• 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!

GOP AGs Attack Healthcare

trouble13 said:
Pre existing comditions are the biggest problem with healthcare garuntees

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The only fair system ensures everyone gets the care they need.

Pre existing condition restrictions do not allow that, so they cannot be allowed.


Edit:

To clarify, I don't give a **** that it costs insurance companies money - if they can't make money without causing harm to people through action or inaction in providing care, they shouldn't exist.

Replace them with something that does.
 
Last edited:
Not just the GOP AGs, the Trump administration is also targeting pre-existing condition protections.

Technically the federal government is the defendant — the case is called Texas v. United States. But in June, the Trump Administration sided with the plaintiffs on the individual mandate, arguing in a brief that it and the pre-existing conditions protections were unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

That entire party has a vendetta against the sick.
 
The questions I have is why would they do that? What in the conservative brain thinks this is the right thing to do? How does this make the world better? What would Jesus do?
 
Nickyjo said:
The questions I have is why would they do that? What in the conservative brain thinks this is the right thing to do? How does this make the world better? What would Jesus do?
Click to expand...

Weep?
 
Nickyjo said:
The questions I have is why would they do that? What in the conservative brain thinks this is the right thing to do? How does this make the world better? What would Jesus do?
Click to expand...

It means wealthy people get more money.

That pretty much is the bottom line for all GOP policies.
 
Threegoofs said:
It means wealthy people get more money.

That pretty much is the bottom line for all GOP policies.
Click to expand...

It still doesn’t make sense. What is gained for the wealthy, a few more dollars? It can’t be they are so greedy. I can understand why they want tax relief, regulation relief, but what is their motivation? How much does it cost, say, the average multi-millionaire if Medicaid is expanded in their state per Obamacare guidelines. Am reminded of the line in “Wall Street” said to Gecko, “just how big of a yacht do you need to waterski behind?” If I have a billion, why do I need two?
 
Nickyjo said:
The questions I have is why would they do that? What in the conservative brain thinks this is the right thing to do? How does this make the world better? What would Jesus do?
Click to expand...

Certainly NOT vote Republican.
 
Nickyjo said:
It still doesn’t make sense. What is gained for the wealthy, a few more dollars? It can’t be they are so greedy. I can understand why they want tax relief, regulation relief, but what is their motivation? How much does it cost, say, the average multi-millionaire if Medicaid is expanded in their state per Obamacare guidelines. Am reminded of the line in “Wall Street” said to Gecko, “just how big of a yacht do you need to waterski behind?” If I have a billion, why do I need two?
Click to expand...

Seems odd...but that’s literally the way it is.
 
Nickyjo said:
It still doesn’t make sense. What is gained for the wealthy, a few more dollars? It can’t be they are so greedy. I can understand why they want tax relief, regulation relief, but what is their motivation? How much does it cost, say, the average multi-millionaire if Medicaid is expanded in their state per Obamacare guidelines. Am reminded of the line in “Wall Street” said to Gecko, “just how big of a yacht do you need to waterski behind?” If I have a billion, why do I need two?
Click to expand...

While that is all logical, you don't seem to get money: at some point its just a way to keep score.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/06/politics-envy-keenest-rich

Why do baseball players keep leaving one team for bigger contracts? Do you think a few more million per year really makes a difference in their lives? Not usually.... but, they are competitive beasts. They not only seek to be the MVP and win the series, they seek to be known as the highest paid.

At some point, greed is a sickness similar to alcoholism. The Bible mentions money more than love. It admonishes greed and love of money more than any other sin.
 
The Mark said:
The only fair system ensures everyone gets the care they need.

Pre existing condition restrictions do not allow that, so they cannot be allowed.


Edit:

To clarify, I don't give a **** that it costs insurance companies money - if they can't make money without causing harm to people through action or inaction in providing care, they shouldn't exist.

Replace them with something that does.
Click to expand...

That's what you THINK you support, but the reality is not what you think. At best a government run program can sort of guarantee that everyone will get the same level of care, but that doesn't mean everyone gets the care they need, especially since in a government program, like any other program, "need" is defined by someone other than the patient.

You don't NEED a hip replacement when pain meds and a wheelchair address the same issue. It's all about what the government decides you NEED based on what the government wants to pay. It's easy for elected officials and the Hollywood glitterati to pound the desk and demand government control of healthcare because, in the end, that healthcare will never apply to them.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
That's what you THINK you support, but the reality is not what you think. At best a government run program can sort of guarantee that everyone will get the same level of care, but that doesn't mean everyone gets the care they need, especially since in a government program, like any other program, "need" is defined by someone other than the patient.

