Will the Repub Health Care Plan pass the house

[Jack Hays]

What I'm asking is given vastly unequal opportunities in this country, what your version of justice requires. Besides, if equal opportunity is the goal, then it's certainly impossible to meet that goal if roughly half the country cannot reliably access our healthcare system without government assistance. The stress and financial burdens, as well as the practical difficulties, of succeeding while you or a loved one is ill and cannot afford basic treatment are obviously immense and a large burden that falls only on the poor.

I do not believe health care is a right. It is a benefit toward which people work. Everyone has that opportunity. For those who do not succeed there is charity.

 

[MAGAnificent]

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.

The best way to do it is for the government to for the most part back out of private healthcare and just regulate it within reason. That would allow market forces to control the cost of healthcare. And I know you do not want to hear it, but a single payer system with no profit motive will result in less available healthcare. That means less doctors, specialists hospital beds, MRI units, etc.

 

[chromium]

There's a decent chance it will pass the House, though it may have a harder time in the Senate. I think it has a better chance of passing both houses the longer the process drags on. Similar to the Democrats with the ACA, the Republicans may find themselves pressured to pass it before they risk possibly losing the necessary seats to get it done.

Hardly, they're trying to rush it precisely because they don't want the "town hall" spotlight that plagued the ACA, or the cascade of angry callers like what did in SOPA. They're trying to rush it thru before a real debate can take place, and to delay most of its implementation until after the next election, both because they know it's **** and they don't want to take responsibility for the crisis that will follow

 

[MAGAnificent]

addressed here :

https://www.debatepolitics.com/poll...pass-house-post1067008926.html#post1067008926

Healthcare paywall? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the eating habits or couch potato habits of so many Americans. And it also does not address the different methods that different nations use to come up with healthcare statistics. One example is infant mortality. We count newborns as live births if they take as much as one breath. Most other nations do not. Whatever our faults are, we are brutally honest on health statistics.

 

[Greenbeard]

Hardly, they're trying to rush it precisely because they don't want the "town hall" spotlight that plagued the ACA, or the cascade of angry callers like what did in SOPA. They're trying to rush it thru before a real debate can take place, and to delay most of its implementation until after the next election, both because they know it's **** and they don't want to take responsibility for the crisis that will follow

Indeed. They're moving to strip 24 million people of coverage with only two weeks of public discussion of the proposal! Not to mention zero hearings and virtually no debate in Congress. This is absurd.

 

[chromium]

Indeed. They're moving to strip 24 million people of coverage with only two weeks of public discussion of the proposal! Not to mention zero hearings and virtually no debate in Congress. This is absurd.

It reminds me of the emergency session that created HB2 in north carolina. Such evil tactics are often met with unexpected backlash

Like i said, if they want to create a push like never before for single payer, they should carry on

 

[JasperL]

I do not believe health care is a right. It is a benefit toward which people work. Everyone has that opportunity. For those who do not succeed there is charity.

OK, so you just don't really care about opportunity either, or our failure to provide equal opportunity, because not everyone can have the innate skills, access to a quality education, college, etc. to obtain a good job with benefits. There are millions and millions of those jobs, they are necessary, and people will fill them. And for those without that opportunity, but who work and do the job that is asked that make all our lives easier and the economy hum, you just say, "Tough luck, you can beg."

 

[Helix]

The best way to do it is for the government to for the most part back out of private healthcare and just regulate it within reason. That would allow market forces to control the cost of healthcare. And I know you do not want to hear it, but a single payer system with no profit motive will result in less available healthcare. That means less doctors, specialists hospital beds, MRI units, etc.

the rest of the first world is delivering the same or better healthcare for a fraction of the price. we should study competing systems and then make a custom-fit solution for the US. it's not going to be solved by laissez faire, though.

Healthcare paywall? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the eating habits or couch potato habits of so many Americans. And it also does not address the different methods that different nations use to come up with healthcare statistics. One example is infant mortality. We count newborns as live births if they take as much as one breath. Most other nations do not. Whatever our faults are, we are brutally honest on health statistics.

of course putting up a paywall is going to discourage people from getting preventative care / early treatment. if a service is potentially very expensive, you don't use it unless you have to. meanwhile, that isn't the case in most other first world countries. coincidentally, the overall health indexes are better, and cost to society is much, much lower.

