Do republican voters even have a solution to healthcare?

[LogikAndReazon]

Corporations and CEO's ......Oh My !!!!!

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Which is proof of what I said. Those getting it aren't paying into the pot from which they draw. Same with food stamps, welfare, school lunch program in my state, and any other social welfare program.

Right, but single payer does not change that, because it already IS.

Sorry, under single payer, there will be those that get covered that don't fund the pot which would be used to cover them. That has to stop.

Except there already are people that are covered that don't fund the pot.

You are being unrealistic if you think Americans will ever allow that to stop, ever allow elderly and poor to not get healthcare they need.

Why shouldn't that stop? Can you go to a car dealer, drive a car off the lot, and expect someone else to make the payments?

Because heart surgery is just like getting a car?

Come on man, you have to get back down to earth, Americans will never accept a system where people can't get medical help they need because they can't pay for it.

Why would they have to when bleeding heart liberals
are willing to put their money where their mouths are and finance care for the poor, the needy, the disabled, elderly, foreign refugees, womens choice, etc......Surely they could pony up instead of pawning off their welfare schemes on others.......

 

[Conservative65]

How did humans survive for 10k years without government mandated health insurance?

Because those that felt someone needed something met that need for them. Now, and I call them bleeding hearts, claim someone needs something, their automatic response is to support the government forcing others to do it

 

[Conservative65]

Sorry, under single payer, there will be those that get covered that don't fund the pot which would be used to cover them. That has to stop.

Except there already are people that are covered that don't fund the pot.

You are being unrealistic if you think Americans will ever allow that to stop, ever allow elderly and poor to not get healthcare they need.

Why shouldn't that stop? Can you go to a car dealer, drive a car off the lot, and expect someone else to make the payments?

Because heart surgery is just like getting a car?

Come on man, you have to get back down to earth, Americans will never accept a system where people can't get medical help they need because they can't pay for it.

do you get a car without a sales guy and financial institute? Why can't I get a heart surgeon the same way? explain.

?? Nothing to do with what you are replying to.

You shopping for healthcare has nothing to do with the fact that Americans reject letting people die because they can't pay for medical care.

Seems you reject paying for yourself what you don't have a problem letting the government force others to do.

 

[Conservative65]

“Do republican voters even have a solution to healthcare?”

No.

Their ‘solution’ is don’t get sick; and if you do, die quickly.

Most on the reprehensible right wrongly believe that one’s ability to access affordable healthcare should be predicated on his income – if one can’t afford health insurance or healthcare treatment, then he goes without.

I've proposed a solution. I'll provide mine and you can provides yours. You are also welcome to provide it for anyone else you want with your money. My solution is if someone can't afford it and you feel they need it, write a check on their behalf.

Most of the reprehensible left wrongly believes that if someone can't afford healthcare, it becomes the responsibility of the rest of us to provide it for them. My belief is that if you think someone needs it, unless you're willing to provide it to them with your money, they can go without. I don't owe them something because you say so.

 

[Conservative65]

Right, but single payer does not change that, because it already IS.

Sorry, under single payer, there will be those that get covered that don't fund the pot which would be used to cover them. That has to stop.

Except there already are people that are covered that don't fund the pot.

You are being unrealistic if you think Americans will ever allow that to stop, ever allow elderly and poor to not get healthcare they need.

Why shouldn't that stop? Can you go to a car dealer, drive a car off the lot, and expect someone else to make the payments?

Because heart surgery is just like getting a car?

Come on man, you have to get back down to earth, Americans will never accept a system where people can't get medical help they need because they can't pay for it.

Why would they have to when bleeding heart liberals
are willing to put their money where their mouths are and finance care for the poor, the needy, the disabled, elderly, foreign refugees, womens choice, etc......Surely they could pony up instead of pawning off their welfare schemes on others.......

Bleeding heart Liberal - someone that claims to care so much for others they're willing to spend another person's money funding it.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Solution?
Americans are free to purchase health insurance that is available from various companies across the nation.
It could come in the form of a pkan where they are employed, or it could be a private plan.