You don't NEED a hip replacement when pain meds and a wheelchair address the same issue. It's all about what the government decides you NEED based on what the government wants to pay. It's easy for elected officials and the Hollywood glitterati to pound the desk and demand government control of healthcare because, in the end, that healthcare will never apply to them.
Click to expand...



Actually, it’s the government requirement that nobody, regardless of their medical/health condition, can be refused health insurance or have that coverage canceled or limited in any way. THAT is a government guarantee that private health insurers would not provide.

I would more likely get the care I need from a government that has already demonstrated a willingness to do more than private insurers are willing to do than I would get from those health insurers making the decisions of “need” themselves. Compared to the government-run, single-payer “Medicare for all” healthcare systems of the developed Euro countries, we are at the bottom of the list in terms of health outcomes and at the top of the list, by far, in terms of cost.

At least, this is what I KNOW.
 
The Mark said:
The only fair system ensures everyone gets the care they need.

Pre existing condition restrictions do not allow that, so they cannot be allowed.


Edit:

To clarify, I don't give a **** that it costs insurance companies money - if they can't make money without causing harm to people through action or inaction in providing care, they shouldn't exist.

Replace them with something that does.
Click to expand...



“Replace them with something that does.”

Yes, indeed.

The only time government should enter the private market is when that market fails to meet demand whether by choice, as in healthcare, or limited capabilities, as in our road/freeway system. That demand includes price, product and service within the definition of what that market supplies. Our healthcare system is a perfect example. The private market is unable to supply service to a significant portion of the market nor affordable price to the entire market. Hence, the government is rightfully, for the benefit of all, stepping-in to fill a void with a system (Medicare) that is proven to lower cost and provide healthcare for all with positive outcome.

A Republican principle is that the best and only way to meet demand is by the private market without government interference, whether everyone’s needs are met or not. Social Darwinism. “Survival of the Fittest” in a laissez-faire environment, pre-existing condition be damned. That goes for anything imaginable as long as the private market so chooses. Not only do Reps not want “Medicare for all”, they want Medicare, SS and all that is government-run to be privatized. That includes education and defense to whatever extent practicable.
 
jmotivator said:
That's what you THINK you support, but the reality is not what you think. At best a government run program can sort of guarantee that everyone will get the same level of care, but that doesn't mean everyone gets the care they need, especially since in a government program, like any other program, "need" is defined by someone other than the patient.

You don't NEED a hip replacement when pain meds and a wheelchair address the same issue. It's all about what the government decides you NEED based on what the government wants to pay. It's easy for elected officials and the Hollywood glitterati to pound the desk and demand government control of healthcare because, in the end, that healthcare will never apply to them.
Click to expand...
What you speak of is in the rules and regulations.

We can decide to define what is needed so that people get hip replacements.

There is nothing that prevents this, except bad decisions by those in charge, and we can change who is in charge.
 
time for single payer. the rest of the first world figured that out a number of decades ago.
 
bluesmoke said:
Actually, it’s the government requirement that nobody, regardless of their medical/health condition, can be refused health insurance or have that coverage canceled or limited in any way. THAT is a government guarantee that private health insurers would not provide.
Click to expand...

Well, no. There is no magic bullet. Health CARE, the ultimate goal of any system, is limited, and the various versions of insurance/government services are simply methods of distributing the healthcare resources. Having health INSURANCE isn't a guarantee of health CARE.

I would more likely get the care I need from a government that has already demonstrated a willingness to do more than private insurers are willing to do than I would get from those health insurers making the decisions of “need” themselves. Compared to the government-run, single-payer “Medicare for all” healthcare systems of the developed Euro countries, we are at the bottom of the list in terms of health outcomes and at the top of the list, by far, in terms of cost.
Click to expand...

Not really. The government has proven no such thing. You simply hope that in the government system you are valued more than others seeking care and therefor your perceived NEED and government perceived need coincide.

At least, this is what I KNOW.
Click to expand...

It's not really true, though. In many ways you are less likely to get treatment the treatment you want from the government because the government doesn't actually value you in the way you seem to think. Almost certainly they most cutting edge treatments for whatever serious illness you contract would be unavailable to you in a government system, and some of those government systems go so far as deny you the right to seek that treatment independently, even if you are able to secure payment.
 
The Mark said:
What you speak of is in the rules and regulations.
Click to expand...

Yep. And more specifically they are national regulations, that make it impossible to find alternatives to the federal rules. Like I said, your preferred system doesn't provide more healthcare it just, theoretically, provides it more evenly.

We can decide to define what is needed so that people get hip replacements.
Click to expand...

Not really, or not nearly as easily as you seem to think. All you need as evidence to that is to consider that you feel you NEED single payer... how is that working out for you?

There is nothing that prevents this, except bad decisions by those in charge, and we can change who is in charge.
Click to expand...

