Repealing the ACA under Trump

[BigRedBuster]

As for the "cross state lines".....I wish they would just to ahead and pass that law. I don't think it's going to make a big difference either way. But, it would take it off the table and we can stop debating it. Or......if the insurance companies need to be able to set up networks in certain areas, cut the country into quarters...instead of states.

 

To me, debating this part is meaningless and it's being a waste of time.

[NM11046]

They bring up a good point about the potential downside of state line opening ... meaning the big companies can offer more for less due to their contracting power and thus they'd get a higher percentage of the healthy patients, thus screwing up the pools for the local insurance companies. AND that the state companies have to abide by state rules whereas those crossing lines may not be held to same.

[NM11046]

This part is BS.

 

Today’s health plans essentially provide enrollees with access to a local network of doctors and hospitals at a discounted price. ...

 

Right now, I know of situations where people with insurance walk into our local hospital and get charged a price. I then know people who will walk in with no insurance and the cost is a fraction of the insured cost.

 

Example:

 

We had an employee who had a heart attack. So, he had cardiac rehab at the local physical therapy facility. It would cost our insurance $500 every time. Meanwhile, I knew an old retired farmer who would go in and pay cash........$50.

A lot of that is dependent on the plans they're on, medicare/medicaid coverage, in or out of network etc. Not saying you're wrong - there are unfair pricing structures for sure, but part of the contracting with PHO's or HCS take the numbers into account that well care is happening within their "walls" and etc.

 

I don't disagree with you BRB, but it's more complicated than $x for X procedure no matter who is in front of them right now. Perhaps that simple change would be a good start aye?

[RedDenver]

That's because it's not a human right. It's not only a product/service, it's a luxury.

And here's the real core of your argument. Life itself is a luxury. What were those unalienable rights...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

I guess it's not as self-evident as the founding fathers thought.

[zoogs]

It's good to lay all the cards on the table. Now we know why we disagree. And now we know what "for the people" means.

 

I think if you believe in "rising tides lift all boats" then there's a strong argument for countries investing in their own human capital. We're a stronger country when healthcare is a universal right and there's universal access to education.

[RedDenver]

And offering other people's money to pay for things (at gunpoint) is not compassionate. It's morally reprehensible.

I almost missed this gem. The moral thing to do is let sick people die so people don't have to pay as much in taxes. Remember all those religions that advocate keeping your money instead of helping the sick and infirm? And when Christ said, "Screw Caesar! That money is yours!" and "But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, God loves that guy because withholding from others is what God is all about!!"

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

That's a really strange interpretation of my post.

 

Went back and corrected my typos....if that's what was causing the confusion.

To give a relatable example:

 

When Lasik eye surgery first emerged, it was extremely expensive. Today, it's a few thousand dollars. Why did the price fall so drastically?

This is a classic misunderstanding of healthcare. Lasik was forced to drop in price because of supply and demand: when the price was high fewer people got Lasik and as the cost went down the demand went up. But a very key point is that people could get glasses or contacts instead of Lasik. People had the choice to NOT get Lasik.

 

Now think about how that applies to the rest of healthcare. How do people not get treatment for a heart attack? Or cancer? Or liver disease, stroke, high blood pressure?

 

And think about how that is effected by the value of getting well. How much would you pay to save your own life? Or your mom? Or your kid?

 

This completely breaks the concept of a "free" market. That's why healthcare will continue to get worse under libertarian/conservative "free" market economic systems - the fundamental assumptions of those systems don't hold.

Thank you for the response. You're absolutely correct that there are more variables that come into play in regards to healthcare. Absolutely. Here's the issue, continuing with the metaphor:

 

If I'm an 18 year old who has been in 3 car accidents, obviously my insurer would look at me as a high risk driver, and my insurance premium is going to be astronomical. When I'm a more risky driver to insure, that cost doesn't get transferred across the car insurance market. And it shouldn't. But with Obamacare, that's precisely what happens, plus added taxes and subsidies.

 

The morality of providing free healthcare for all is in the right place, but the practicality isn't there. I realize that's a tough pill to swallow, but that's the truth.

 

As far as covering people with pre existing conditions, I've always been a firm believer in charity. There are an abundance of people, organizations, and charity groups in this world who have the means to help and are looking for ways to help.

 

Probably most importantly, we should always be leery about handing total control (and in most cases, even partial control) to the government. Using a specific example of that in regards to healthcare, all you have to do is look at the Gard family in London and what they've had to go through.

 

Wait.....are you actually implying the purpose of insurance is NOT to spread risk over large groups of people?

[wutthewut]

You're all missing the point. Not once did I say that we shouldn't take care of those who are less fortunate. Using your own money, time, and resources to do so is probably the greatest thing a person can do.

 

However, offering other people's money via the government is morally corrupt no matter how you slice it.

[mrandyk]

You're all missing the point. Not once did I say that we shouldn't take care of those who are less fortunate. Using your own money, time, and resources to do so is probably the greatest thing a person can do.

 

However, offering other people's money via the government is morally corrupt no matter how you slice it.

I don't have any kids, yet my taxes pay for the schools here. Load of morally corrupt garbage.

[sho]

You're all missing the point. Not once did I say that we shouldn't take care of those who are less fortunate. Using your own money, time, and resources to do so is probably the greatest thing a person can do.

 

However, offering other people's money via the government is morally corrupt no matter how you slice it.

That's what all insurance is, forced helping of those in need. Homeowners insurance, basically forced through mortgages, helps those in a crisis. I've never (knock on wood) have had to file a homeowners claim, but am I upset that I am forced to have insurance to own a home? No. Car insurance, in Nebraska, it's a requirement. Is anyone out there that thinks this is a bad thing and petitioning Ricketts to get rid of this? I'm all for freedom of choice, let people pick and choose the health insurance they want, but like other types of insurance, to be effective it should be mandatory. Yes, there are ways to get out of those forced insurances, I don't have to own a vehicle or a home, but if I want them I am required to have insurance. The same can be said for health insurance. And if you can't afford health insurance for whatever the circumstance may be, yes, there should be a subsidy to assist you. Government offers so many different subsidies to assist in the reduction of costs across industry lines, health insurance should also be one of them.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Sooooo.....if I need a triple bypass surgery and I can't afford it and I can't find a charity to help....then what?

If my house crumbles from an earthquake and that's not covered in my policy, then what? I guess we'd better socialize home owners insurance also.

 

So....just to be clear, you are perfectly fine if I die from not having a bypass surgery because I can't afford it and can't find a charity to pay for it.

 

Just one of those tough little facts of life.....or lack there of.

[Kiyoat Husker]

 

You're all missing the point. Not once did I say that we shouldn't take care of those who are less fortunate. Using your own money, time, and resources to do so is probably the greatest thing a person can do.

 

However, offering other people's money via the government is morally corrupt no matter how you slice it.

I don't have any kids, yet my taxes pay for the schools here. Load of morally corrupt garbage.

 

No kidding. And that's not the worst of it. I am VERY responsible with fire, and fire hazards. I have NOT ONCE ever been involved in a house fire. And yet, for some reason the city thinks my tax dollars should be used to pay for a FULL TIME fire department! Half the time, those corrupt firemen aren't even putting out fires! How wasteful. Let the idiots that start fires pay for it.

[Moiraine]

This is how highways should be built and repaired too. Let's just wait until we have enough donations from people before we start each project.

[TGHusker]

This is what happens when the 'gov is bad' position is taken to its extreme. Govt is an institution which is to be used for the common good- infrastructure, defense/military, common trade/treaties, health and welfare of the nation to name a few.

[zoogs]

 

I don't have any kids, yet my taxes pay for the schools here. Load of morally corrupt garbage.

No kidding. And that's not the worst of it. I am VERY responsible with fire, and fire hazards. I have NOT ONCE ever been involved in a house fire. And yet, for some reason the city thinks my tax dollars should be used to pay for a FULL TIME fire department! Half the time, those corrupt firemen aren't even putting out fires! How wasteful. Let the idiots that start fires pay for it.

 

I know you guys were being facetious, but to an actual libertarian schools and police/fire are the same way.

 

It's all good if you are one of the winners.