 

[MAGAnificent]

private healthcare is rationed, as well.

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

Private Healthcare is absolutely not rationed. Attempting to broaden the definition of rationing to everything that is bought and sold is just silly.

Definition of rationing: The process of a governing body controlling the issuance of goods and services to the public.

If healthcare is available on the open market at any price, it is not rationed. When I served in the military overseas, there was only a specific amount of many items I was allowed to buy in the military PX. Same with gasoline that I put in my car. I was restricted to 100 Liters if I bought it on a US military base. It was not about what I could afford. It was how much the US government said I could buy. That is rationing.

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.

Simply not true:

NHS death rates four times higher than US | Daily Mail Online

Canadian Wait Times: While Politicians Dither, Patients Die | Bacchus Barua

Britons are going abroad for medical treatment due to long waiting lists in the UK | UK | News | Express.co.uk

NHS delays operations 'as it waits for patients to die or go private' - Telegraph

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/healthcare-wait-times-hit-20-weeks-in-2016-report-1.3171718

 

[Helix]

Private Healthcare is absolutely not rationed. Attempting to broaden the definition of rationing to everything that is bought and sold is just silly.

Definition of rationing: The process of a governing body controlling the issuance of goods and services to the public.

If healthcare is available on the open market at any price, it is not rationed. When I served in the military overseas, there was only a specific amount of many items I was allowed to buy in the military PX. Same with gasoline that I put in my car. I was restricted to 100 Liters if I bought it on a US military base. It was not about what I could afford. It was how much the US government said I could buy. That is rationing.



Simply not true:

NHS death rates four times higher than US | Daily Mail Online

Canadian Wait Times: While Politicians Dither, Patients Die*|*Bacchus Barua

Britons are going abroad for medical treatment due to long waiting lists in the UK | UK | News | Express.co.uk

NHS delays operations 'as it waits for patients to die or go private' - Telegraph

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/healthcare-wait-times-hit-20-weeks-in-2016-report-1.3171718

please. private healthcare is ABSOLUTELY rationed. i'm not even going to waste time on this one. read the link.

 

[Jack Hays]

OK, so you just don't really care about opportunity either, or our failure to provide equal opportunity, because not everyone can have the innate skills, access to a quality education, college, etc. to obtain a good job with benefits. There are millions and millions of those jobs, they are necessary, and people will fill them. And for those without that opportunity, but who work and do the job that is asked that make all our lives easier and the economy hum, you just say, "Tough luck, you can beg."

There is nothing to be done about "innate skills." Those are beyond the reach of any government. As for access to education, etc., I favor assistance there.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Debunking Canadian health care myths – The Denver Post

The author on that site is basically saying:

"It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes."

It is true that Canada spends less money on healthcare then America does. However you have to take the claim of better outcomes with a grain of salt.

I'll give you a local example There are five major hospitals in my city. Four of them as a whole have better outcomes then the fifth. That fifth hospital is a fine hospital with a world class trauma center. However it is also where most of the indigents go, just because of where in the city it is located. The treatment at that hospital is just as good as at the other four hospitals, and nobody at anytime is turned down for treatment, however because of the poor health and poor health habits of so many of the patients that go to that hospital, that hospital averages more poor outcomes then the other four. Canada as a whole has much better health habits then we do. The fact that they are on a universal healthcare system does not make them healthier and the same patient going into American hospital would have as goof or better results then going into a Canadian hospital. My point is that you cannot claim that other nations healthcare systems are better unless you take all variables into account. Other nations also do not have the jackpot malpractice lawsuit system that we have in the US.

 

[JasperL]

There is nothing to be done about "innate skills." Those are beyond the reach of any government. As for access to education, etc., I favor assistance there.

Yeah, but it's not there yet, there are VAST differences in quality of public K-12 based on the income of the residents, and so even the education component isn't close to equal opportunity and never will be even if you cut off the equal opportunity at that point and ignore by definition half the population has an intelligence below average.