Next question.

 

[eddiew37]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

Their #1 idea is to let people die in the streets and every morning trumps horses and wagons pick up the dead

 

[Ame®icano]

No, but libertarians do.


1. end the mandate to buy overpriced monopoly health insurance
2. expand medical savings account
3 repeal W's socialization of Senior Drugs
4. Dramatically cut/hack/gut MediCare and MedicAid
5. make individuals accountable for their own health
6. cover only catastrophic injury for uninsured
7 force the medical profession to respond to a FREE MARKET by CUTTING PRICES on BASIC SERVICES or lose business/money
8. new law - anyone busted for filing a deliberately false health care claim to Uncle Sam gets the firing squad and total asset forfeiture

This will result in healthcare un-affordable to about 1/2 the country and un/under-insured rates shooting through the roof.

And WHO will cover the catastrophic injuries and chronic illnesses for the 40+% uninsured?

This is not a real solution, this is a pie in the sky ideology.

It's really not. It's just basic reason.

Well the basic HISTORY AND PRACTICE of healthcare in modern world show that THIS DOESN'T WORK.

And for that reason, not a single developed country in the world uses it.

HORSESHIT. You've been brainwashed. Do some reading and get back to me.

Would you recommend reading material, other than coloring books, where you've been getting info from?

 

[Ame®icano]

Remember back in the good old days when America was great and healthcare insurance was part of the employment package?

What happened?

Healthcare insurance is still part of the employment package.

For those who wants to work.

Those who don't want to work are voting Democrats and demand to get it by robbing those who do work.

 

[tyroneweaver]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

Agood start would be for you to get a job

 

[Ame®icano]

Seriously, what years are you talking about? Just answer the question.

Would it make a difference? Seriously, I'm not into typing a bunch of stuff you're not even going to read. It's all there in the Wikipedia article. You can find many other sources that outline the history of health care in the US. Basically it started to go downhill after WWII when Truman first set his sights on nationalizing health care. The Cold War, and paranoia over socialism slowed things down a bit, and forced them to "partner" with corporations in their efforts, but it's always been the same goal.

YES, because I'm really not clear on what you are referring to.

Go ahead and just say what period you are talking about. Your resistance to this simple ask is telling.

Pre WWII

you may as well refer to the stone age as an example.

Life expectancy in 1930s was 60 years old, today it is 80 - mostly because we got all this advanced and often expensive medical care.

Truman's "sight setting" doesn't change the reality that we've never had any nationalized healthcare.

The power structure is shitting itself because every other advanced post industrial nation on the planet has better outcomes for less cost and less efficiency, plus a majority of the american popluation supports single payer.

I really don't give a shit about "other advanced industrial nation" healthcare systems overtaken by their leftist governments.

If majority of the population wanted single payer, you would still have Congress and Senate majority. The only reason you gained majority last time is because you were whining against Bush, not because you lefties had something to offer.

 

[Ame®icano]

I can't wait until trusted leaders like Donald Trump are in charge of our health care. What a great time that will be!

After President Barry, I would be happy with a telephone pole in the office.

 

[Ame®icano]

so just stop quoting me before you make yourself look any dumber.

We agree on one thing = anyone who quotes you seriously is DUMB....

You quoted him.

 

[Ame®icano]

How did humans survive for 10k years without government mandated health insurance?

You mean before SJWs and leftist snowflakes?

 

[Conservative65]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

Their #1 idea is to let people die in the streets and every morning trumps horses and wagons pick up the dead

My #1 idea is if you claim to care so much for people having coverage, you should purchase it for them. If you're not willing to do what you say should be done, seems letting them die in the streets is your fault. I don't owe them anything, therefore, there is no accountability on me for not doing something that isn't my responsibility. However, since you claim you have such a responsibility, if it doesn't get done, you are accountable.

 

[Conservative65]

Remember back in the good old days when America was great and healthcare insurance was part of the employment package?

What happened?

Healthcare insurance is still part of the employment package.

For those who wants to work.

Those who don't want to work are voting Democrats and demand to get it by robbing those who do work.

For those doing something that is meaningful to the growth of the business, it is. For those doing a job where the skill level involves something a 5 year old can do, not so much.

 

[deanrd]

Republicans have no solution to anything.

And many of the world's problems lead directly to American Republicans. They most dangerous party America has ever had.

 

[eddiew37]

We know they hate ACA and the idea of single payer. Does that mean they think our healthcare system was decent before ACA? Are they that stupid? It was definitely a complete joke prior to ACA. It's not like they could point to any objective facts to say otherwise. It makes me wonder what their philosophy is.

Frankly, I don't think they are smart enough to understand healthcare policy, but it would be adorable if they think they have an idea of what's best.

Their #1 idea is to let people die in the streets and every morning trumps horses and wagons pick up the dead

My #1 idea is if you claim to care so much for people having coverage, you should purchase it for them. If you're not willing to do what you say should be done, seems letting them die in the streets is your fault. I don't owe them anything, therefore, there is no accountability on me for not doing something that isn't my responsibility. However, since you claim you have such a responsibility, if it doesn't get done, you are accountable.

So no accountability from you means you have no dog in that fight? I pay plenty in taxes to help and don't complain I didn't like your wars but my taxes helped with them

 

[Billy000]

It's not a false parallel as to the point I was trying to make. Conservatives don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, but they are already beneficiaries of other people's tax revenue. The socialist aspect of single payer wouid be no different than the broad government programs we already have such as infrastructure.

What I said about children being the most on food stamps was inaccurate. What i meant to say is that most people on food stamps are dependents.

This article breaks it down:

Who Uses Food Stamps? Millions of Children - NBC News

45% of those on food stamps are children.
An additional 20% are those who are disabled and those over 60 years old.

And it's good to hear from you too Pumpkin!

I suppose I should rephrase my first point. Infrastructure is the physical and organizational structures needed for society. In other words, roads, courthouses, military, etc. What you're mentioning as 'the right' being okay with using are defined as infrastructure. These are not things that are used by individuals, but by absolutely everyone. Defining healthcare or food stamps as the same thing because tax dollars would fund them is drawing a false parallel, because those are things people buy for themselves, and are not considered infrastructure, because they are neither a physical or organizational structure needed for society.

Thank you for linking a source.

You also didn't answer my question, so I'll try phrasing it another way. When do you think one person is entitled to another's money?

Yes, not everyone benefits from food stamps, but everyone would benefit from single payer. I was defending food stamps as a separate issue because of most of the people who benefit from it. I was drawing a connection between single payer to infrastructure because if we had a single payer system, everyone would benefit from it like we do with our infrastructure system. Our infrastructure system is no less socialist than a would-be single payer system.

I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm guessing you are using food stamps as an example. My answer would simply be my own philosophical opinion which is that we as a so ciety should help those who are most vulnerable. Vulnerable as in they cannot help themselves. Now sure, a decent chunk of people who are on food stamps are able bodid working people. I justify giving them food stamps because of the economy we live in. It's currently impossible for EVERY working adult to find a decent paying job that they can support themselves on. I know it sounds possible, but because low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs, it is literally impossible.

Not everyone would benefit from Single Payer, in fact, nobody would benefit from Single Payer. It turns the Healthcare industry into a monopoly, and the government is always proven to be less efficient with money usage. For example, our current debt. Taxes would go up, our debt would go up, and our coverage would go down, because unlike with businesses, our only choice is the government, and even if other options were allowed, everyone would always be paying for it.

Actually, infrastructure is not Socialist. I think we've had that discussion before. For a system to be Socialist, the means of production must be Socially controlled, and infrastructure is not a means of production.

