republican's healthcare plan

[earendel]

Well, when you consider the "good old days," it does work fairly well as opposed to people simply dying off quickly. Here's an article about the "good old days."

It depends on whether you want to live longer, or better.

As the costs rise, because new technologies developed funded by money (conscripted earnings) and as the uncontrolled spending of those conscripted earnings creates the inelastic demand for medical care, our mix of spending between healthcare and life's enjoyment will become more heavily weighted to healthcare. This is over a lifetime as while young you will pay for the elderly's extended but more expensive living so there will be less and less to spend on life's enjoyment.

The problem I have with all this is "whose choice"?

If I'm O.K. with refusing twice daily dialysis if needed when I'm 75 so when I'm younger I can fly across the country to play bridge, or make sure every year I get to see all the Oscar nominated movies in Dolby THX Widescreen in reclining seats, I should be able to make that choice. And I should be able to do those things with the money I earn and not have to pay for someone else's dialysis because they don't want to die, even though they lived a life of burgers, fries, cigars, and alcohol.

Here's the problem with that - when I'm younger, the possibility of needing dialysis when I'm 75 is remote. Indeed the odds are probably in my favor assuming a moderately healthy lifestyle. Do I need to choose to put money away against the possibility of needing dialysis? Yes. Am I going to choose that? Probably not.

Moreover, "lifestyle choices" are only a small part of the health care problem. What about those who are involved in accidents (I get hit by a bus and lose the use of my legs)? Should I be putting away money against the possibility that I'll be hit by a bus?

Then there are the issues surrounding "pre-existing conditions". Perhaps we should mandate genetic screening of everyone, so that they'll know about the health issues they'll have down the road and budget accordingly.

So let's say that everyone becomes intelligent and starts putting away money for health care. What does that do to the economy?

For those truly in need, there are charities to meet the gaps. And I'm O.K. with government programs paying for preventative care.

But if people are saving for their own health care costs, who's going to have money to give to charities?

[Bob78164]

Well, when you consider the "good old days," it does work fairly well as opposed to people simply dying off quickly. Here's an article about the "good old days."

It depends on whether you want to live longer, or better.

As the costs rise, because new technologies developed funded by money (conscripted earnings) and as the uncontrolled spending of those conscripted earnings creates the inelastic demand for medical care, our mix of spending between healthcare and life's enjoyment will become more heavily weighted to healthcare. This is over a lifetime as while young you will pay for the elderly's extended but more expensive living so there will be less and less to spend on life's enjoyment.

The problem I have with all this is "who's choice"?

If I'm O.K. with refusing twice daily dialysis if needed when I'm 75 so when I'm younger I can fly across the country to play bridge, or make sure every year I get to see all the Oscar nominated movies in Dolby THX Widescreen in reclining seats, I should be able to make that choice. And I should be able to do those things with the money I earn and not have to pay for someone else's dialysis because they don't want to die, even though they lived a life of burgers, fries, cigars, and alcohol.

This is where we're headed. No consequences to lifestyle choices (other than some discomfort) because we have all the money to spend to develop and deliver treatment to prolong the life in a self-damaged body. And unfortunately, there will be little left to life up to that point.

We will run out of money. And then there will be "death panels" deciding the age where dialysis is no longer provided, or deciding which patient gets the last remaining bed in the hospital.

We don't need the government to fund anything. Folks have money to pay for their healthcare (for the most part). Starbucks 2016 revenues (worldwide) were over $21 billion. Every single dollar of that was discretionary spend. It could have been spent for healthcare (or health insurance), but the customers decided they'd rather have a mocha grande or scone. The average American spends $65 month on cable. 258 billion cigarettes were sold in the U.S. last year. I don't have the $ that represents, but a lot of the money spent was by folks getting some of my conscripted earnings to supplement or fully pay for their healthcare.

For those truly in need, there are charities to meet the gaps. And I'm O.K. with government programs paying for preventative care.

Many say "It's not right that someone goes bankrupt due to medical costs". Why? It's no more unfair that a family going bankrupt due to the death of the primary wage earner. That happens all the time. Life is not fair. The government can not make it fair, or even fairer. It can only improve someone's life by taking from someone else's. There is no creation by government. Are we to now provide a life insurance stipend for every wage earner who dies so their family doesn't have to sell the house and move in with parents?

At the end of the day, people die. We will never be able to prevent that. We should get to choose how we live, what efforts we want to put forth and how we want to use the reward of those efforts. For those who choose to put in a lot of effort, the rewards are not guaranteed, but they should get to choose how those rewards are used, not having the government (as an agent of the less effort giving or rewarded folks) decide how those rewards are use.

We've spent the last fifty years proving that we won't run out of money. Europe is another set of data points proving that we won't run out of money to provide health care.

It comes down to a moral choice. I'm okay with requiring the rich to pay the taxes they're currently paying to fund the level of health care we have now. You're not. That's a perfectly valid moral choice (though it's one that I strongly disagree with, and I suspect most voters do as well). That's exactly the type of dispute the political process is designed to resolve. I just hope that enough Congressional Republicans listen to their constituents. It will be cold comfort to me if the price of Democrats retaking one or both chambers of Congress is health care for millions. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

It looks like Mitch McConnell has called time out on the health care bill until after the Fourth of July recess.

[jarnon]

So far, Medicare hasn't reached the crisis point where providing care to the elderly costs so much that it's ruining the lives of the working population. If it does, we'll have to confront these issues. Letting people opt out, with the understanding that they'll get no care when they inevitably will need it, is a drastic remedy.

The biggest cut in the Republican health care bill is to Medicaid. People eligible for Medicaid aren't making choices between health insurance and Starbucks or cable TV, but between health insurance and food or rent. I for one favor helping them out. Our representatives in government always have to make choices on spending taxpayers' money, such as public education and subsidized mass transit. In this case, the choice is between making it possible for the poor to afford health insurance and letting the very rich keep more of their money. I'm on the side of the poor.

[flockofseagulls104]

The 'Tax cuts for the rich' mantra is getting pretty old. Can the dems please come up with some new empty propaganda point?

[jarnon]

The 'Tax cuts for the rich' mantra is getting pretty old. Can the dems please come up with some new empty propaganda point?

The right wing was once so concerned about the national debt that they countenanced shutting down the government, defaulting on its loans, or cutting military spending. But they're OK with using the savings from repealing Obamacare not to reduce the debt, but to reduce the taxes on the 1%.

[flockofseagulls104]

The 'Tax cuts for the rich' mantra is getting pretty old. Can the dems please come up with some new empty propaganda point?

The right wing was once so concerned about the national debt that they countenanced shutting down the government, defaulting on its loans, or cutting military spending. But they're OK with using the savings from repealing Obamacare not to reduce the debt, but to reduce the taxes on the 1%.

Blah, blah,blah.
Read the above.

[earendel]

The 'Tax cuts for the rich' mantra is getting pretty old. Can the dems please come up with some new empty propaganda point?

The right wing was once so concerned about the national debt that they countenanced shutting down the government, defaulting on its loans, or cutting military spending. But they're OK with using the savings from repealing Obamacare not to reduce the debt, but to reduce the taxes on the 1%.

In fairness, the CBO did say that the BCRA would reduce the deficit by $321 billion over the next decade.

[silverscreenselect]

The 'Tax cuts for the rich' mantra is getting pretty old. Can the dems please come up with some new empty propaganda point?

Flockspeak: "New empty propaganda point."
Plain English: "The Truth."

[BackInTex]

People eligible for Medicaid aren't making choices between health insurance and Starbucks or cable TV, but between health insurance and food or rent.

Aren't or weren't? There is a difference. Consequences. We have none, I guess. Did no one listen to Aesop?

[Bob78164]

The 'Tax cuts for the rich' mantra is getting pretty old. Can the dems please come up with some new empty propaganda point?

[Jack Nicholson]YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH![/Jack Nicholson] --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

The 'Tax cuts for the rich' mantra is getting pretty old. Can the dems please come up with some new empty propaganda point?

[Jack Nicholson]YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH![/Jack Nicholson] --Bob

Hey bob, what happened to Jack in the movie?

[BackInTex]

The 'Tax cuts for the rich' mantra is getting pretty old. Can the dems please come up with some new empty propaganda point?

[Jack Nicholson]YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH![/Jack Nicholson] --Bob

Hey bob, what happened to Jack in the movie?

Good one!

[BackInTex]

[Bob78164]

People eligible for Medicaid aren't making choices between health insurance and Starbucks or cable TV, but between health insurance and food or rent.

Aren't or weren't? There is a difference. Consequences. We have none, I guess. Did no one listen to Aesop?

Here's an example of a voter for Donny who couldn't get coverage at any price prior to the Affordable Care Act. What choice did she make that prevented her from getting insurance? --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

My brother-in-law is exactly the type person that the article describes. For years, he had a good paying job working for the company that repairs the MARTA trains at the airport. All we ever heard from him was how bad the union and black people he worked with were (he used a different term to describe them). Now, both he and his ex-wife, both in their mid-50s are disabled with multiple health problems and pretty much unable to do any sort of work. The only reason they are alive today is because of the various government funding and the union benefits he got, not to mention their ability to get medical care today.

But they voted for Trump and would undoubtedly vote to re-elect him today.

[Bob Juch]

My brother-in-law is exactly the type person that the article describes. For years, he had a good paying job working for the company that repairs the MARTA trains at the airport. All we ever heard from him was how bad the union and black people he worked with were (he used a different term to describe them). Now, both he and his ex-wife, both in their mid-50s are disabled with multiple health problems and pretty much unable to do any sort of work. The only reason they are alive today is because of the various government funding and the union benefits he got, not to mention their ability to get medical care today.

But they voted for Trump and would undoubtedly vote to re-elect him today.

Ask him what he thinks of this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... replace-it

[flockofseagulls104]

There are just as many horror stories about how Obamacare has hurt people. Please let's not go down the anecdote trail. We need to fix it for everyone, and having government run it will eventually hurt most everyone.

[Bob78164]

There are just as many horror stories about how Obamacare has hurt people. Please let's not go down the anecdote trail. We need to fix it for everyone, and having government run it will eventually hurt most everyone.

No, there really aren't. No one has lost access to medical care because the Affordable Care Act was passed. Some people pay more than they used to pay for their insurance policies. Some are choosing to go "bare" (until they get sick). Of course, that was happening long before the Affordable Care Act passed, except that those who went "bare" would simply die from lack of treatment, or go bankrupt trying to pay for treatment.

Now it's true that a result of the Republicans breaking the system, insurance companies are less willing to participate in marketplaces and are charging much more for their policies than they would if Republicans weren't actively trying to sabotage the marketplaces. But the fix for that is easy. Republicans need to stop sabotaging the marketplaces and reassure carriers that the government really will keep the promises made to them in the Affordable Care Act. --Bob

[Beebs52]

There are just as many horror stories about how Obamacare has hurt people. Please let's not go down the anecdote trail. We need to fix it for everyone, and having government run it will eventually hurt most everyone.

No, there really aren't. No one has lost access to medical care because the Affordable Care Act was passed. Some people pay more than they used to pay for their insurance policies. Some are choosing to go "bare" (until they get sick). Of course, that was happening long before the Affordable Care Act passed, except that those who went "bare" would simply die from lack of treatment, or go bankrupt trying to pay for treatment.

Now it's true that a result of the Republicans breaking the system, insurance companies are less willing to participate in marketplaces and are charging much more for their policies than they would if Republicans weren't actively trying to sabotage the marketplaces. But the fix for that is easy. Republicans need to stop sabotaging the marketplaces and reassure carriers that the government really will keep the promises made to them in the Affordable Care Act. --Bob

If a deductible of 12000/year plus 15000 premiums for a working young family prevents you from going to the doc then yes obamacare does hurt people. Breaking the system, please.

[Bob Juch]

There are just as many horror stories about how Obamacare has hurt people. Please let's not go down the anecdote trail. We need to fix it for everyone, and having government run it will eventually hurt most everyone.

No, there really aren't. No one has lost access to medical care because the Affordable Care Act was passed. Some people pay more than they used to pay for their insurance policies. Some are choosing to go "bare" (until they get sick). Of course, that was happening long before the Affordable Care Act passed, except that those who went "bare" would simply die from lack of treatment, or go bankrupt trying to pay for treatment.

Now it's true that a result of the Republicans breaking the system, insurance companies are less willing to participate in marketplaces and are charging much more for their policies than they would if Republicans weren't actively trying to sabotage the marketplaces. But the fix for that is easy. Republicans need to stop sabotaging the marketplaces and reassure carriers that the government really will keep the promises made to them in the Affordable Care Act. --Bob

If a deductible of 12000/year plus 15000 premiums for a working young family prevents you from going to the doc then yes obamacare does hurt people. Breaking the system, please.

What were they paying before the ACA?

[Bob78164]

There are just as many horror stories about how Obamacare has hurt people. Please let's not go down the anecdote trail. We need to fix it for everyone, and having government run it will eventually hurt most everyone.

No, there really aren't. No one has lost access to medical care because the Affordable Care Act was passed. Some people pay more than they used to pay for their insurance policies. Some are choosing to go "bare" (until they get sick). Of course, that was happening long before the Affordable Care Act passed, except that those who went "bare" would simply die from lack of treatment, or go bankrupt trying to pay for treatment.

Now it's true that a result of the Republicans breaking the system, insurance companies are less willing to participate in marketplaces and are charging much more for their policies than they would if Republicans weren't actively trying to sabotage the marketplaces. But the fix for that is easy. Republicans need to stop sabotaging the marketplaces and reassure carriers that the government really will keep the promises made to them in the Affordable Care Act. --Bob

If a deductible of 12000/year plus 15000 premiums for a working young family prevents you from going to the doc then yes obamacare does hurt people. Breaking the system, please.

But the current bill will increase the deductible and cover less, so it won't help. In fact, in a lot of ways it will make those families worse off. So will a straight repeal, particularly for those with a pre-existing condition who won't be able to purchase policies at any price.

And a lot of those working young families (those below 400% of the federal poverty line) are entitled to subsidies under the Affordable Care Act so they'd be paying only a fraction of the premiums.

As I noted above, some of the cause of high premiums right now is Republican sabotage of the system. Much of the rest could be handled simply by increasing subsidies (to encourage more people to join the system before they get sick) and increasing the penalties for those who simply choose not to purchase insurance (same rationale). --Bob

[Beebs52]

No, there really aren't. No one has lost access to medical care because the Affordable Care Act was passed. Some people pay more than they used to pay for their insurance policies. Some are choosing to go "bare" (until they get sick). Of course, that was happening long before the Affordable Care Act passed, except that those who went "bare" would simply die from lack of treatment, or go bankrupt trying to pay for treatment.

Now it's true that a result of the Republicans breaking the system, insurance companies are less willing to participate in marketplaces and are charging much more for their policies than they would if Republicans weren't actively trying to sabotage the marketplaces. But the fix for that is easy. Republicans need to stop sabotaging the marketplaces and reassure carriers that the government really will keep the promises made to them in the Affordable Care Act. --Bob

If a deductible of 12000/year plus 15000 premiums for a working young family prevents you from going to the doc then yes obamacare does hurt people. Breaking the system, please.

What were they paying before the ACA?

Normally expensive. Employed as a realtor and not poverty level. Unintended consequences.

[Beebs52]

I agree that the entire healthcare system is flawed. It needs to be addressed by carriers and providers. But, pricing things out of the market to offer coverage to those who chose not to buy or can't afford it won't work. Fine, do a better job of screening those who truly truly can't afford it, and get something in place. Don't penalize the rest.
It comes down to what you consider insurance to be. It isn't an inalienable right. Most, MOST, people are covered under corporate plans. And demonizing Republicans as saboteurs is stupid. I agree they need to shit or get off the pot right now, but they didn't start the shitstorm. I don't know who really did.

[Beebs52]

Oh, I worked as an adjuster way back for a large company. While I/they were fair and equitable, a mantra of theirs, I have no illusions about insurance companies. They're like cockroaches. They'll never fail.