Trumpcare passed the House

@Real Music,

My mom and dad's Volvo has some excellent qualities but is still a lousy car. The sensible thing for them to do is just replace the whole car not piece-mill various parts from other makes and models until they get something that isn't crap.

1 Reply

@tibbleinparadise,

Quote:

My mom and dad's Volvo has some excellent qualities but is still a lousy car. The sensible thing for them to do is just replace the whole car not piece-mill various parts from other makes and models until they get something that isn't crap.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the whole law was scrapped and replaced with something entirely different. I would definitely be in favor of scrapping the law if it were replaced by a single-payer plan. Also known as Medicare for All.

2 Replies

@Real Music,

I would be totally for some sort of universal healthcare IF the entire system were ran by the government. No more for profit hospitals, no more private insurance companies, etc.

It cost me a tad over $80,000 to get my appendix removed. When you are emergent like that, you don't have time to shop around or get second opinion. You have time to get to the ER and take it up the ass because that is exactly what they do.

My dad's heart attack and emergency bypass surgery was over $200,000. Somebody somewhere is making a lot of money off sick folks.

0 Replies

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

Let's say for the sake of argument that the whole law was scrapped and replaced with something entirely different. I would definitely be in favor of scrapping the law if it were replaced by a single-payer plan. Also known as Medicare for All.

Single payer is a bad idea. The Left are clearly delusional about the term, and our health care system shouldn't be based on political delusions.

As far as "repeal and replace" verses "mend it don't end it" goes, those are just slogans. If the democrats participate in revising the system, it is reasonable that they will want to be able to claim that the new system is still based on Obamacare. And it is reasonable for the Republicans to want to claim that they repealed Obamacare.

It should be easy enough to come up with something that will allow both sides to claim victory. The hard part will be coming up with something that actually works well.

I recommend the German system. It seems closest in line with American values of free market competition.

In some ways the plan that just passed the House was a step towards the German system. In other ways the plan that just passed the House was a step away from the German system.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

CBO already said Trumpcare will take health insurance away from 24 million people. What kind of song and dance are you trying to sell?
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/03/13/trumpcare_would_leave_24_million_without_insurance_by_2026_says_cbo.html

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Yes I agree that single-payer has virtually no chance of becoming law in the near future. I do believe that single-payer eventually can become law, just not anytime soon. Single-payer supporters have to aggressively fight for it now, to have any chance of getting it in the future. The fight is a long term fight, not a short term fight. I fully support single-payer Medicare for All. For the time being while that fight is going on, fighting to maintain the basic protections contained in Obamacare must continue. I'm okay with modifying or tweaking Obamacare, but keeping basic protections in place.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What kind of song and dance are you trying to sell?

I was pointing out facts as I usually do. Not my fault when facts contradict Leftist delusions.

0 Replies

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

I fully support single-payer Medicare for All.

Do you understand what "single payer" means?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Do you understand what "single payer" means?

Yes I do. Single-payer is essentially the same thing as Medicare. Medicare is government health insurance that we all pay into our whole lives as a payroll tax. We are not eligible to utilize this government insurance until we reach the age of 65. If we had Medicare for all, we would all have this government health insurance over our whole lives. No one would have to wait until they were 65 years old anymore. Medicare currently is paid for by payroll Medicare taxes. Yes, I already know that if you expand Medicare to cover everyone off all ages will clearly cost the government much more money. In turn, our payroll Medicare taxes would be dramatically increased. The flip side of that is that we would no longer have to pay private health insurance premiums, high deductibles, or high co-payments. It also means that employers will no longer need to pay private health insurance premiums for their employees. Also, every man, woman, and child will have government health insurance automatically. The question is, will the increased Medicare payroll taxes be lower than the private health insurance premiums, since one will be essentially be replacing the other? Medicare or government insurance is non-profit. It is fully paid for by our tax dollars. Private insurance is profit driven. Everybody will be paying their payroll Medicare taxes. That includes the young healthy people, the elderly, or anyone with pre-existing conditions. Medicare is a payroll tax. Your age or your health doesn't matter.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

OK, that was pretty accurate. But private insurance is not necessarily for profit. A private company can be not-for-profit.

Do you understand that the public option in Obamacare was never single payer?

Do you understand that many other countries around the world have a system other than single payer?

I ask those two questions because I hear so many on the Left refer to the public option and other countries' systems as single payer when they really are not.

Why do you think that single payer would be a better fit to US values than the system that Germany has?

I ask that question because the German health care system seems to me to be a much better fit for American values than single payer.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

private insurance is not necessarily for profit. A private company can be not-for-profit.

I only know of (for profit) private health insurance. I am not aware of any (non-profit) health insurance companies.

Quote:

Do you understand that the public option in Obamacare was never single payer?

We dems wanted the public option to be in Obamacare, but it was not included in Obamacare.Yes, I also know that the public option is not a single-payer plan. The public option would have offered everyone the option to enroll into the government health insurance plan if they didn't want to enroll into private health insurance. That is not the same as a single-payer system

Quote:

I hear so many on the Left refer to the public option and other countries' systems as single payer when they really are not.

I cannot define the health care system of any country without knowing the specifics and details of their system.

Quote:

Why do you think that single payer would be a better fit to US values than the system that Germany has? I ask that question because the German health care system seems to me to be a much better fit for American values than single payer.

I cannot answer that question, because I have no knowledge of Germany's health care system. I can always research Germany's health care system and then give you my opinion.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

We dems wanted the public option to be in Obamacare, but it was not included in Obamacare.

It was half included. They created what they called "multi-state plans" that are half private and half government.

I've made sure to choose one of these multi-state plans every year because if my insurer denies me coverage for something, I can appeal to the government to possibly overrule them:

http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/multi-state-plan-program/external-review/

Real Music wrote:

Yes, I also know that the public option is not a single-payer plan.

Cool. Sorry about the silly questions, but you wouldn't believe what some people out there think.

Real Music wrote:

I cannot define the health care system of any country without knowing the specifics and details of their system.

This does a good job of comparing systems around the world, particularly in chapters 3 and 4:

http://agus34drajat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/health-care-systems_efficiency-and-policy-settings.pdf

Real Music wrote:

I cannot answer that question, because I have no knowledge of Germany's health care system. I can always research Germany's health care system and then give you my opinion.

Picture the Obamacare exchanges, but with not-for-profit insurers and tighter regulation. All the insurance companies compete against each other in the marketplace, which lowers costs and improves services.

If an insurance plan has an excessive amount of low-risk patients, it is required to pay into a special fund that then subsidizes insurance plans with lots of high-risk patients. That prevents situations where healthy people get concentrated in cheap insurance plans and sick people get concentrated in expensive insurance plans.

The use of a marketplace to lower costs and improve services seems more in line with American values than the other systems out there.

0 Replies

Trumpcare passed the House

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know