Texsox Posted June 16, 2017 Author Share Posted June 16, 2017 QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 04:49 PM) Health care is unique though. If the government isn't involved in health care, and I contract skin cancer (which I have a genetic pre-disposition to contract!), then it doesn't ultimately matter what livable wage I'm earning. The amount of health care that I will have to consume, and the cost of that health care will ravage my finances. I agree with you beyond that point - that getting more companies to pay a livable wage - and a true livable wage provides value. But what evidence do we have that lower taxes on businesses leads to increased gains for labor? Isn't it more likely that those gains are passed on to shareholders? Absent, of course, the feds significantly increasing the minimum wage... Not trying to be argumentative, but for the sake of debate, what should I have to give up so I can help pay for your health care if you contract skin cancer? Rhetorically . . . Can my kids go to a private college, or should I be forced to send them to a cheaper state school? Can I have a Texas Edition truck, or should I have to settle for basic? Can I go out to dinner at Ruth Chris or should I have to eat at Chili's? McDonalds? Home cooked? Can I buy nice clothes or shop at WalMart? Or from a different standpoint, how much should you be allowed to keep if you are stricken? Your house in a nice neighborhood? Car? Where should you be buying your clothes if I'm paying for your healthcare? These were the questions I was asked by a conservative family member and I must admit I've been giving it a lot of thought. I'm solidly a Dem. My heart and gut tells me that universal health care for all is great for this country. But the idea of taking from one person and giving it to another is tricky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 03:52 PM) Anthem pulled out of the Ohio marketplace leaving numerous counties with zero options. It's very telling the damage Obama Care did that there was only option to begin with. Now Trump Care is gonna put the nail on the coffin. Both sides combined to make health care even way worse than it was. Who created the uncertainty?, you get one guess... Anthem said it won't participate on Ohio's Obamacare exchange next year, citing growing uncertainty over the law's future in Washington D.C. The insurer ticked off a list of concerns, including "continual changes in federal operations, rules and guidance" and "an increasing lack of overall predictability." "A stable insurance market is dependent on products that create value for consumers through the broad spreading of risk and a known set of conditions upon which rates can be developed," the company said in a statement. http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/06/news/econo...care/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 03:59 PM) Not trying to be argumentative, but for the sake of debate, what should I have to give up so I can help pay for your health care if you contract skin cancer? Rhetorically . . . Can my kids go to a private college, or should I be forced to send them to a cheaper state school? Can I have a Texas Edition truck, or should I have to settle for basic? Can I go out to dinner at Ruth Chris or should I have to eat at Chili's? McDonalds? Home cooked? Can I buy nice clothes or shop at WalMart? Or from a different standpoint, how much should you be allowed to keep if you are stricken? Your house in a nice neighborhood? Car? Where should you be buying your clothes if I'm paying for your healthcare? These were the questions I was asked by a conservative family member and I must admit I've been giving it a lot of thought. I'm solidly a Dem. My heart and gut tells me that universal health care for all is great for this country. But the idea of taking from one person and giving it to another is tricky. China taxes imported luxury automobiles (BMW, Audi, Benz) to the point of 2-3x times the import tax of buying domestic/Chinese-made products. Result, trillions in government surpluses and increasing protection for your domestic manufacturers. People who are rich enough are still buying those vehicles, the higher taxes actually seem to cause more to buy, what is essentially a Giffen good in economics. As the price increases, it becomes more and not less enticing because people wish to show off their wealth or status. We have never taxed American consumers on luxury goods like China does.... Edited June 16, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) I have no problem with saying that people will be able to consume fewer luxury goods and indulgences in order to prevent others from suffering and dying from treatable and preventable illness. And keep in mind what sort of tax cuts we're taking about here. The tax cuts Republicans are proposing to fund via taking health care from working class Americans and children with disabilities are targeted towards people with $200k or higher incomes. There's a tax cut targeted directly for health insurance CEOs. We are not talking about some people having to go without basics or even nice, comfortable lives. We're talking about slowing down the wealth hoarding not seen since the gilded age so that a kid born with ms can get health care throughout their lives, so that my friend who needs weekly transfusions won't hot a lifetime cap and die in a couple of years. To argue that, no, we instead need to allow the already well off to hoard even more money while the rest of us suffer is frankly immoral. Every other developed country in the world manages to do this. That the wealthiest country in the history of the world does not is a stain. Edited June 17, 2017 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 (edited) For every Tex example where medical conditions are self-induced, such as diet, lack of exercise, smoking.....there will be at least 2 or 3 that aren't preventable at all. Is it better to have panels of 3 or 5 doctors (majority vote) assess blame for conditions, and those deemed responsible would face the lifetime caps, while hereditary conditions would not? Edited June 17, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 (edited) How would people react if we decided the 31% of Americans deemed obese would either not receive