available. When government bean counters decide how many doctors and medical equipment is made available, we end up with much less of it. More efficient? Hell no! Do you really think medicare, Medicaid and VA Healthcare is efficient?
 
Helix said:
ah, your anecdotal evidence outweighs the data, then. meanwhile, those countries with "crappy" healthcare are achieving the same or better results at a fraction of the cost, and i have yet to see a poster from another first world country who would agree to swap systems with us.

View attachment 67215370
Click to expand...

They want to swap systems, or at least borrow ours for a while, when they need treatment that is either unavailable or rationed in their countries.
 
JANFU said:
Do we let people freeze to death as they cannot afford heating bills, do we try to provide shelter to those that cannot afford a bed to sleep in, do we let people starve to death, no we do not.
What you have brought forward is what we as a society do, not always successfully to prevent these things occurring.
Click to expand...

I am free to give as much or little as I want. I don't owe any of that to anyone. And no one owes them to me.
 
JasperL said:
Those statistics on paper are called evidence, and it is the only way to compare healthcare systems. And your problem is you don't trust any of it and so are making claims that are just false based on all the available evidence. Just for example, you claimed that in Europe they can rarely see the doctor but nearly all of Europe has more doctors per capita than the U.S. We are at 2.5 per thousand - France has over one third more doctors at 3.4 per thousand, Germany 3.8, Sweden 3.9. Canada does have a comparative shortage at 2.1.

The same is true for wait times - short answer is it depends. We have more specialists and fewer primary care, so the waits are shorter for the former but longer for the latter. It's a mixed bag. It's probably true if you have cancer, you'd rather be treated in the U.S. but our results aren't great, and if you have chronic illness, most of Europe does a better job than the U.S. So like most other things that depends as well.

It's seems fair to say that the U.S. gets roughly equivalent outcomes to the rest of the industrialized world as a whole, but at roughly twice the cost on average. Beyond that it's just impossible to make an evidence based argument that our system (without regard to cost) is obviously superior. In the U.S. it IS very good, but many other countries also have excellent healthcare systems, and yes, they get equivalent or better outcomes in many cases on all the benchmarks that matter.
Click to expand...

They are generalized and averaged and compare apples to oranges.
 
Jack Hays said:
I am free to give as much or little as I want. I don't owe any of that to anyone. And no one owes them to me.
Click to expand...

Not discounting your opinion. I referred to what we as a society consider to be a just society.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You have it wrong. Prior to Obamacare, I and pretty much every other conservative was sold on the fact that healthcare reform was needed. However Obamacare is not and never was about reform. It was about a government takeover of the healthcare system. I do not see Obamacare as private healthcare, even if it is not a single payer system. And while the original intention of Obamacare was that it would be a gateway into a single payer system, that's just not going to happen.
Click to expand...

it was about solving a real problem that is tough for legacy workers to fully see because they have old style health insurance policies which actually cover care. as we've established before, though, the ACA wasn't the best way to do it.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Cheaper? Sure. Single payer keeps the costs down by rationing healthcare. There is only so much of it available. When government bean counters decide how many doctors and medical equipment is made available, we end up with much less of it. More efficient? Hell no! Do you really think medicare, Medicaid and VA Healthcare is efficient?
Click to expand...

private healthcare is rationed, as well.

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

and yes, healthcare in other first world nations is more efficient, as they do not deliver primary care to the uninsured at the most expensive point of access.
 
Moderate Right said:
We've already gone down this road. Why do we have to go around in circles?
Click to expand...

apparently, Jack didn't read earlier replies which addressed his argument.
 
Helix said:
"bogus data?" lol.

as for your pre-existing conditions, i'd recommend not letting your coverage lapse, because that's the loophole that they are poised to put into the current protection.
Click to expand...

I think the AHCA is dead on arrival in the senate...

But, I'd just like to note that there should be a rule somewhere that says people aren't allowed to disregard data just because it doesn't support a conservative position. This is maddening.

It's like showing someone how they could save money and have higher satisfaction in life, and they pull their hat down over their head screaming, "I don't care! I don't care! I don't care!"




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Moderate Right said:
They are generalized and averaged and compare apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

That's the nature of data, as opposed to your anecdotes.

And I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming apples to oranges. At some levels, comparing healthcare in Alabama and Tennessee is apples and oranges, but we have to have some way to compare across cities, states and countries, and anecdotes don't cut it.
 
Winston said:
I think the AHCA is dead on arrival in the senate...

But, I'd just like to note that there should be a rule somewhere that says people aren't allowed to disregard data just because it doesn't support a conservative position. This is maddening.
Click to expand...

well, to be fair, both sides do this.

Winston said:
It's like showing someone how they could save money and have higher satisfaction in life, and they pull their hat down over their head screaming, "I don't care! I don't care! I don't care!"
Click to expand...

part of it is having legacy health insurance from a time when workers had more negotiating power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom