Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 488
Joined: 26 Sep 2006, 10:19 am

Post 05 May 2017, 5:37 am

I'm wondering what the people here, particularly the Republicans, think of the bill that just got passed? İs this the way you think healthcare should go? What do you think are the positives of the bill? What do you think are the negatives?

What do you think will happen to the bill in the Senate?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 May 2017, 7:01 am

Diemo wrote:I'm wondering what the people here, particularly the Republicans, think of the bill that just got passed? İs this the way you think healthcare should go? What do you think are the positives of the bill? What do you think are the negatives?

What do you think will happen to the bill in the Senate?


I don't know.

It can't be worse than the ACA.

It will get changed in the Senate.

All I will say/predict is this:

1. Something will get signed into law. They've invested too much capital to let it fail.
2. The press will search high and low for ANY poor soul who falls through the cracks.
3. This will lead to a one-payer plan. I hate that, but it seems inevitable.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 May 2017, 8:20 am

It will lead to a single-player plan because at some point reality is going to trump ideology. The experience of other advanced western countries is that the most efficient way to provide health care, to cut out middle-men, to keep costs under control, and still provide effective outcomes is single-payer. We have been the free-market experiment in providing health care--how has that gone? A much higher percentage of our GDP going to health care with no discernible effect on life expectancy. In our country we have seen that Medicare--which deals with the most at risk patients, the elderly--has been an efficient program that is popular with the people it covers.

I am all for experimenting with ideas that come across the ideological spectrum. And if we were living like 5 years longer than other western countries...I would be saying will stick to our brand of health care, thank you. But we're not, in fact, getting a higher life expectancy even though we are spending so much more on health care.

The experiment has failed. Time to do what every other western country is doing. Two different systems have been tried out in the real world over a long period of time. One has been proven better.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 May 2017, 8:44 am

freeman3 wrote:It will lead to a single-player plan because at some point reality is going to trump ideology. The experience of other advanced western countries is that the most efficient way to provide health care, to cut out middle-men, to keep costs under control, and still provide effective outcomes is single-payer. We have been the free-market experiment in providing health care--how has that gone? A much higher percentage of our GDP going to health care with no discernible effect on life expectancy. In our country we have seen that Medicare--which deals with the most at risk patients, the elderly--has been an efficient program that is popular with the people it covers.

I am all for experimenting with ideas that come across the ideological spectrum. And if we were living like 5 years longer than other western countries...I would be saying will stick to our brand of health care, thank you. But we're not, in fact, getting a higher life expectancy even though we are spending so much more on health care.

The experiment has failed. Time to do what every other western country is doing. Two different systems have been tried out in the real world over a long period of time. One has been proven better.


Of course, I don't agree. However, I don't think it matters. The ACA was so bad and the response to it from "the right" is . . . Government-based. If government is the answer, then socialism will "win." In the end, we will all lose . . . control over our own lives.

Michelle Obama's lunch dictates was the camel's nose under the tent. When government controls all healthcare, government will tell us how to live.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 05 May 2017, 8:52 am

Doctor Fate wrote:When government controls all healthcare, government will tell us how to live.


Why you distrust government when it comes to healthcare, but trust government when it comes police and military?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 May 2017, 9:17 am

Conservatives had their chance here--they have a willing president and control Congress--but they had no real ideas on how to fix the existing system, at least any that were politically feasible. The pre-existing condition issue--where people get frozen out of health care once they have a serious medical condition--does not lend itself to a free-market solution. That band-aid they put on it is not going to work. Personally, I think they would have been better off just making anyone surcharged for a pre-existing condition eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, if you want to go away from single-payer. I think there is a general consensus now that people with pre-existing conditions who make decent money should not be kicked out of having health care coverage.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 May 2017, 10:03 am

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:When government controls all healthcare, government will tell us how to live.


Why you distrust government when it comes to healthcare, but trust government when it comes police and military?


Interesting question.

However, it's built on a faulty presupposition. I don't trust government. Period.

That said, there are certain things individuals cannot reasonably do for themselves--like defend the nation and secure their communities.

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing you don't mean I grant a blanket "trust" card re military and police. Maybe you'd like to get more specific?

My point re healthcare is this: when government controls it, government will seek to control costs. The "easiest" control is the "patients." Force them to eat less sugar, less HFCS, less fatty foods, more veggies, more fruit. Force them to exercise more.

Btw, when I say "force," I do not mean at gunpoint. I mean incentivize behavior with heavy taxes, fines, etc.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 May 2017, 10:07 am

freeman3 wrote:Conservatives had their chance here--they have a willing president and control Congress--but they had no real ideas on how to fix the existing system, at least any that were politically feasible. The pre-existing condition issue--where people get frozen out of health care once they have a serious medical condition--does not lend itself to a free-market solution.


That category is far too broad. For people with a pre-existing condition who had insurance, or were covered under their parents insurance, at the time of the incident/disease/whatever, there should be no problem. However, if the government encourages "freeriding," more people will do it.

That band-aid they put on it is not going to work. Personally, I think they would have been better off just making anyone surcharged for a pre-existing condition eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, if you want to go away from single-payer. I think there is a general consensus now that people with pre-existing conditions who make decent money should not be kicked out of having health care coverage.


Sure, because Democrats have made this an issue of "right" and have ignored cost.

It is not "insurance" to treat someone who has a pre-existing condition. "Insurance" is purchased to spread the risk, not to spread the cost of known conditions.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 May 2017, 10:20 am

That's an interesting point, DF about the government in a single-payer system forcing/encouraging people to be more healthy at the cost of individual freedom. Has that been true in other Western countries? If not, is there something unique about the US that would cause that to happen? I would think the opposite--Americans would be more resistant to that type of governmental control.

Danivon, does your government force you to eat your prescribed amount of veggies? I have this picture of Danivon in a bar watching football. He has his second pint of beer. He is just about to order a third when someone from the National Health Service steps in and says "two is quite enough for you, lad." We did not invest all that money into you just so you could hurt our health stats by drinking too much!" Oh, the horror! Thank God I love in a country where you can still drink yourself to death without governmental interference!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 May 2017, 12:44 pm

freeman3 wrote:That's an interesting point, DF about the government in a single-payer system forcing/encouraging people to be more healthy at the cost of individual freedom. Has that been true in other Western countries? If not, is there something unique about the US that would cause that to happen? I would think the opposite--Americans would be more resistant to that type of governmental control.


Isn't that what Michelle Obama's lunch program was all about?

Philadelphia, Oakland, and other cities have passed soda taxes. We have massive taxes and other restrictions on cigarettes. Once healthcare costs are fully socialized, just wait.

Of course, the government would never restrict our freedom! I mean it's not like they would force a background check on someone who just wanted to buy ammunition . . .

Liberals would never restrict freedom--unless it's freedom of speech, religion, the right to bear arms . . .
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 May 2017, 2:04 pm

“Historically speaking we are at the midpoint and we had seven years of Obamacare, changing expectations. I would predict that in less than seven years, we will be in a single-payer system,

“Look at the terms of the debate. Republicans are not arguing the free market anymore. They have sort of accepted the fact that the electorate sees healthcare as not just any commodity. It's not like purchasing a steak or a car. It is something people now have a sense that government ought to guarantee."

It’s likely that Republicans are going to suffer at the polls. And as a result of that, if that happens, you're going to get a sea change in opinion and then there’s only two ways to go: to a radically individualist system where the market rules or single-payer. And the country is not going to go back to radical individualist,

Charles Krauthammer

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarko ... sletterad=

If Krauthammer has reached this conclusion, and polling indicates the ACA is now majorly popular ...
the tipping point has been past.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 May 2017, 2:10 pm

Funny thing: we have a government-run healthcare system.

While Senator Warren and other nuts are saying the GOP plan will "kill people," our current system actually has killed them. It's called "The Veteran's Administration."

That's the future of American healthcare if Democrats have their way: unaccountable bureaucrats more interested in tee times and vacations than serving those they are paid to help.

Good times.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 06 May 2017, 8:30 am

freeman3 wrote:Danivon, does your government force you to eat your prescribed amount of veggies? I have this picture of Danivon in a bar watching football. He has his second pint of beer. He is just about to order a third when someone from the National Health Service steps in and says "two is quite enough for you, lad." We did not invest all that money into you just so you could hurt our health stats by drinking too much!" Oh, the horror! Thank God I love in a country where you can still drink yourself to death without governmental interference!
No, they do not. We have a general campaign to eat 5 a day (portions of fruit and veg), labelling on food and there is pressure for a sugar tax. But no compulsion.

And that picture is pretty funny. We are also quite free to drink ourselves to death without government interference.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 May 2017, 8:45 am

fate
Funny thing: we have a government-run healthcare system.

Not to worry. Trump is fixing it.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/20/trump ... alth-care/


The US also have government run insurance program.
Medicare. Medicaid.
Both very popular. Think they will go away?

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/medicare ... thday.html

The major difference between Medicare and any other countries national health insurance program is that only certain people qualify for the program. And the US program is hamstrung by laws which make it harder to run as efficiently as other countries programs. Against the will of the people.
A whopping 87 percent of respondents favored giving the federal government power to negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies,
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 May 2017, 9:15 am

rickyp wrote:fate
Funny thing: we have a government-run healthcare system.

Not to worry. Trump is fixing it.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/20/trump ... alth-care/


The US also have government run insurance program.
Medicare. Medicaid.
Both very popular. Think they will go away?

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/medicare ... thday.html

The major difference between Medicare and any other countries national health insurance program is that only certain people qualify for the program. And the US program is hamstrung by laws which make it harder to run as efficiently as other countries programs. Against the will of the people.
A whopping 87 percent of respondents favored giving the federal government power to negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies,


Negotiating drug prices = support for nationalized healthcare?

There you go again.