medical care or would face lifetime limits? Fair or not? Then there's the argument that some have a genetic predisposition to gaining weight or have a harder time burning calories. Federal mandated exercise programs in order to be eligible for benefits? Isn't that the same argument the GOP makes about having to work or actively be seeking employment to receive benefits? http://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/pre...ns-report-finds Unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, poor eating habits, and lack of exercise are costing the United States billions of dollars in the treatment of preventable diseases, a new report from the United Health Foundation, the American Public Health Association, and Partnership for Prevention finds. The twentieth edition of America's Health Rankings (116 pages, PDF) found that the nation's healthcare system has become adept at treating certain illnesses and disease, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. However, Americans are struggling to modify behaviors that contribute to chronic diseases in the first place. As a result, the United States spends more per capita than any other nation on health care, including $1.5 trillion in medical costs associated with chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer — diseases that have a direct link to smoking and obesity, the nation's two largest national risk factors. According to the report, obesity is growing faster than any previous public health issue in the United States. Today, 31 percent of Americans are considered obese and if current trends continue, more than 100 million U.S. adults — or 43 percent of the population — will be considered obese by 2018. Over the same period, obesity could add $344 billion to the nation's annual healthcare costs and account for more than 21 percent of healthcare spending. The report also contains a ranking of the healthiest states in the nation, with Vermont topping the list — up from twentieth in 1990 — followed by Utah, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and New Hampshire. Mississippi was found to be the least healthy state and was joined at the bottom of the list by Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina. "As a nation, we are fighting the wrong healthcare battle," said American Public Health Association executive director Georges C. Benjamin. "Although there is a wealth of evidence supporting the value of prevention as a way to save lives and save money, the majority of every healthcare dollar goes towards treating illness. Essentially, health reform should include a strong focus on prevention. Behaviors, such as smoking and obesity, are limiting our nation's ability to make progress and costing billions in unnecessary, preventable healthcare costs." Notice six of the unhealthiest states are solidly Republican. Why should healthy states subsidize lazy people? Unfair! Edited June 17, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) Senate Democrats weigh blockade to protest GOP health care plan http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/17/politics/sen...care/index.html Bipartisan group of seven governors express concerns to McConnell/Schumer about AHCA In a Friday letter to McConnell and New York U.S. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, who leads the Democratic minority, the governors said the House version “calls into question coverage for the vulnerable and fails to provide the necessary resources to ensure that no one is left out, while shifting significant costs to the states.” The Congressional Budget Office reports that H.R. 1628, in its present form, would keep 23 million people from finding meaningful health insurance. All seven of the gubernatorial signatories are in states that have expanded the qualifications for Medicaid – covering lower income children, families, pregnant women, people with disabilities and nursing home residents – to include people who had made too much money to be eligible for the government-run insurance but too little to find health care in private markets. The House bill would roll back about a quarter of the federal subsidies that made Medicaid expansion possible for state governments. Edited June 18, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 If this Republican charade isn't some of the most cartoonishly evil things to happen in politics recently I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Hey, calls to the dems worked. They are pulling out the stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) The Senate Has a New Idea to Cut Medicaid That’s Even Crueler Than the House Plan http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/0...t_medicaid.html Senate Republicans reportedly want to use the same system—initially. But beginning in 2025, they would start adjusting Medicaid's per-enrollee spending using the plain old consumer price index—or CPI-U, the one that includes stuff like the price of televisions and socks—which would grow even more gradually. To give you a sense of how dramatic a change this is, just look at this chart. Since 2000, the medical cost index has grown by about 41 percentage points more than the CPI-U. The Hill reports that the “plan has been described as a ‘consensus option’” and has been sent to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis, though other ideas are still being considered. Presumably, Senate Republicans are thinking about these deeper cuts because they need to offset spending elsewhere in the bill, at least on paper. The fact that the changes aren't set to kick in until 2025 suggests that maybe, just maybe, the thinking is that future Congresses would prevent the change from ever taking effect. But if they failed to do so, the long-term result would be a large blow to Medicaid that could force states to trim the program's coverage dramatically in order to manage costs, making sure that American health insurance for the sick, poor, and disabled would become truly inadequate. No wonder the Senate leadership doesn't want the public to see what it's working on. Edited June 20, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 20, 2017 Author Share Posted June 20, 2017 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 07:21 PM) For every Tex example where