The Republican health care plan Please explain

[Threegoofs]

Not the elderly to self pay...young people to save up the money for their healthcare needs when they retire.

And if they cannot save enough AND charities won't help AND they need more then basic healthcare...then TOUGH.

I have little desire to payout my tax dollars out to keep 80+ year olds alive for a few more years. 80 is a full life...if they want to live longer, then I suggest then take great care of themselves and save up for a great healthcare plan.

Now I am not getting into some nonsensical 'healthcare is sacred' argument.

If you have a point, back it up with unbiased, proven facts or I DON'T CARE care what your opinion is...no offense. That goes for anyone else on this subject.


Good day.

This is the libertarian Cowboy Utopia vision of America, where we all hold dear the freedom to die on the street from a treatable disease while clutching our bankroll and guns.

Our tax dollars then go to work carting off the dead and dying so we can walk on the sidewalks.

 

[mak2]

I do not believe healthcare is a right. I do not beleive anyone who cannot afford healtcare "deserves" it. What I do believe we are morally obliganted to care for the sick among us. Not for them, but for us, I do not want to live in a society in which people die because they cannot get basic medications they need and are readily available, but I do. We live in a rich society that clearly can afford healthcare for all. Either we continue to ration our healthcare by who can afford it, or we come up with an efficient means for us all to have healthcare. I dont believe a society will long survive that allows it citizens to die from lack of cash.

This line of inquiry is not about bias. We are trying to get you to clarify your sick fantasy. Young people today have about a trillion in student loan debt. They are not going to be able to save for retirement easily, never mind old age health care needs. Your idea of a health care utopia would look something like that of Mexico's system. It does exist. The elderly beg in the streets. There are some fine hospitals for the wealthy and some cr#ppy establishments for everyone else. People who get cancer- just die.

Thankfully, it is not going to happen here in the U.S.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I disagree, though I appreciate the originality.

Catastrophic healthcare is by FAR the most expensive. I fundamentally disagree with people being obese, smoking/drinking too much and leading sedentary lives...and then turning around and forcing the tax payers to fork over the dough for a quadruple bypass or wildly expensive lung/liver cancer treatments.
And it is a fact that those that do not take care of themselves have HUGELY greater risk of serious illnesses before 70.

If you want to abuse your body, then you better be able to afford the healthcare costs of doing so.

And if you are healthy, then your premiums should be low (if insurance companies are allowed to do their jobs properly, without so much government interference - they almost always would be).

I assume you disagree...so be it.

Well, of course I do.

Sure, people who are obese, who smoke, who have other unhealthy lifestyle choices should pay more than people who take care of themselves.

But, it's like fire insurance. Saying that catastrophic healthcare is the most expensive is like saying that a house burning to the ground is more expensive than a broken window. Nevertheless, insurance that really is insurance will pay for the burned down house, but won't pay for the broken window, that's on the homeowner.

Moreover, a house in a fire prone area is going to cost more to insure than one that is not. That's only fair, and should apply to health insurance as well.

 

[jmotivator]

Everyone? What republican concept makes sure all Americans have access to healthcare? How does the Bush plan insure everyone? Do some poor people get healthcare for "free?"

Is Obamacare insuring everyone?

 

[mak2]

That is the idea of the mandate, eveyone must be insured.

Is Obamacare insuring everyone?

 

[jmotivator]

That is the idea of the mandate, eveyone must be insured.

How's that working out?

 

[mak2]

Our healthcare system has been screwed up for 40 years, and you want it fixed pretty much overnight?

How's that working out?

 

[Linc]

Do the Republicans currently have a Health Care Plan that is currently being discussed in committee.
It would be nice to debate.

Is Obamacare insuring everyone?

Imagine how much easier it would be for you Cons to shut DEMs up if the GOP had more than Repeal .

 

[jmotivator]

Our healthcare system has been screwed up for 40 years, and you want it fixed pretty much overnight?

No, but apparently you do. Truth is Obamacare won't ensure everyone, won't even come close, and is more screwed up than the system it is meant to replace.

Demanding that the Republican plan "ensure everyone" is easy to accomplish if all you demand is the weak lip service the Democrats offer towards ensuring everyone.

 

[mak2]

The RW has not left themselves a way to insure everyone. No system they could propose could ever work. now they are just going to have to whine about it while the Dems actually come up with a systme that will work.

Do the Republicans currently have a Health Care Plan that is currently being discussed in committee.
It would be nice to debate.

Imagine how much easier it would be for you Cons to shut DEMs up if the GOP had more than Repeal .

 

[Linc]

Did you expect all 40 million to be insured overnight?

Is Obamacare insuring everyone?

The GOP is afraid to embrace REPAIR in an election year.

 

[mak2]

It will. That is why there is a mandate, and hopefully that is the first step to third party payer. I am not demanding that, it is simply a fact, a healthcare system cannot work if everyone does not have skin in the game. er money anyway.

No, but apparently you do. Truth is Obamacare won't ensure everyone, won't even come close, and is more screwed up than the system it is meant to replace.

Demanding that the Republican plan "ensure everyone" is easy to accomplish if all you demand is the weak lip service the Democrats offer towards ensuring everyone.

 

[jmotivator]

Imagine how much easier it would be for you Cons to shut DEMs up if the GOP had more than Repeal .

It's already been shown to you. The Republican plan isn't meant to be a universal fix all in one gigantic omnibus bill that nobody could read before signing. Demanding that it accomplish things that Obamacare can't and hasn't and won't is non-starter.

 

[Linc]

The RW has not left themselves a way to insure everyone.
No system they could propose could ever work.
now they are just going to have to whine about it while the Dems actually come up with a systme that will work.

I suspect insuring everyone will end up like employing everyone.
There are 5% that will never be insured and will fall through the cracks.

I would propose that any folks who report to the ER for treatment without insurance be turned over to the State or Feds.
A plan could then be started to try and give them preventative care and means-test their finances.

My answer to all means-testing is to have retired folks like me to means-test.
Us baby-boomers need to remember what JFK taught us, ask not what your country can do for you, .............

 

[mak2]

So like NIMBY said, got nuthin...

It's already been shown to you. The Republican plan isn't meant to be a universal fix all in one gigantic omnibus bill that nobody could read before signing. Demanding that it accomplish things that Obamacare can't and hasn't and won't is non-starter.

 

[JasperL]

No, but apparently you do. Truth is Obamacare won't ensure everyone, won't even come close, and is more screwed up than the system it is meant to replace.

Demanding that the Republican plan "ensure everyone" is easy to accomplish if all you demand is the weak lip service the Democrats offer towards ensuring everyone.

Heck, all anyone really expects is a GOPer plan that does as well as Obamacare. Should be easy. So let's wait till we see the GOPer plan and then compare. Problem is the 'replace' options that have been scored so far don't do as well in improving coverage or access in year 10 as Obamacare did in year 1.

In a way, I do agree though. We should just do single payer like the rest of the world and be done with it. Extend Medicare to age 0, maybe levy a payroll tax and/or financial services transaction tax necessary to fund that, and move on to some other problem.

 

[Linc]

There is no plan in committee being currently discussed with the purpose of voting on it.
It will be nice when there is and we can get past this electioneering .

It's already been shown to you. The Republican plan isn't meant to be a universal fix all in one gigantic omnibus bill that nobody could read before signing. Demanding that it accomplish things that Obamacare can't and hasn't and won't is non-starter.

 

[mak2]

The 5% is a reasonable number and will have to be accounted for, but still must participate in the same system. Means testing is probably how it would be handled.

I( suspect insuring everyone will end up like employing everyone.
There are 5% that will never be insured and will fall through the cracks.

I would propose that any folks who report to the ER for treatment without insurance be turned over to the State or Feds.
A plan could then be started to try and give them preventative care and means-test their finances.

My answer to all means-testing is to have retired folks like me to means-test.
Us baby-boomers need to remember what JFK taught us, ask not what your country can do for you, .............