So you see the failures of opportunity, know they exist, recognize that it's an injustice, but don't care enough about the impact of that injustice to do a thing to mitigate those inevitable failures. I'm failing to see where any principle other than, "I got mine, screw you" is at work.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah, but it's not there yet, there are VAST differences in quality of public K-12 based on the income of the residents, and so even the education component isn't close to equal opportunity and never will be even if you cut off the equal opportunity at that point and ignore by definition half the population has an intelligence below average.

So you see the failures of opportunity, know they exist, recognize that it's an injustice, but don't care enough about the impact of that injustice to do a thing to mitigate those inevitable failures. I'm failing to see where any principle other than, "I got mine, screw you" is at work.

As I said, I favor assistance to level the playing field in education. That's the opportunity to be offered, and it includes college or other post-secondary education.

 

[MAGAnificent]

please. private healthcare is ABSOLUTELY rationed. i'm not even going to waste time on this one. read the link.

On the first point, private healthcare is absolutely "not rationed". If you do not want to take my word for it, look up the term "rationing" in the dictionary. Using your logic, bubble gum is rationed, because you have to pay for it. Same with French fries, soda pop, and toilet paper. Just because a good or service is not free does not mean it's rationed. If you still have parents or grandparents around who lived through World War 2, ask them what rationing is. They were only able to buy certain items based on how much the government allowed to be distributed. You were for instance limited to how much coffee or sugar you were able to buy, no matter how much money you had.


And the links I provided are not from right wing web sites. Those are liberal/progressive sources.

 

[Helix]

The author on that site is basically saying:

"It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes."

It is true that Canada spends less money on healthcare then America does. However you have to take the claim of better outcomes with a grain of salt.

I'll give you a local example There are five major hospitals in my city. Four of them as a whole have better outcomes then the fifth. That fifth hospital is a fine hospital with a world class trauma center. However it is also where most of the indigents go, just because of where in the city it is located. The treatment at that hospital is just as good as at the other four hospitals, and nobody at anytime is turned down for treatment, however because of the poor health and poor health habits of so many of the patients that go to that hospital, that hospital averages more poor outcomes then the other four. Canada as a whole has much better health habits then we do. The fact that they are on a universal healthcare system does not make them healthier and the same patient going into American hospital would have as goof or better results then going into a Canadian hospital. My point is that you cannot claim that other nations healthcare systems are better unless you take all variables into account. Other nations also do not have the jackpot malpractice lawsuit system that we have in the US.

and in Canada, you don't have things like "that diagnostic test might cost me thousands out of pocket, so let's put it off for a few more years." here, you absolutely have that, and i have experienced it personally. as for the ambulance chasers, we might find some small point of agreement there. FFS, there are commercials inviting people to join in class action lawsuits. that is definitely not "free money."

On the first point, private healthcare is absolutely "not rationed". If you do not want to take my word for it, look up the term "rationing" in the dictionary. Using your logic, bubble gum is rationed, because you have to pay for it. Same with French fries, soda pop, and toilet paper. Just because a good or service is not free does not mean it's rationed. If you still have parents or grandparents around who lived through World War 2, ask them what rationing is. They were only able to buy certain items based on how much the government allowed to be distributed. You were for instance limited to how much coffee or sugar you were able to buy, no matter how much money you had.


And the links I provided are not from right wing web sites. Those are liberal/progressive sources.

our health care is rationed by cost, ability to pay, and treatments that your specific health insurance will pay for. this varies wildly by specific employment and even geographic area. that is beyond debate, and it is a point that i'm not willing to waste time on. your food analogy is also completely non-analogous. food is cheap, readily available, and there is no factor of geographic immediacy. i can get food anywhere for a low price. if a family member is seriously ill or i am injured, we're going to the local hospital, and we'll be paying whatever they charge, even if it's an absolutely ridiculous price.

 

[JasperL]

As I said, I favor assistance to level the playing field in education. That's the opportunity to be offered, and it includes college or other post-secondary education.

Well, great, I favor world peace, but making policy as if we have world peace isn't exactly rational.

The GOP is about to vote on a plan that CBO tells us will kick up to 24 million off of the insurance rolls (probably more now...). I don't see a provision to provide education assistance, so the passive "to be offered" leaves us hanging - by whom?

But the point is you don't care whether education assistance happens or not from a policy standpoint, you want to zero out Medicaid in any case and let them all beg. It's a pretty hollow principle from what I can see.