medical conditions are self-induced, such as diet, lack of exercise, smoking.....there will be at least 2 or 3 that aren't preventable at all. Is it better to have panels of 3 or 5 doctors (majority vote) assess blame for conditions, and those deemed responsible would face the lifetime caps, while hereditary conditions would not? Again I ask, what should I have to give up to pay for other people's healthcare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 08:27 AM) Again I ask, what should I have to give up to pay for other people's healthcare? GOP Congressman Rod Blum in a Dubuque town hall (Monday) night asked, “Why should a 62-year-old man have to pay for maternity care?” I ask, why should I pay for a bridge I don’t cross, a sidewalk I don’t walk on, a library book I don’t read? Why should I pay for a flower I won’t smell, a park I don’t visit, or art I can’t appreciate? Why should I pay the salaries of politicians I didn’t vote for, a tax cut that doesn’t affect me, or a loophole I can’t take advantage of? It’s called democracy, a civil society, the greater good. That’s what we pay for. http://www.telegraphherald.com/news/public...4a17b76dbb.html Edited June 20, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 We live in a selfish society. I look at it that I am chipping in for all because I would like everyone to get care when it is needed without having to go broke. Same with education. I would love a healthy and educated society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 09:27 AM) Again I ask, what should I have to give up to pay for other people's healthcare? What should I have to give up to pay for military? police? courts? roads? ports? parks? schools? basic safety standards? basic scientific research? food inspection? customs and immigration systems? medical research? environmental regulations and enforcement? sewer and sanitation systems? power production and communication infrastructure? space programs? weather forecasting? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Are you in favor of abolishing Medicare? Edited June 20, 2017 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinilaw08 Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 08:27 AM) Again I ask, what should I have to give up to pay for other people's healthcare? Well, you are paying for your healthcare. Everyone's standard of care and access to care just becomes the same. But more to the point, you are misrepresenting the ACA debate. The ACHA and whatever comes out of the Senate are going to roll back tax hikes on people making over $200k annually - the tax hike that paid for the subsidies in the ACA (if I'm remembering this right). The guy who has to pay a little more starting on dollar $200,000.01 of the year isn't choosing between health care and putting food on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 09:27 AM) Again I ask, what should I have to give up to pay for other people's healthcare? I'd say 8-10% more of your paycheck. You'd gain back some amount of your own out of pocket costs, and of course you may do very well having lived some years on old system, and then get considerable benefit to smoothing out of years 55-65. Pretty sweet deal for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 It's looking more and more like the Senate bill will actually be even more harmful than the House bill, surprisingly. Margot Sanger-KatzVerified account @sangerkatz @caitlinnowens reports Senate bill will allow states to waive more/different rules than House. Until the Byrd Bath. https://www.axios.com/thursdays-senate-heal...2445162138.html Margot Sanger-KatzVerified account @sangerkatz 22m22 minutes ago Replying to @sangerkatz @caitlinnowens This reporting is consistent with @ropear and @thomaskaplan ’s story today: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/us/polit...are-senate.html Margot Sanger-KatzVerified account @sangerkatz 21m21 minutes ago Whether these changes will stay in the bill after the parliamentarian reviews it is a big question. It might make too many changes and fall victim to Byrd Rules, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 09:27 AM) Again I ask, what should I have to give up to pay for other people's healthcare? I dont think anyone can answer that question. I think the fundamental question for the United States is that as a country do we believe that all American's should be guaranteed a certain level of healthcare? If we do believe that, then the next step is to figure out how to pay it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Key GOP senator (member of 13 member "working group") on health care plan: ‘I haven’t seen the bill’ https://www.yahoo.com/news/key-gop-senator-...-203415619.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) Republican Senators plan to vote next Thursday on health care law..."discussion draft" out tomorrow apparently https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dems-hit-sec...-074901601.html "Debate" planned next Tuesday/Wed, as soon as CBO score comes out....vote Thurs or Friday depending on amendments attached. The ACA had open hearings for close to a year before the vote was held. Republicans proposed over 300 amendments to the ACA. In contrast, the GOP has closed hearings and will not even brief Democrats on the bill prior to debate. Edited June 21, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Cut Medicaid and cut taxes on the wealthy. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sen...2l6O?li=BBnb7Kz I'm not sure how that fixes anything healthcare-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 well people, the death panel was real all along. It was just the GOP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Now, give a flat 15% premium cost depending on your gross income and a more reasonable - per person deductible to balance this bulls***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 So insurance companies can cover whatever or whomever they want, no matter what premiums have been paid? Yikes. Them about to get rich(er)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Warren: “These cuts are blood money… Senate Republicans are paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with American lives” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts