OT - Obamacare

I am so glad to be getting off of the old health care system we had. I told people even if they get it wrong at least we are off of the old system that
discriminates again pre-exsisting conditions, etc.

Last week I read that Newt Gingerich told the republican leaders that they have nothing to offer as alternative to ObamaCare.

I just wish that for the good of the country that congress can fix what is wrong with ObamaCare, and get on with life.
The political stalemate is just sickening, and does nothing good for the country.

rd1978 wrote:But there are millions of people (a majority of Americans, in fact) who believe that a free market approach would yield the greatest return on investment and lead to coverage for the most people at the lowest possible cost.

The free market has had only about 70+ years to show that it can do it. It hasn't. What right do free market advocates have to say it's the solution when for 70 years it's failed to provide a complete solution?

rd1978 wrote:I am a conservative Republican because I believe it is essential for the government to live within its means, to limit its intrusion into the rights of individuals, and to ensure that all Americans are given the opportunity to reach their full God-given potential

If you truly believe those principles you can't be a real Republican.

Republicans love borrowing. It keeps the government functioning without giving money over in form of taxes. They get to earn interest on the money they loan to Uncle and may someday even get it back! Beats losing it forever in the form of a tax.

Intrusion into rights of privacy is the cornerstone of the push for security and anti-terrorism, and the anti-abortion push.

They don't care about helping people reach their full potential or state level Repubs would give schools adequate funding and Congressional Repubs would support fully funding programs like Pell grants.

Repubs don't give a crap about the common man.

pikov22 wrote:

rd1978 wrote:I don't know anyone (regardless of party affiliation) who doesn't want all Americans to have access to quality healthcare. But there are millions of people (a majority of Americans, in fact) who believe that a free market approach would yield the greatest return on investment and lead to coverage for the most people at the lowest possible cost.

Free market health care? Where can I read up on that? Where did you get that statistic?

Right now, we have "no pre-existing conditions" clauses on just about every "free market" health insurer. What would cause them to change?[/]

Exclusions for pre-existing conditions must be part of any solution. No argument there.

idamtnboy wrote:

rd1978 wrote:But there are millions of people (a majority of Americans, in fact) who believe that a free market approach would yield the greatest return on investment and lead to coverage for the most people at the lowest possible cost.

The free market has had only about 70+ years to show that it can do it. It hasn't. What right do free market advocates have to say it's the solution when for 70 years it's failed to provide a complete solution?

The basic difference between those who support the bill and those who oppose it comes down to what role one believes the government should play in such matters. I happen to believe, as did the founders, that the federal government's powers should be limited. I'm not saying that the free market is perfect, because it clearly is not. But I have more faith in it than I do in our elected officials who pass laws knowing that they personally will never have to live under them.

"Exclusions for pre-existing conditions must be part of any solution. No argument there."

Why?

It's terrible when an ordinary person, quite healthy by most standards, cannot be insured because of some either long gone condition they had decades ago (with no reason to expect a recurrence but that theoretically cannot be considered 'cured' by its particular nature), or because like the rest of us over 40 (and 50 and 60)'s has been shown on today's ultrasophisticated tests to have a little 'change' in a cardiac parameter so that it can be used by a company to either keep them from being insured at all, or else to jack up the rates into orbit. And what about children born with some even very mild, but not-yet-outgrown problem- same thing.

There's no reason someone in healthcare cannot come up with a better way to screen people. To be reasonable in calling things 'pre-existing', doing a bit of work and breaking things down into more realistic and less devastating ways of sorting out conditions... computers are good for more than texting and a country who discriminates against the majority of its citizens because of 'pre-existing conditions' is not working for them, but for the insurance companies and the people be damned.

idamtnboy wrote:

rd1978 wrote:I am a conservative Republican because I believe it is essential for the government to live within its means, to limit its intrusion into the rights of individuals, and to ensure that all Americans are given the opportunity to reach their full God-given potential

If you truly believe those principles you can't be a real Republican.

Republicans love borrowing. It keeps the government functioning without giving money over in form of taxes. They get to earn interest on the money they loan to Uncle and may someday even get it back! Beats losing it forever in the form of a tax.

Intrusion into rights of privacy is the cornerstone of the push for security and anti-terrorism, and the anti-abortion push.

They don't care about helping people reach their full potential or state level Repubs would give schools adequate funding and Congressional Repubs would support fully funding programs like Pell grants.

Repubs don't give a crap about the common man.

You're kidding, right?

Julie wrote:"Exclusions for pre-existing conditions must be part of any solution. No argument there."

Why?

It's terrible when an ordinary person, quite healthy by most standards, cannot be insured because of some either long gone condition they had decades ago (with no reason to expect a recurrence but that theoretically cannot be considered 'cured' by its particular nature), or because like the rest of us over 40 (and 50 and 60)'s has been shown on today's ultrasophisticated tests to have a little 'change' in a cardiac parameter so that it can be used by a company to either keep them from being insured at all, or else to jack up the rates into orbit. And what about children born with some even very mild, but not-yet-outgrown problem- same thing.