 

[jmotivator]

It will. That is why there is a mandate, and hopefully that is the first step to third party payer. I am not demanding that, it is simply a fact, a healthcare system cannot work if everyone does not have skin in the game. er money anyway.

It won't. You are dreaming. The penalty structure ensures that for a large section of the population it will be cheaper to pay the fine than to get ensured. When the fines approach $3-4,000 (or more than the average cost of insurance) then maybe you will see some movement.... by people to get the law repealed.

In the same way many people vote Democrat in order to protect benefits, many will vote against the Democrats because this mandate is simply costing them money.

 

[Linc]

Where is Indiana on taking Medicaid Expansion?
I haven't heard much from Gov. Pence lately.
I do know you guys have the big NRA convention in Indy right now .

Our healthcare system has been screwed up for 40 years, and you want it fixed pretty much overnight?

 

[Linc]

The 5% is a reasonable number and will have to be accounted for, but still must participate in the same system.
Means testing is probably how it would be handled.

I am a believer in mass means-testing for every public expenditure.
Our society is simply too populated and intricate for the current number of gov't officials to handle.

The baby boomers have helped create the mess,
we must now solve it before those like Congressman Ryan can fix it, though I disagree with many of his priorities.

Just look at all the former IRS employees working for big bucks helping scofflaws dodge taxes.

 

[JasperL]

It won't. You are dreaming. The penalty structure ensures that for a large section of the population it will be cheaper to pay the fine than to get ensured. When the fines approach $3-4,000 (or more than the average cost of insurance) then maybe you will see some movement.... by people to get the law repealed.

In the same way many people vote Democrat in order to protect benefits, many will vote against the Democrats because this mandate is simply costing them money.

Ok, but the percentage of people who can afford healthcare but don't want to get it is fairly small. What about the people who want insurance and can now get it? And when they get sick won't go bankrupt?

I don't really understand the right wing opposition to the fines. We all agree, I think, that the uninsured GET care, they just offload the costs onto the rest of us. So what mechanism should we have to have them pay a portion of their own care?

 

[jmotivator]

Heck, all anyone really expects is a GOPer plan that does as well as Obamacare. Should be easy. So let's wait till we see the GOPer plan and then compare. Problem is the 'replace' options that have been scored so far don't do as well in improving coverage or access in year 10 as Obamacare did in year 1.

Speculative on both counts.

In a way, I do agree though. We should just do single payer like the rest of the world and be done with it. Extend Medicare to age 0, maybe levy a payroll tax and/or financial services transaction tax necessary to fund that, and move on to some other problem.

You don't need to tax anyone any more. That is what I have been saying all along. If you want a single payer system like UK then simply cancel Medicaid, Medicare and VA and re-purpose the money we are already collecting to fund a similar government system and leave the private system alone. The US already spends more public funds (as a % of GDP) than UK on health care. You don't need any more taxes, you just need to be willing to give up a few government programs.

 

[Threegoofs]

It's already been shown to you. The Republican plan isn't meant to be a universal fix all in one gigantic omnibus bill that nobody could read before signing. Demanding that it accomplish things that Obamacare can't and hasn't and won't is non-starter.

FDR outlined the GOP plan decades ago:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S3RHnKYNvx8

 

[JasperL]

I am a believer in mass means-testing for every public expenditure.
Our society is simply too populated and intricate for the current number of gov't officials to handle.

I don't agree. There's a reason why people who tell you they want to kill off nearly all 'entitlement' programs favor means testing, and it's because it shrinks the constituency for those programs and over time makes them easier to kill off/shrink benefits without angering their key supporters. Imagine how much easier it would be to cut Medicare benefits if the only people who were affected were the poor? Quite easy - most politicians wouldn't meet anyone affected except when they were forced to mingle with the actual 'public' and those folks don't give money!

And we really have no need to do this at the program level anyway - progressive taxes are another way to means test what we spend those taxes on. The whole jumble of tax incentives in the code that are 'means tested' are unnecessary. Instead of phasing out benefits, we should simply raise rates as income rises. We'd get to the same point.