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, great, I favor world peace, but making policy as if we have world peace isn't exactly rational.

The GOP is about to vote on a plan that CBO tells us will kick up to 24 million off of the insurance rolls (probably more now...). I don't see a provision to provide education assistance, so the passive "to be offered" leaves us hanging - by whom?

But the point is you don't care whether education assistance happens or not from a policy standpoint, you want to zero out Medicaid in any case and let them all beg. It's a pretty hollow principle from what I can see.

That's about as incoherent a post as I have seen.

 

[JasperL]

That's about as incoherent a post as I have seen.

Sorry, but I'm trying to make sense of your incoherent position somehow linking the principle of equal opportunity with your belief that roughly 40% of non-seniors should have to beg for healthcare.

It's clear there is no link and the only principle at work, that I can see, is "I got mine, screw you."

 

[Jack Hays]

Sorry, but I'm trying to make sense of your incoherent position somehow linking the principle of equal opportunity with your belief that roughly 40% of non-seniors should have to beg for healthcare.

It's clear there is no link and the only principle at work, that I can see, is "I got mine, screw you."

As already posted, I don't regard health care as a right; it's a benefit to be earned or, failing that, received as charity. That's for everyone: equal opportunity.

I don't for a second believe that 24 million people who want health care insurance will lose it. First, that 24 million number includes millions who don't want it. Second, I have more faith than you that changes in the law will improve access.

 

[JasperL]

As already posted, I don't regard health care as a right; it's a benefit to be earned or, failing that, received as charity. That's for everyone: equal opportunity.

But you recognize there is no such thing as "equal opportunity." That's the disconnect. "That's for everyone: [this ideal that does not exist in reality]."

I don't for a second believe that 24 million people who want health care insurance will lose it. First, that 24 million number includes millions who don't want it. Second, I have more faith than you that changes in the law will improve access.

OK, so you're assuming alternative facts to come to your conclusion, which is essentially that we can cut something like $1.2 trillion in healthcare spending over 10 years at the federal level and MORE people will get insurance.

 

[Jack Hays]

But you recognize there is no such thing as "equal opportunity." That's the disconnect. "That's for everyone: [this ideal that does not exist in reality]."



OK, so you're assuming alternative facts to come to your conclusion, which is essentially that we can cut something like $1.2 trillion in healthcare spending over 10 years at the federal level and MORE people will get insurance.

No, I don't recognize there's no such thing as equal opportunity. I recognize that real world experience can fall short of the ideal.

Not alternative facts. Different forecast.

 

[JasperL]

No, I don't recognize there's no such thing as equal opportunity. I recognize that real world experience can fall short of the ideal.

So the ideal is real, it just does not exist on the ground - important distinction as we evaluate policy choices in the reality based world!! And you're basing your health care policy choice in part on 'this ideal that does not exist in reality' - which is of course what I said.

Not alternative facts. Different forecast.

A made up "forecast" that only exists in your head and that isn't based on any actual analysis. :roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

So the ideal is real, it just does not exist on the ground - important distinction as we evaluate policy choices in the reality based world!! And you're basing your health care policy choice in part on 'this ideal that does not exist in reality' - which is of course what I said.



A made up "forecast" that only exists in your head and that isn't based on any actual analysis. :roll:

You're still not getting it.

 

[JasperL]

You're still not getting it.

That's correct - I am not sure how one uses a principle that only exists in theory to justify a real world policy choice.

But of course the idea that those who cannot afford insurance and are not offered it at work (about 35-40% of the non-senior population) should have to beg for their healthcare is pretty insane all by itself, so I guess I shouldn't be expecting too much grounding of your preferences in political or economic realities.

The fundraising apparatus to fund those kinds of expenses year after year would be just immense and, in reality, unsustainable over any long period of time. Just for example, total giving - a record - totaled about $375 billion in the most recent year. Medicaid spending in the most recent year totaled about $550 billion. So all we'd need to do is, sustainably, in good times and bad, recessions and booms, is more than double ALL charitable giving, every year, and somehow find a way to efficiently allocate that money to thousands of communities all across the country in a way that didn't arbitrarily leave many areas flush with funds and others with nothing!