I'm not referring to food stamps, I'm talking in general. Food Stamps would be an example, but that's only one form of Federal Aid that steals from people to give to those who the Government views as more deserving, or in greater need. Sure, a person should willingly help someone in need, but but if the government is using their tax money to help someone else, that's not willing. That's why I worded it as "Entitled". When is one person entitled to another person's money?

It bewilders me why you think private industry should be in charge of our healthcare. It makes our system a for profit motive. Let me give you an example: drug prices in the US are astronomical. Why? It isn't because of government red tape as Fox News wouid tell you, it's because greedy mofos make a profit off of drugs people have no choice but to buy. How do I know it isn't because of government red tape? Because those same drugs are sold in other countries by the same companies yet they are a fraction of the price. This is because those governments make it a condition that those drugs have price caps if those companies sell them to their citizens. This makes them accessible to the consumers in those countries. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation on earth because of that corporate greed.

Take another example of health insurance premiums and deductibles. People pay hundreds of dollars a month for their plan. Where is the incentive for the insurance company to not charge them a high deductible? Or deny certain services like pre-existing conditions? Limiting that stuff results in huge proits for the health insurance company.

Now would a single payer system be perfect? Hell no, but at least it would still be adequate in many ways in comparison to greedy corporations calling all the shots.

Any government program paid for by tax revenue is an example of socialism. It's that simple. Socialism is defined by public ownership. The public pays for these services therefore they own them.

And yes, my personal philosophy is that people must be forced to help those who can't help themselves.

Because profit is the most honest motive. To make a profit, you need consumers. To have consumers, you need an attractive product at an attractive price, ones that are more attractive than your competitors. Naturally, however, government involvement has prevented our market from being free for decades, rendering competition near-nonexistent. A perfect example would be the system we had before Obamacare, and the system we have now, both of which are considered less than optimal due to the lack of competition. With the government in control of that industry, it would be close to the same, but even worse, it would make the government a monopoly, which forces the consumers to pay even if they don't use the product.

Of course it's because of corporate greed. Corporate greed using the government's power to strangle out competition SO the prices can be jacked up to astronomical prices. Of course, if the government had no power, that power could not be bought.

Limiting consumers results in huge profits? Last I checked, you need customers to get money from said customers. If they don't want their customers, their competition certainly does. Of course, in our previous system, regulations prevented much competition, making it little better than what we have now.

It wouldn't be adequate, it would be a system that made the government a monopoly that can force you to pay without even buying or using the product. Not only does everyone pay for those who do need it, but they would pay for those who don't, continuously, through their entire lives, and the government would STILL go even further into debt.

It's not, because to be Socialist, it requires Social control of the means of production. Without that, it's simply expanded government power. It's called Socialism because it's defined by that Social control, and without it, it's simply a pretender, if even that. By your logic, even if a government existed and had no power over anything but creating the basic laws, and was still funded by taxes, it would be Socialist. Hell, any government would be inherently Socialist, even if it did nothing. You're way oversimplifying that concept, yet overcomplicating it at well.

In that case, in your ideal world, the government would decide who gives their money to who, and would not need a reason. The government would be free to decide who could and could not help themselves, and free will would be taken out of the equation completely. Joseph Stalin had that kind of power. Would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump being able to make that decision? How much power over Healthcare would you like him to have?

I think you are really oversimplifying the private market as being this ideal institution. As I explained, because of the nature of the profit motive, our healthcare system is very inaccessible to the poor. These executives are less interested in making healthcare adequate and accessible and more interested in maximizing profit.

I am glad you can't admit this is corporate greed, though. Of course I'm sure you can also admit that the root of that greed isn't from the government - it's lobbyists buying our politicians. Corporate greed is the biggest source of government corruption.

I think you misunderstand "social control" in this context. "Social" refers to the public. It refers to public ownership as the means of production.

Socialism overall is a broad term. Just because past dictators had socialist style of governments, it doesn't mean I advocate for such a system. Social democratic principles is what I subscribe to. That has very little to do with Marxist socialism.