There's no reason someone in healthcare cannot come up with a better way to screen people. To be reasonable in calling things 'pre-existing', doing a bit of work and breaking things down into more realistic and less devastating ways of sorting out conditions... computers are good for more than texting and a country who discriminates against the majority of its citizens because of 'pre-existing conditions' is not working for them, but for the insurance companies and the people be damned.

Julie, perhaps you misread my comment. I believe that no one should ever be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

rd1978 wrote:The basic difference between those who support the bill and those who oppose it comes down to what role one believes the government should play in such matters. I happen to believe, as did the founders, that the federal government's powers should be limited. I'm not saying that the free market is perfect, because it clearly is not. But I have more faith in it than I do in our elected officials who pass laws knowing that they personally will never have to live under them.

Do you think that the CEOs who run the companies of the free market are any less self-indulgent than our elected lawmakers?

pikov22 wrote:

rd1978 wrote:The basic difference between those who support the bill and those who oppose it comes down to what role one believes the government should play in such matters. I happen to believe, as did the founders, that the federal government's powers should be limited. I'm not saying that the free market is perfect, because it clearly is not. But I have more faith in it than I do in our elected officials who pass laws knowing that they personally will never have to live under them.

Do you think that the CEOs who run the companies of the free market are any less self-indulgent than our elected lawmakers?

No, but in order to be successful they need to attract the maximum number of customers. Remove the artificial barriers that prevent companies from competing across state lines and consumers will necessarily benefit.

rd1978 wrote:

idamtnboy wrote:

rd1978 wrote:I am a conservative Republican because I believe it is essential for the government to live within its means, to limit its intrusion into the rights of individuals, and to ensure that all Americans are given the opportunity to reach their full God-given potential

If you truly believe those principles you can't be a real Republican.

Republicans love borrowing. It keeps the government functioning without giving money over in form of taxes. They get to earn interest on the money they loan to Uncle and may someday even get it back! Beats losing it forever in the form of a tax.

Intrusion into rights of privacy is the cornerstone of the push for security and anti-terrorism, and the anti-abortion push.

They don't care about helping people reach their full potential or state level Repubs would give schools adequate funding and Congressional Repubs would support fully funding programs like Pell grants.

Repubs don't give a crap about the common man.

You're kidding, right?

Why, do you wish I am? I'm not. Or if you prefer, admit that Republicans really are hypocrites. Preach one principle, practice another. Then you can personally hold onto those principles and still be a Repub.

rd1978 wrote:No, but in order to be successful they need to attract the maximum number of customers.

Ideally, yes. In reality all they have to achieve is maximum revenue from the customer base, regardless of its size, in order to be profitable. Locking in the market provides a greater guarantee of profitability than does growing the number of customers. A great case study are Microsoft's tactics over the past 30 years.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e ... re?ref=fpb

Murphy was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 2000 but, after four rounds of chemotherapy (covered by his insurance), it had gone into remission by 2004. He wasn't in the clear quite though. Because his sleep apnea qualifies as a "pre-existing condition," Murphy explained to the Journal-Constitution, he currently has no insurance.

I was hoping that there would be some discussion this board. I have just gotten on medicare. I have no supplemental coverage available. I am hoping I can get plan D coverage. But by every non biased rating the U.S. is last in medical care provided among first world countries. The last system did not work. Also the Republicans opposed both medicare and social security. We are the richest country in the world. The real argument is whether medical care is a right or a privilege. Doctor's could not live in the style they are used to with only the money they collect from their patients. Why do I expect the conservatives to call people names and not support their opinions calmly and rationally. To compare a country's debt to personal debt is to compare apples to ironing boards. I would like to see some calm discussion on this issue. Before I ask for this I must apologize for my previous post. There is no reason to accuse anyone of trying to kill me and I apolgoize for saying so.

lastlib wrote: The real argument is whether medical care is a right or a privilege.

You need to work on your definitions or you will never to able to conclude an argument.

A "right" is something that you naturally posses and it is a freedom that you have to do what you choose with your life and no one else should interfere with you. Your actions, of course, should not interfere with another because that person also has rights or freedom.

You know the common examples - right to free association with others, right to free expression, right to practice whatever religion you choose and the rights associated with legal actions others and the state may take against you.

These rights do not impinge on others - you can freely express but no one has to listen to you; you can practice a religion you invent but no one has to minister you or follow your religion; you can pursue happiness but no one has to make an effort to make you happy.

If you try to say that medical care is a right, you immediately run into the problem of who will provide the medical care. If you say you will do it all yourself, then you have that right. If you say doctors, nurses, technicians of various sorts and drug, equipment and supplies manufacturers must provide your medical care then you are interring with the rights of these parties to act freely.

So to argue that medical care is a "right" is not a correct argument.

Now you could argue that elected representatives should write laws that require citizens to pay taxes so that everyone under the law will be provided with all the medical care they desire. This would be a valid argument.

However, it is a tyranny of the majority and an economic system that is very unsound and always fails in the long run and often in the short run.