Again, how's that working out for you?
 
jmotivator said:
Yep. And more specifically they are national regulations, that make it impossible to find alternatives to the federal rules. Like I said, your preferred system doesn't provide more healthcare it just, theoretically, provides it more evenly.
Click to expand...
If it provides healthcare to those who cannot afford it right now, that'll be an improvement.
But I do not think you are correct - we'll need even more overall healthcare provision than we currently have to ensure everyone has enough.


jmotivator said:
Not really, or not nearly as easily as you seem to think. All you need as evidence to that is to consider that you feel you NEED single payer... how is that working out for you?
Click to expand...
There are people who avoid healthcare because they can't afford it.
To me, this proves that the private system has failed to provide healthcare where it is needed.
Thus, it must be replaced or at the very minimum augmented with some other system that will do what it can not or will not.

jmotivator said:
Again, how's that working out for you?
Click to expand...
Undetermined.
 
The Mark said:
If it provides healthcare to those who cannot afford it right now, that'll be an improvement.
But I do not think you are correct - we'll need even more overall healthcare provision than we currently have to ensure everyone has enough.
Click to expand...

People who can't afford healthcare have gotten healthcare for a very long time. There are some 4000 free clinics throughout the US, for starters.


There are people who avoid healthcare because they can't afford it.
To me, this proves that the private system has failed to provide healthcare where it is needed.
Thus, it must be replaced or at the very minimum augmented with some other system that will do what it can not or will not.
Click to expand...

People who have Obamacare insurance STILL don't get health care because they can't afford it.

People don't get medical treatment in public healthcare systems as well. You don't get to avoid shortages of healthcare resources in a public system. If anything, the public system exacerbates the problem.

Undetermined.
Click to expand...

Translation: It hasn't.
 
jmotivator said:
People who can't afford healthcare have gotten healthcare for a very long time. There are some 4000 free clinics throughout the US, for starters.
Click to expand...
Perhaps those provide some alleviating effect on the need.

But if there were a better healthcare system, they wouldn't be necessary.

jmotivator said:
People who have Obamacare insurance STILL don't get health care because they can't afford it.

People don't get medical treatment in public healthcare systems as well. You don't get to avoid shortages of healthcare resources in a public system. If anything, the public system exacerbates the problem.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know.
Obamacare tried to half-ass something that must be fully committed to or it fails.
I'm not sure if it can be fixed, as almost the only thing it tried to do to lower costs is basically no longer part of it.
Effectively it was subsidizing people so they could afford the current system's prices, but it didn't go far enough down that road to make enough difference - plenty of people just paid the fine or are still paying the fine, because the quality of insurance available even at subsidized prices was and is still too high.
It added some, but not enough, people to the system.

Perhaps the only thing it has done well at all is get people talking about the system and wanting something better.


jmotivator said:
Translation: It hasn't.
Click to expand...
No, undetermined - as in, I don't know one way or the other yet.
Doesn't need translated.
 
The Mark said:
Perhaps those provide some alleviating effect on the need.

But if there were a better healthcare system, they wouldn't be necessary.
Click to expand...

Actually they aren't much different from the kind of clinics that provide the vast majority of service in places like Canada.

Yes, I know.
Obamacare tried to half-ass something that must be fully committed to or it fails.
I'm not sure if it can be fixed, as almost the only thing it tried to do to lower costs is basically no longer part of it.
Effectively it was subsidizing people so they could afford the current system's prices, but it didn't go far enough down that road to make enough difference - plenty of people just paid the fine or are still paying the fine, because the quality of insurance available even at subsidized prices was and is still too high.
It added some, but not enough, people to the system.

Perhaps the only thing it has done well at all is get people talking about the system and wanting something better.
Click to expand...

Well sure, many Dems clear that the goal of Obamacare was to fail and bring on single payer. It was a sabotage bill, not a fix.


No, undetermined - as in, I don't know one way or the other yet.
Doesn't need translated.
Click to expand...

"Worked out for you", if it hasn't worked out yet then out hasn't worked out for you.

You struggle with the belief that someday you will have single payer, and then under the delusion that changing the program will be any quicker than implementing it. You are just confused and suffering from utopian idealism.
 
jmotivator said:
That's what you THINK you support, but the reality is not what you think. At best a government run program can sort of guarantee that everyone will get the same level of care, but that doesn't mean everyone gets the care they need, especially since in a government program, like any other program, "need" is defined by someone other than the patient.

You don't NEED a hip replacement when pain meds and a wheelchair address the same issue. It's all about what the government decides you NEED based on what the government wants to pay. It's easy for elected officials and the Hollywood glitterati to pound the desk and demand government control of healthcare because, in the end, that healthcare will never apply to them.
Click to expand...

Medicare already exists and pays for lots of hip replacements every year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom