- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 6,762
- Reaction score
- 1,619
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
How do you ensure everyone is covered?
The conservative movement offered a ton of solutions that would work well.
1) Tort reform; giving more recourse against frivolous lawsuits- not in the bill
2) Allowing interstate competition among health insurance companies; would have extended more options to consumers, forcing better individual providers to improve. - not in the bill
3) Not conservative politicians, rather conservatives in economic, financial, and the health industry; Remove med-school cap on admissions, thus improving supply of doctors within only a few years.- not in the bill
4) More accountability. not correctly applied in the bill.
5) Removal of pre-existing conditions. - in the bill, but not done in a way that is economically viable.
How do you ensure everyone is covered?
Immediately it's not possible, but after prices deflate due to a more natural market everyone can afford it.How do you ensure everyone is covered?
And that right there was the point of the exercise. Democrats buying votes with my money.The 30 million people that finally get insurance are not going to vote republican.
I am not materialistic. I still believe in love for my fellow man.
He did.
Hilarycare.
USA-1 said:He tried.....
LIberalAvenger said:But Harry and Louise scared everybody
... with other people's money, that is.I am not materialistic. I still believe in love for my fellow man.
Three, I think the Republicans should have a positive alternative to replace the bill if they are going to campaign on rolling back this POS.
I am not materialistic. I still believe in love for my fellow man.
Hillarycare became the law of the land?? I must have missed that.
No, it's not really debatable at all. If someone steals from me and gives it to you, that's not me being generous. That's me being stolen from and you accepting stolen property.Well, that's debatable. It depends who the goose is. It's a basic chicken or egg question when it comes to, so called, wealth.
You can't without it costing an ass ton of money.
The is no silver bullet, single payer will not work here.
Immediately it's not possible, but after prices deflate due to a more natural market everyone can afford it.
Got'cha covered..... HR3400! :mrgreen:
Poor is relative, what is poor to one person, is not to another.Specifically,
the poor can't afford it - do we keep Medicaid?
the elderly can't afford it - they get sick a lot and their premiums would kick their ass. We promised them Medicare.
the sick can't afford it - even if ins companies had to accept those with pre-existing conditions, their premiums would be very high.
Correct, but you later touch on the point I'm making. If someone is so stupidly saying "there's no deaht panels" in there meaning, LITERALLY, there's nothing that says "Death Panel" in teh bill then they're correct...but that's a stupid point.
If they mean "there's no death panels in the Bill", ie "there are no panels that oversee the rationing of health care that is a more restrictive process than is currently present with insurance companies and places what level of treatment you get in the hands of government beuracrats with no method of appealing" which is what "Death Panels" were the hyper rhetoric term for, then they need to somehow prove that the very words already posted about in this thread somehow don't actually exist and we're all imagining it when we see them there.
Captain Courtesy had a really good plan that had conservative and liberal ideas in it, bout time he reposts it. The answer is there is no easy fix, but if we look at the actual causes we can make things affordable, not saying it will cover everyone, but there was a time when people could afford healthcare out of their own pockets, I'd like to see that plus having affordable insurance to protect against catastrophic loss. The only way to do that is to look through years of problems and fix the root causes.So single payer is where the government manages the health care system and everyone pays taxes for it to the government, right? Everyone is covered under single payer by being a part of the gov't plan. I don't like that.
When prices drop as the industry is deregulated, it will be more affordable but not everyone will be able to afford it. So everyone is not covered.
Specifically,
the poor can't afford it - do we keep Medicaid?
the elderly can't afford it - they get sick a lot and their premiums would kick their ass. We promised them Medicare.
the sick can't afford it - even if ins companies had to accept those with pre-existing conditions, their premiums would be very high.
Everyone pays for the poor and the elderly through taxes. Nobody pays for the sick.
I have had in mind that we cover everyone, but not with single payer. Most people go private. Peoples taxes go up to cover the sick, who are really uninsurable. We have a single government/co-op healthcare unit that insures or treats the poor, the old, and the sick. Cancel Medicaid and Medicare. Do it at the state level.
Like Zyph points out, my proposal means **** since we have this turd on Obama's desk. Of course, the turd doesn't cover everyone either. I was just trying to get a feel for how conservatives would cover everyone.
The plan is organized around seven principles:
First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;
Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay;
Third, it builds on the strength and diversity of our existing public and private systems of health financing and harmonizes them into an overall system;
Fourth, it uses public funds only where needed and requires no new Federal taxes;
Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the Federal Government.
Sixth, it encourages more effective use of our health care resources;
And finally, it is organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work--consumer, provider, insurer, State governments and the Federal Government.
That seems off. We have this:
- Your right to live materialistically or not materialistically.
- Your right to man-love, or not to man-love
vs.
- Forcing some people to pay for other people.
- Forcing everyone to purchase a specific good/service
Because you seem to be commenting on the first two, which hopefully everyone here supports...while ignoring the actual argument, which is the last two.
What I WANT to see, is people using FORCE to enforce my liberty to live materialistcally or not, to man-love or not, to provide charity or not, to purchase goods and services or not.
See the difference?
Life is unfair but your argument is oversimplified. We could talk about social darwinism vs socialism all day. Life is nothing more than organized chaos, anyway.
There are more ways to distribute wealth equally than extreme capitalism or even extreme socialism.
Speaking of force consider this. If I owe rent and I don't pay it and refuse to move then eventually I will be forced out by the sheriff with a gun. I never had any kids but I have been forced to pay for other people's children's education. I do not complain about this because of my ideology, which is kinda socialistic. It's who I am and who you are.
I never use the fire department or the police. But tax dollars still go to them. By most conservative logic if i support social service like firefighters and policemen i am a socialist?
No because firefighters and policemen are part and parcel with public safety and maintaining order. They are agents of the state. They are not an industry with the means of production being owned by the state.
People should really understand what socialism is before they start playing "gotcha games" with concepts they don't understand.
Poor is relative, what is poor to one person, is not to another.the poor can't afford it - do we keep Medicaid?
I don't think that 90% of anyone called "poor" are actually poor.
I hate the term with a passion.
The elderly can afford it, they just don't want to.the elderly can't afford it - they get sick a lot and their premiums would kick their ass. We promised them Medicare.
They are the most cash flush group of people in the U.S.
Most of their expenses come from end of life care.
That is why the "death panel" comments weren't entirely false.
You want to control elder care costs, do things to cut end of life care.
Depends on what you define as sick.the sick can't afford it - even if ins companies had to accept those with pre-existing conditions, their premiums would be very high.
Those who truly can't afford medical care are those with inborn disabilities, disabilities from injury, similar things like that.
I have absolutely no problem with covering people under a UHC structure limited to those conditions.
It would have to be strict though.
Obesity and the health affects of it are not a disability.
Type 2 diabetes can be controlled by diet, it is not a disability.
Minor "disabilities" should not be covered.
We have to many supposed disabled people, that really aren't disabled.
You ever notice the extremists almost always throw out blanket, empty, and cookie cutter arguments? I'd like to see some actual thought on a debate site. If I want mantra I'll go laugh at a rally.No because firefighters and policemen are part and parcel with public safety and maintaining order. They are agents of the state. They are not an industry with the means of production being owned by the state.
People should really understand what socialism is before they start playing "gotcha games" with concepts they don't understand.
I know exactly what socialism is. So you agree with me?
Captain Courtesy had a really good plan that had conservative and liberal ideas in it, bout time he reposts it. The answer is there is no easy fix, but if we look at the actual causes we can make things affordable, not saying it will cover everyone, but there was a time when people could afford healthcare out of their own pockets, I'd like to see that plus having affordable insurance to protect against catastrophic loss. The only way to do that is to look through years of problems and fix the root causes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?